Home Ownership: First-Time Buyers
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(3 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote home ownership for first-time buyers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we are increasing housing supply across all tenures to improve affordability for young people. Our ultimate objective is to help more people get the keys to their first home, increasing the overall home ownership rate. We support first-time buyers through government-backed schemes, including shared ownership, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a replacement for the lifetime ISA. Following FCA clarification, most buyers can borrow around 10% more, and this year we will publish a home-buying and selling reform road map, which is expected to save buyers £180 million a year and shave a month off transactions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Recently, the Prime Minister said:
“For my family growing up, the roof over our heads was everything. But for so many families today, homeownership is a distant dream. My government will make it a reality once again”.
For millions of people renting or living with their parents, it remains a dream. Many of them could actually afford the mortgage repayments, but without access to generous relatives, they cannot afford the deposit. Back in January, when I asked the Minister about hope for first-time buyers, she said:
“A great deal of work is going on in my department and with financial institutions to make sure that we make this process work for first-time buyers and others in the housing market”.—[Official Report, 8/1/26; col. 1314.]
Should there not now be a fresh initiative to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I always agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Of course I also welcome the HCLG Select Committee’s work, which has particularly looked at the types of inequalities that the noble Lord highlights. Three in 10 people get help from family or parents and, increasingly, access is being determined by family wealth, not earnings. We are working hard on this. From speaking to lenders, we know that many first-time buyers are not aware of all the innovative mortgage products and recent mortgage reforms that may help them get on the housing ladder. We speak regularly to lenders on how to raise awareness of different options among first-time buyers, including hosting two major industry round tables last year, both of which were covered in the mainstream media. Of course, there is more work to do, and the Government are keen for all stakeholders who work with potential first-time buyers, including estate agents and brokers, to play their part in helping them understand their options.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow up the important points that the noble Lord made. Home ownership makes up 62% of housing tenure, and getting first-time buyers to their first house is crucial, but social housing also plays a really important part in helping people to get into a decent, secure and affordable home. It is known that local authority social housing aids social mobility. Can the Minister therefore explain further the contribution of all tenures, particularly social housing, in getting people access to the home they want at a price they can afford in an area where they want to live?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Social and affordable housing sit side by side. We have confirmed a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the programme’s lifetime. At least 60% of the homes delivered will be for social rent, with the remainder available for other tenures, including shared ownership, affordable rent and intermediate rent in London. This programme is active now. The councils and housing associations are bidding into that programme, as are other bidders, and I hope we will be able to deliver at pace very quickly.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is the longer-term effect of having fewer first-time buyers that really counts? When you retire as a tenant, you have not paid off a mortgage, you have not got a capital asset and you see your rent rising every year but your income falling. It catches up with you on retirement. In that longer-term perspective, I ask the Minister: what has happened to the Government’s long-term national housing strategy, which she promised me on 11 February would be out by 31 March? Is this on the way, and will it include a good chunk on how to bolster the number of first-time buyers, which is so important?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to say that, where people are not able to buy their own homes, this can lead to problems later on where people on fixed incomes later in life are on rapidly increasing rent. So it is very important that we try to encourage as many young people as possible who are able to buy property to carry on doing so. On his point about the long-term housing strategy, it is on its way. We said we would publish in the spring, and spring is not quite over yet. I hope we will be able to deliver it very soon.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a strong mix across all tenures creates a healthy market for first-time buyers? Does she therefore share our disappointment on these Benches that fewer than 15,000 social rent completions were achieved last year? Does she accept that that leads to first-time buyers having to achieve an almost impossible deposit of over £60,000, and that they will continue to be squeezed out of the market until the mix of tenures is much healthier?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I set out in my earlier answer the importance we place on the mix of tenures. The £39 billion programme to increase the provision of social and affordable homes is designed to do exactly that. We are taking measures, particularly confidence measures for consumers, to help some of our young people to understand this. Probably two generations now have been told that house buying is out of reach, so, when I work with the financial institutions, which we have been talking to very closely, we are keen that they promote better some of the mortgage options that are available.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that freezing tax bands makes it much more difficult for those in work and those striving to earn money to get to that £60,000? That is the problem in my view.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can only repeat what I said: it is very important that we encourage our young people, and others looking to buy homes, to consider the wide range of options that are available. I mention two particular institutions that I have been talking to, Lloyds and Santander, which are already going out there with very extensive campaigns. I encourage anybody who is keen to buy a house to go and talk to a broker or lender, because there are options available for people.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister has mentioned shared ownership schemes, because the terms for new schemes are really very good, but many people are stuck on previous detrimental schemes. Following Grenfell and the requirements for them to pay for upgrading, they are absolutely stuck in their homes. Will the Minister say what she is going to do about that, so that people can move into homes where they can have families, because these are often one-bedroom flats? Secondly, will she consider asking the Government to increase the rent a room scheme allocation so that people whose mortgages are going up and are renting out a room can be to some extent compensated to stay in their current homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Shared ownership has a very important role to play in supporting households into home ownership that would otherwise struggle to purchase a property on the open market that meets their needs. We are aware, of course, that some people who have entered shared ownership have faced challenges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill to introduce the measures to help with that. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience. These include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability and increasing transparency and fairness on costs. Shared owners will also benefit from the wider leasehold and commonhold reforms in a variety ways. We will debate the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill in due course—but the Act of 2024 grants shared owners the right to statutory lease extensions and makes it easier for them to challenge unreasonable service charges.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, stamp duty is a huge drag on those wishing to have their own home. In London, for the average first-time buyer, stamp duty is £15,000—a huge sum for those seeking to get a deposit. It also makes climbing the housing ladder extortionately expensive and prevents those wanting to downsize, thereby freeing up family homes, from being able to afford to do so. Does the Minister recognise that stamp duty is a bad tax, and it should be abolished so that people can afford to buy and to move?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a bit rich coming from someone who was in the government party for the past 14 years. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty on up to £300,000, and they can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsThursday 23rd April 2026
(3 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 191-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (22 Apr 2026)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C, C1, H and H1. It is a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I thank all noble Lords who engaged extensively in the brief period we had between Report and ping-pong. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships during earlier stages of the Bill. As she outlined, the Government’s central aim with this Bill is to devolve power and money from central government to those with skin in the game, building a different type of state where communities with local knowledge are given the power to shape their areas.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Scott and Lady Pidgeon, for the first group of amendments today. Lords Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence to Clause 2. While I very much appreciate the good intention behind it, I do not believe this change would address the underlying concerns that noble Lords have raised. I have reflected on the points made on Report, and the central issue is not whether rural affairs appear as a separate area of competence, since rural affairs are already within the scope of the other competences. Rather, it is about how strategic authorities and their mayors exercise their functions, taking proper account of the needs of rural communities.
To address that, the Government propose to issue non-statutory guidance to strategic authorities to ensure that they consider the needs of those who live and work in rural areas when exercising their powers and functions. Separately, we are providing mayors with the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners, which will give the flexibility to assign multiple commissioners to a particular area of competence. This approach enables commissioners to focus on specific aspects within those areas, such as rural affairs, should they wish to do so. With these points in mind, I ask the noble Baroness not to insist on her amendment.
Lords Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process and that the criteria and process for appointments are published, as well as commissioners’ remuneration. Through the passage of this Bill I have been emphatic about the Government’s focus on accountability in local government, and commissioners are no exception to that. I trust that the statutory guidance published by the Government on 16 April, which covers important issues raised in this House, provides confidence to noble Lords in that regard. Members in the other place raised concerns about appointments being based on merit. I am pleased to confirm that the guidance explicitly states that appointments should be based on merit and fair and open competition, and that details of a commissioner’s role, once they are appointed, must also be published on the website of the combined authority or the combined county authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, queried directly with me how adherence to the guidance is monitored and enforced. As the guidance is statutory, relevant authorities must have regard to it unless they have a good reason to depart from it and can explain that reason. If the guidance is not properly considered, decisions may be unlawful and therefore open to challenge through a judicial review. Failure properly to consider the guidance will also be a relevant consideration for government in assessing whether an authority is meeting its statutory responsibilities, including compliance with the best value duty, and would form part of MHCLG’s assessment of governance and improvement.
Lords Amendments 13 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would enable the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s budget with a simple majority. The Government will simplify and ensure consistency in the voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities, including London. A general principle in that simplification is that the voting arrangements for exercising functions should match those for agreeing the budget that funds those functions. In mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, most functions will now be decided by the default arrangement of a simple majority of authority members, which must include the mayor, but some functions—strategic planning, bus franchising, mayoral development corporations and fire—are exercised solely by the mayor. For that reason, these authorities have two budgets, one for functions exercised by the authority as a whole and one for functions exercised solely by the mayor.
The Bill streamlines the process for setting and agreeing the budget for functions exercised by the authority as a whole. They will now be subject to a simple majority, including the mayor. However, mayoral budgets will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend, as set out in existing secondary legislation. It is right that we empower democratically elected mayors to set the budget for functions exercised solely by the mayor, with the appropriate checks and balances that the two-thirds majority provides. The GLA’s budget and governance are fundamentally different from those of combined authorities. All functions are exercised by the mayor, so there is a single consolidated mayoral budget for the GLA. The assembly’s role is to scrutinise the mayor’s budget and exercise the functions, not make decisions on them. It is therefore appropriate that the threshold for amending the final draft of the Mayor of London’s consolidated budget remains a two-thirds majority, as is the case for mayoral budgets in other mayoral strategic authorities.
That is why it is the Government’s view that this House should not insist on these amendments, as they would put the scrutiny of the mayoral budget in London out of step with those in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for raising it and for providing a helpful opportunity for the Government to clarify the position. I am happy to confirm that the Government will update the guidance and explainers setting out voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities to ensure that this principle can be easily understood.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned that there are a very few exceptions to that, and I will detail why that is the case. Those differences exist for technical reasons—for example, in the east Midlands, given the Nottingham tram contract, or where the number of constituent authorities within a CCA does not allow for a neat two-thirds split. The Tees Valley has five constituent authorities, and therefore a three-fifths voting threshold is the closest equivalent to two-thirds that is possible with that number of constituents. As I said, the Government will publish guidance setting out voting arrangements.
On Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu, the explanation that I have given clearly sets out that a review of voting arrangements for the London Assembly’s ability to determine the Mayor of London’s budget is unnecessary. I hope that this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the Motion from the other place not to insist. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments in lieu.
Finally, Lords Amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, collectively seek to remove the powers for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or a combined county authority, or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government do not support these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that devolution can play a central role in boosting regional growth, attracting investment and improving outcomes for communities, with decisions taken closer to the people they affect.
The powers in the Bill are intended to ensure that progress towards those aims is not stalled indefinitely where there is a clear potential for devolution but, importantly, where no workable proposal has come forward locally—because that is what we all want to happen, ideally. They provide a backstop power to be used only where necessary and appropriate, and with clear statutory safeguards. In practice, our approach continues to be one of collaboration with local partners.
That commitment to partnership has been reinforced by the assurances given by the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities in the other place, where, as your Lordships will know, the Government made clear that for a period of two years following Royal Assent they will not commence the powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities or the expansion of existing strategic authorities without local consent. They have further committed that for a period of four years following Royal Assent they will not use these powers to provide for a mayor without local consent. These commitments provide a clear and proportionate backstop power while preserving the legislation’s ability to support devolution over the long term. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments to Schedule 1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will refer first to the amendments on rural affairs and the areas of competence. The issue here is not the areas of competence; the lack of an area of competence for rural affairs will not impede strategic authorities or disadvantage those who live and work in rural areas. The Bill is not prescriptive. The use of functions sits at the discretion of the relevant strategic authority or mayor. Where an authority has a significant rural population, it can and should consider the challenges and opportunities affecting those communities when exercising its powers.
As noble Lords will be aware, many existing strategic authorities and their mayors are taking the matter of rural affairs very seriously. In Devon and Torbay, for example, the combined county authority has published its working plan, which outlines the authority’s long-term goals for the next 10 years. Many of these goals focus on resolving the issues faced by the region’s rural communities, from poor transport links to digital isolation. I know our mayors have taken up the very important issue that noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised—the digital exclusion arising from poor broadband in many of our rural areas.
In York and North Yorkshire, the combined authority is rolling out DNA marking kits to reduce rural crime and thefts. The North East Combined Authority is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The existing areas of competence and their associated functions empower authorities to engage in rural affairs, and that is why the Government view publishing guidance as the most effective means of ensuring rural matters are considered in strategic authority thinking.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the culture competence—why that has been made a competence and rural affairs have not—the areas of competence are intended to capture broad, thematic priorities affecting communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban. The challenges faced by rural communities are already addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities, as in the examples I set out.
On Report, noble Lords outlined many of the issues that rural communities face. One example was public transport and the infrequency of bus services. As we are all aware, the Bill provides for an area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. It confers upon strategic authorities, via Clause 32, functions over local transport planning, including securing public passenger transport services and bus franchising. This shows that the Bill gives strategic authorities the tools and the means to address the issues that noble Lords have raised. However, it does not highlight the challenges faced by rural communities or assist strategic authorities in recognising and effectively responding to these issues. That is why the Government view the issuing of non-statutory guidance on the consideration of rural needs as the most effective way of ensuring that rural affairs are not overlooked.
Turning to the issue of commissioners, I welcome the debate we have had surrounding the new commissioner role throughout consideration of the Bill. Noble Lords and Members in the other place have consistently raised questions about the number of appointments, their selection and their ability to be held accountable. It is important that the increase in appointments be viewed in the context of improving operational flexibility for combined authorities and combined county authorities. The amendments we have made mean that mayors will have the ability to appoint a commissioner to the new culture area of competence, as well as allowing more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence. They also ensure that commissioners can work or exercise functions in any aspect of an area of competence, rather than needing to work on the whole area.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their comments about the guidance. I was really pleased that the guidance is thorough and deals with many of the issues your Lordships have discussed during the progress of the Bill. There are also clear arrangements around the remit of local scrutiny committees and commissioners when they are introduced to an authority. Commissioners will be subject to sanctions, including removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties if they fail to answer questions or provide information or mislead a local scrutiny committee. With the new guidance that has been published, I hope we have dealt with many of the issues that were raised during our discussions on the Bill.
On voting arrangements, I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lady, Baroness Pidgeon, for her very collegial engagement on Lords Amendments 13 and 87 concerning the London Assembly. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that it is important that we remember that we are not debating whether there should be a review of voting arrangements in London. The Government believe that London’s devolution model has been successful over the last 25 years, but we will continue to work with the Mayor of London and London Assembly members to ensure that the model is fit to support the capital’s continued growth.
On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I have set out, these amendments would bring scrutiny to the Mayor of London’s budget. If the amendments were passed, they would bring him out of line with his counterparts in the rest of England. As such, I ask that the House does not insist. For the same reason, I also ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her Amendments 87B and 87C.
Lastly, on ministerial powers of direction, noble Lords will be aware that, without a backstop power, there is a risk that some areas will get left behind. I have been very clear that these powers will only be used as a last resort when all other options have failed. However, notwithstanding the safeguards in the Bill, I have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords. That is why my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, made the commitment that we will not commence the powers to establish a non-mayoral strategic authority or expand an existing authority without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent, nor will we commence the power to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 13 and 87, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A and 87A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 89, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 26A and 89A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion D, I will also speak to Motions G and G1. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, for their amendments in this group. Turning first to Amendments 26 and 89, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their engagement on this issue. As I have previously said to this House, the Government fully support a “brownfield first” approach to development. The NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework is a material consideration in planning decisions, and all strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, it is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.
I appreciate that there is a feeling among noble Lords that the NPPF has not had the full effect that is desired. However, conclusions on the effectiveness of brownfield policy are premature and cannot fully be seen at this stage. The nature of plan making means that there is often a lag between changes made to national policy and seeing impacts on the ground. Also, we have yet to publish our revised NPPF, so the full effects of our wider “brownfield first” policy interventions are yet to be seen. Prescriptive changes in primary legislation are therefore not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that would not support effective delivery or allow local circumstances to be taken into account. It would also undermine wider government objectives to deliver the homes this country needs, including new towns. We therefore must resist the temptation to do this.
However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords, and to further stress the importance of prioritising brownfield land over greenfield land the Government are committing today to prescribing in secondary legislation that when preparing their spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayors and strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.
On Lords Amendments 89B and 89C specifically, spatial development strategies do not allocate or designate specific sites or land. That is a role exclusively for local plans. Instead, SDSs are there to set a spatial framework and to identify broad locations for development. It is likely that some of those broad locations will contain both greenfield and brownfield land, and it is for the local planning authority to work out which land should be allocated for specific purposes. We intend SDSs to be high-level documents that are relatively quick to produce, and introducing what amounts to a series of legal tests would serve to slow that process and open up potential avenues for legal challenge. This would have a drag effect on setting the framework for the development that the country needs. For these reasons I respectfully ask the House to agree with the Motion not to insist from the other place, and I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her amendments in lieu.
I turn now to Amendments 41 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the noble Baroness, as well as my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Keeley, Lord Spellar and Lord Brennan, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their insight and very constructive engagement on this issue. I am also pleased to have met the Music Venue Trust yesterday to discuss this amendment and to further understand its concerns. While the Government do not consider that primary legislation is the appropriate mechanism, we fully share the objective of ensuring that new developments do not unduly impact existing businesses. That is why my colleague in the other place confirmed on Tuesday that guidance will be updated to set clearer national expectations and promote best practice across local authorities. In parallel, we will write to local authorities highlighting the importance of this policy. This commitment will support national planning policy, which already carries significant weight within the planning system, while allowing decision-makers the necessary flexibility to apply it in the light of the specific circumstances of each development proposal, including a proportionate assessment of impacts and mitigation. Updated guidance will complement the steps we are already taking to strengthen the effectiveness of the agent of change principle.
As part of our most substantial revision to planning policy in a decade, we have recently consulted on setting out more clearly what information decision-makers should take into account in the National Planning Policy Framework. A policy approach is more agile than primary legislation, and we can continue to refine it based on feedback on how it is working in practice. This is exactly what we have done through our recent consultation. We sought views on whether our proposed policy is sufficiently clear, and we are currently in the process of analysing responses. I believe we have had 20,000 responses to the NPPF consultation.
Furthermore, as part of the NPPF consultation, the Government have been clear that the decision not to designate statutory national development management policies at this time will be kept under review, and we will return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcomes of supporting more effective decisions. Therefore, I am not persuaded that primary legislation is going to be effective or necessary. Taken together, our changes to policy and guidance will help to ensure that businesses and cultural venues are robustly protected from the effects of new development within their vicinity. This is what we all want to happen, and that was certainly echoed by the Music Venue Trust yesterday.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope the House will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place. I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, does not press her amendments in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name has not been attached to either of these issues to date, but I give our support to both of them. They are both extremely important and I find myself convinced, having listened to the debate so far on both matters, that the case is sufficient for us to send both matters back to the other place. The issue is primarily about whether guidance is enough or whether one needs to place one’s intentions on a firm statutory footing. We need to put them on to a firm statutory footing—there is so much evidence that things are not working properly in either case and that the Government should think again. In either case, if there is a wish to test the opinion of the House, we would be supportive of it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The Government fully support the “brownfield first” approach, and we have set this clearly in national policy. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen this, including higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. However, to reinforce the importance of prioritising brownfield over greenfield land, the Government are willing to commit to prescribing in secondary legislation that, when preparing spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayoral and other strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. Our intention is for the regulations to come into force this year. I hope this will further demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to a “brownfield first” approach. I assure noble Lords that this issue is being taken seriously. and I hope they will not insist on this amendment.
The agent of change principle lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation would not provide decision-makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance. National planning policy, as it stands, already carries considerable weight in the planning system; it is certainly not “light and fluffy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described it. The National Planning Policy Framework is a powerful, material consideration in planning decisions and must be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Our consultation on a revised framework, which closed on 10 March, proposes the most significant rewrite since its introduction over a decade ago, with clearer, more rules-based policies designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler plans.
Through this consultation, we propose strengthening the existing agent of change policy, setting out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and to engage early on with existing uses. The policy would be explicit that both current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities should be considered, which would include licences for music venues.
The Government have also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and have decided not to at this stage, given the impact that we expect the proposals in the consultation will have. We will keep this decision under review and return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcome of supporting more effective decisions. We are currently analysing all the feedback we have received and will publish our response in due course.
Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36 and 90, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 36A and 90A, do not insist on its Amendment 155 and do agree with Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions F and F1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments in this group.
Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the clearest accountability and lead to more effective decision-making in local government.
As I have said before, these provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance in England. Your Lordships will recall my previous reference on Report to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples that I gave highlighting the difficulties with co-ordination, decision-making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operating the committee system. The Government have listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House and have responded constructively.
I will comment on the CIPFA governance review. In 2025, CIPFA led a sector-wide governance review and issued a framework, Delivering Good Governance in Local Government, which emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision-making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. The review highlights the risks that can arise where accountability is diffuse or decision-making is spread across multiple committees. Executive models of governance are better suited to meeting these principles than committee systems, where responsibility and oversight are more dispersed, and leadership, responsibility and accountability can be less clear.
On Report in the Commons, the Government brought forward their own amendments to ensure that councils that have more recently adopted the committee system, whether by council resolution or by local referendum, will be able to continue with those arrangements for the remainder of their moratorium period and, where agreed locally, beyond that point. We continue to believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance and respecting more recent local democratic mandates, while avoiding unnecessary disruption for councils that have only recently changed their arrangements. In addition, the Government have responded to concerns about changes to statutory notice requirements and their potential impact on local media by retaining the existing requirement for councils to publish notice of governance changes in at least one local newspaper.
Lastly, I emphasise that the leader and cabinet model is not a uniform structure. As the independent Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has highlighted, there are many variations in the way the leader and cabinet model can operate, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall model. The Government stand ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure that it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the Motion that this House do not insist on these amendments.
Amendments 37 and 91 would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. We have heard noble Lords’ valid arguments about the important role that town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those comments. We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role that we intend parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. The amendment adds an explicit provision to the clause that allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures.
Our intention here, which we will also set out when we publish our neighbourhood governance framework later this year, is that neighbourhood governance structures should include representation from town and parish councils where they exist in an area. The amendment gets the balance right. Some local authorities have hundreds of town and parish councils, so mandating the inclusion of each individual parish within structures would be impractical and inappropriate. Instead, we should ensure that we set a clear expectation of representation that retains the appropriate flexibility for places to develop the mechanisms that will work best for their communities.
Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the creation of new town and parish councils. While it is right that decisions on the creation of new town and parish councils are and should remain local decisions taken by local authorities in consultation with communities through community governance reviews, we will commit to reviewing and updating the statutory guidance that supports this process. That has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for it to be refreshed with examples of good practice for establishing new town and parish councils.
Clause 60 aims to complement the work of town and parish councils where they exist and to ensure that all communities, whether or not they have a town and parish council, have effective ways to address local issues. We will be setting all this out in non-statutory guidance alongside the regulations. In addition, I can confirm that we will be publishing further principles of our neighbourhood governance framework later this year. It should be evident to your Lordships that we, too, value the role of town and parish councils, and see them as important contributors to effective neighbourhood governance.
In summary, there are three points here. First, our amendment in lieu allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures. It is right that they should be included. Secondly, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils. Thirdly, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions in a framework to be published later this year, ahead of laying regulations.
For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91, and to support the Government’s amendment in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Shipley
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F to the words so restored to the Bill.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I return to local authority governance arrangements. The Government have been clear and consistent in their view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide clearer accountability, stronger leadership and speedy and more effective decision-making for local government. That remains our firm view, and that is why we cannot accept these amendments.
However, as I set out earlier, this is not a rigid or prescriptive approach. The Government have listened carefully to points raised throughout the passage of this Bill and have responded. Councils that have only recently adopted the committee system will not be required to change immediately but may continue for the remainder of their moratorium period, after which they will undertake and publish a review of their governance arrangements. Meanwhile, the existing statutory notice requirements are being retained. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the executive forms of governance and the leader and cabinet model are also not rigid or prescriptive, but in fact leave room for flexibility in how they are implemented. While formally operating within the leader and cabinet framework, councils already employ a wide range of approaches to delegation, decision-making and scrutiny.
I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about most of the council doing nothing. I think that is completely wrong and denigrates the role that local councillors hold. Local councillors perform many important roles in councils, including scrutiny, licensing, planning and many other functions, as well as their very important role as ward councillors and, in the future, in the neighbourhood governance arrangements we are introducing. Some councils operate highly collective cabinets while others centralise decision-making. Some may choose to adopt a hybrid model, any of which can and should be employed best to reflect local needs. As I said, under the Government’s plans, councils that more recently adopted the committee system will retain this model.
In terms of evidence to justify moving away from the committee system, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. Decisions can be slower. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meetings were intensive, with six policy committees and nine subcommittees involving 78 out of 82 councillors. It can be much harder for councils to keep a single strategic view. Co-ordination across individual committees can be a persistent challenge. That same peer challenge flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments contributing to challenges in service delivery and communication.
Moving into and out of the committee system absorbs time and attention and increases administrative costs. Several councils that adopted the committee system later reverted to the leader and cabinet model, such as Brighton and Hove in 2024, and Newark & Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, both in 2022.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister is making the case in her answer that local discretion is required to move from one model to the other depending on local circumstance, rather than being centrally prescribed by Westminster.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models does not serve the public we serve.
Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge.
The Government are not seeking total uniformity of internal process but clarity and effectiveness at the point of accountability and delivery. Residents should be able to see who is responsible, and scrutiny should be able to operate against clearly identifiable decision-makers. That is where executive models, and in particular, the leader and cabinet model, add the most value.
Councils can and should adopt a version of the leader and cabinet model that best suits their individual needs. When we were in opposition, Hertfordshire County Council had a set of cabinet panels that were very good at both pre-scrutiny and post-scrutiny of decisions. Councils should learn lessons from operating a committee model and then move forward with arrangements that deliver against local priorities, while strengthening accountability, effectiveness and clarity. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Commons’ position and allow the Bill to proceed.
Clause 60 is about community empowerment, giving people a stronger voice in shaping local priorities, while allowing local authorities to build on what already works locally. Our amendment in lieu strikes that balance, recognising the valuable role of town and parish councils, where they exist, and setting out explicitly that regulations can provide for membership of neighbourhood governance structures to include representatives from town and parish councils. Our intention is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives, where they exist.
Some places have hundreds of town and parish councils, ranging from very small hamlets to larger towns, so we want to retain the flexibility for local places to work out the right arrangements for parish council membership within governance structures.
We will set out expectations of town and parish involvement in neighbourhood governance arrangements in a framework on neighbourhood governance, to be published later this year, and in subsequent guidance, once regulations are laid.
I always find the noble Lord’s rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is, I am afraid. We have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community and governance review process, including adding good practice. That is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance. I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords Amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion E1. It has been a very helpful debate. Indeed, each time we have debated this issue it has been very helpful.
At the end of it, the issue is a simple one: are local people, who actually pay the bills, going to be trusted to make their own decisions about the governance structures that they want in their area? What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that one model fits all. There has to be an alternative, and people have to be enabled to maintain the possibility of effecting change.
Examples can be quoted of some things having worked well, and others not so well. In the end, the government issue is: let the local people decide on the model they think is best for them in all the circumstances they know about in their area. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House on Motion E1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, provide for the membership to include one or more members representing any parish council or councils within the neighbourhood area.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 41 and 94, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 41A and 94A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(5 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this regret Motion for the Government. Before turning to the order itself, I think it is worth setting out the wider context for the local government reorganisation programme. We are on track and making good progress, including elections scheduled this May for east and west Surrey ahead of an April 2027 go live date, giving new councils stability and a clear mandate. We have also announced decisions in four further invitation areas: Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; and Suffolk.
These are decisions that will improve how local government works for over 6 million people, with the next tranche on track to deliver decisions for summer 2026. This demonstrates that our ambitious reorganisation programme is on track to deliver the real benefits that we intend from it, and to deliver on the biggest devolution of power, finance and control, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described it, to local people in a generation.
Turning to the order itself, I add my thanks to those already expressed around the Chamber to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. My noble friend who chairs that committee has been very helpful to me in debating some of the issues that have arisen during these debates.
Changes to election timing are not taken lightly. They have been used only where there is strong justification, closely linked to supporting effective local government reorganisation. In recent years, that has included areas such as Cumbria and North Yorkshire, where adjusted timetables helped provide stability during transition to new unitary councils. That same practical rationale underpins its more recent use, including in Surrey, where reorganisation is critical to ensuring the financial viability of that area’s councils.
Of course, I recognise that concerns have been raised about local democracy. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly; people must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. But they must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are capable, sustainable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. Our responsibility is to safeguard both, and that applies to all parties in this House which are responsible in government. That balance has guided the Government’s approach throughout the reorganisation programme, including in listening carefully to concerns raised by councils themselves and considering the appropriate approach to election timing within the wider context of effective transition.
As the House will know, the Secretary of State’s original decisions followed representations from local authorities. In 30 areas, councils set out evidence on the challenges of delivering structural change alongside full ordinary elections, and the view that postponement would release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave us some of the timetable, but I want to go back to before the timetable that she outlined.
On 18 December 2025, the Minister wrote to 63 councils scheduled for May 2026 elections inviting representations on whether postponement would release essential capacity, with a deadline of response by 15 January. We received 500 representations from councils, MPs, the Electoral Commission, parish councils and members of the public. Clarification letters were sent on 19 January to four councils where the position was unclear. The Secretary of State assessed each council individually, considering evidence of capacity constraints—that is, political, senior officer and electoral returning officer impact—as well as financial implications, democratic considerations and wider representations.
On 22 January, we announced the intention to postpone elections for 29 councils and allow 34 to proceed. We then received further representations from Essex County Council and Pendle Borough Council for decisions to be reconsidered. On 29 January, we confirmed the final position of 30 council elections postponed and 33 to proceed. That preceded the timetable that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, set out; I just wanted to clarify how we had got to that situation on 5 February.
Decisions were therefore taken on a case-by-case basis, informed by all those representations, and were in line with the existing precedent for aligning electoral cycles with periods of structural transition. Following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government revoked that decision. That revocation was given effect through the order now being debated in the House. The decision was taken to provide certainty for councils, candidates and voters, with the result being that all elections originally proposed for postponement will proceed in May 2026, and preparations for those elections are continuing on the restored timetable.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The Minister has not told us at all, and nor indeed does the Explanatory Memorandum tell us, the nature of the legal vulnerability that was implicit in the decision to reconsider. The fact that the decision had to be taken by an independent Minister in her own department, not by the Secretary of State, suggests that there was a significant flaw in the original decision that was made.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was coming to the legal advice and I will do so. I hope the noble Lord will be patient for a moment while I get to that part.
Looking beyond the delivery of the current local elections, the Secretary of State said on 23 February that the Government would reflect carefully on the concerns raised by your Lordships about the use of these powers during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, particularly the concerns expressed about postponing elections for more than one year where a council is undergoing local government reorganisation and the risk that repeated delays to elections can weaken the democratic mandate of councillors.
Against that backdrop, the Government tabled an amendment on Report to prevent double postponement for reasons connected with reorganisation. That is a concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, expressed. Again, I thank opposition Peers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for supporting that amendment, which your Lordships agreed on 13 April. This demonstrates that the Government remain focused on ensuring that reorganisation is delivered in a way that is orderly, provides clarity and certainty over electoral arrangements and is capable of supporting strong local services from day one.
To support that transition, the Government are providing targeted capacity support to councils undergoing reorganisation, including up to £63 million in funding to help manage the process while continuing to deliver for residents. I hope that picks up the points about funding raised by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. I wish I could find that magic sofa in Marsham Street. If he has any advice from previous Ministers who worked there, I ask him please to tell me where it is because I would like to find it. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also raised points about financing.
Taken together, these steps reflect a balanced approach, safeguarding local democracy, providing certainty on election timing and giving councils the tools they need to move through reorganisation successfully. For these reasons, the Government consider that the approach now in place provides clarity, accountability and a sound basis for effective transition. I am grateful to your Lordships for the care with which these issues have been considered, and I will respond to some of the points made during this short debate.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The logic of the Government’s original position clearly was not logic at all, because if the elections can now take place, as well as the reorganisation, this postponement was not required at all, was it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The postponement was done at the request of the councils concerned, which had concerns about capacity. I think some of them may still have those concerns, but we are supporting them through that process. As my noble friend Lord Davies has said, decisions have been taken in the past to postpone elections, and there is still the power to do so when necessary, but we wanted to avoid the double postponement that some of these would have caused.
On capacity, I first pay tribute to all our local elections officers and returning officers and the staff who work in their teams. They do an amazing job and, as we all know, they have a proven ability to deliver elections—sometimes a snap general election, or by-elections when they occur—and mayoral polls at very short notice. Returning officers and suppliers have been fully supported to bring plans up to date at pace, and the decision provides the certainty that councils now need to manage logistics effectively. Spending on local elections themselves is of course a matter for local councils.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I support very strongly the position that law officers’ advice to government should remain confidential, but is it absolutely clear that the advice on which the decision to revoke the postponement of the elections was taken was markedly different from the legal advice provided previously? To be blunt, there is a suspicion in many people’s minds, probably quite reasonably, that it was the imminence of a judicial review four days after the announcement that resulted in the change of government position, rather than a change in legal advice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I feel that the noble Lord is pushing me to do what I have just said I cannot do, which is to disclose the legal advice—I am going to stick to that line. The decision was, as he rightly says, taken by another Minister in the department because the Secretary of State had already been involved in the decision. I think we put the guardrails in place to make sure that was done in accordance with what we would all expect to happen. We will stick to the convention of not disclosing the legal advice put before that Minister.
I wanted to talk about my noble friend’s comment about previous elections that were cancelled. There were 17 elections delayed between 2019 and 2022 by the last Government to prepare for local government reorganisation, including in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe in 2019 and Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021, so there was precedent for that. We took that into consideration when local authorities made representations to us.
I will just go into a little more detail on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The decision was updated following legal advice and the Government acted promptly and responsibly in light of that advice. Where decisions are revisited following legal advice, as I have said, it is entirely appropriate for a new Minister to look at that advice and now all 30 elections will proceed as scheduled in May 2026, and a revocation order was laid in Parliament in February to give effect to that decision. We engaged rapidly with councils and issued written confirmation without delay and are supporting them with their updated plans. This was done at pace. We have always said that a decision would be made on the basis of evidence available to us at the time and that is what has happened. The Government’s ambition remains to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the issue of town and parish consultation. I understand his point, but there was never an intention to cancel town and parish elections. I understand his point about finances and will give that further consideration. On his point about statutory inclusion of things in Explanatory Memorandums, again, I will take that away. I understand the point he is making, and we need to think further about how that might work.
In conclusion, I hope I have set out the Government’s explanation of the timeline and exactly what happened in this case. I hope I have responded to the concern of the House, both in what I have said today and in the action taken to put an amendment forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While recognising the concern that has been expressed around the House, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask about the £63 million? Has this already gone out to local authorities? If it has not, when will it go out?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot answer the specific question of whether it has already gone out, but we have notified local authorities of what will be coming to them. When we spoke to them about the decisions taken as a result of the reorganisation, we spoke to them about funding as well. I will write to the noble Baroness with information on whether that money has gone out the door yet.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and to the Minister for her response. However, I reject the premise of the blame game that the Government are seeking to play. The power, responsibility and ability to cancel local elections lie with the Government and the Government alone. They made the decision to cancel these elections and then they made the decision to reinstate them.
I welcome the steps now being taken, in the English devolution and so-called community empowerment Bill, to put this matter on a clearer footing for the future and to ensure that this can never happen again. Although the Government did not go quite as far as we wanted them to, I am pleased that the House’s scrutiny has brought us to this point. This is just one of many examples of your Lordships’ House demonstrating the vital and constructive role it plays as a revising Chamber.
I will not be pressing the Motion to a vote today, but I hope the Government take a clear message from it: councils must be properly supported and transparency must be the rule and not the exception for proper, functioning democracy. Before I sit down, I would like to place on record our thanks to all the local authority election staff and their returning officers, given the extra work this has caused. We know that they will deliver a safe, secure and efficient election on 7 May.
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 and 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.
Business Improvement District Ballots: Digital Voting
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential for piloting digital voting in Business Improvement District ballots in order to improve participation and test secure digital voting systems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the very important role that BIDs can play in regenerating their local areas and I thank my noble friend for his work across BIDs in London. In the Pride in Place Strategy published on 25 September, we committed to strengthening the BID model by expanding property owner BIDs, raising standards and consulting on improvements to voting procedures in BID ballots, which will include introducing an option for digital voting. Further details will be published in due course.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which leads to my further question. Business improvement district ballots involve a clearly defined electorate of registered voters. They are overseen by local authority returning officers, and they determine real financial commitments through the bid levy. Yet participation is constrained by the continued reliance on postal-only voting, which can be administratively cumbersome for businesses and local authorities. If the Government recognise that potential, will they now move beyond assessment and commit to enabling a small number of pilot schemes for secure digital voting in BID ballots and bring forward the necessary legislative power to do so, subject to appropriate safeguards?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have heard that the postal voting system does not always work as effectively as it should for BID ballots and we want to make sure that BID ballots are as efficient and as accessible as possible, which is why we have committed to consulting on those improvements to BID voting procedures. We will consult on the introduction of digital voting for BID ballots as part of this, including how it will work in practical terms. Of course, we need to make absolutely sure that it can be done safely as well. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we will then decide how the proposal should be implemented.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, a quick look at international comparisons for introducing digital voting suggests that experiments in other advanced democratic countries have shown that it is okay at the local level, where the likelihood of cyber attack is low, but at the national level it is open to too many risks to try it out. Is that also the Government’s view?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We absolutely understand the interest in online voting but, when it comes to electing representatives, the integrity and security of the process must come first. At present, serious concerns are shared internationally about the risks of online voting, including cyber threats, fraud and the challenge of ensuring a fully secure and anonymous ballot. That is why we currently have no plans to introduce online voting for statutory elections in the UK, but we are focused on strengthening the current systems for absent voting, such as postal and proxy voting, so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, is right about the importance of generating interests in BIDs wherever they may happen to be across the country, and there is inadequate participation in voting in general when it comes to BIDs. Can the Minister please indicate the timetable that she is talking about for the process of consultation, in relation to both trialling digital voting and other elements of the process of introducing BIDs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that BIDs bring very significant investment in the areas they operate in. There are now more than 340 BIDs in the UK; cumulatively, they invest more than £169 million each year in local areas. We need to ensure that we are doing our very best to ensure that those BIDs operate in a way that works for the people who are engaged in them. We want to get this consultation and its analysis done as quickly as possible so that, if we consider it possible and safe to introduce digital voting for them, we can get on with that and do it as quickly as we can.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have recently been involved in election monitoring programmes, for example in Moldova, so I am very aware of the threat of cyber attacks that the noble Lord raised. When the Minister looks at the security of digital voting systems, can she draw on the experience of organisations such as the OSCE, so that—even though she says we may not be use them at the moment—we can make sure that our systems are watertight and safe from cyber attacks in the future?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly as she reminds me of the days when I was doing election monitoring in Moldova and Georgia, which was a fascinating experience. I very much appreciated then the work of the OSCE, and still do. She is quite right that we have to do all we can to make sure that voting is safe. I believe that the Representation of the People Bill is completing its Commons stages today and will come to our House in due course. Where good practice is developed and promoted by the OSCE and others, we will look at that with great interest.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, BIDs do much good work for our town centres, but this is being blown away by the massive damage caused to our town centres by higher national insurance contributions, higher business rates, increased minimum wages and employment regulation. For example, UKHospitality figures show over 100,000 job losses since this Government came to power. Will the Government recognise the impact of these damaging policies on our town centres and reverse course?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The decline in our town centres—I speak from personal experience—started long before this Government came to power. Our Government are delivering on their manifesto commitment to protect the high street and rebalance the business rates system by introducing permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We will bring forward our high streets strategy later this year.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Is my noble friend aware of research showing that low-paid workers are much more likely to spend their wages on the local high street and in the local economy? Will she join me in encouraging noble Lords to talk to workers on the national minimum wage so that they realise what a difference that rise will make to their lives and those of their families?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that everybody should be paid a proper wage for the job they do. She is quite right that money earned in local areas is often spent locally by those on lower wages, so it is very important that we do that. One thing that really affected our high streets was the legislation that made shop theft of below £200 a summary-only offence. That has now been removed by this Government so that we can make our town centres not only vibrant and viable but safe.
Local Resilience Forums
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in so doing refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and declare that I am sitting on the advisory panel supporting the review by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, of police force structures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all the work he does as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and for what he is now doing in respect of policing. It is crucial to retain resilience as we go through the reforms to police forces and local government restructuring. The Government are actively assessing the impact of police and local government changes on local resilience forums to ensure that communities remain supported before, during and after emergencies. We are strengthening the local resilience forum model to make sure it is robust and fit for the future. We have allocated £2.5 million of trailblazer funding to test approaches that strengthen local leadership and accountability.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. If one believes in the concept of a whole of society and whole of government approach to resilience and preparedness, local resilience forums are an essential part of that mix. I hope my noble friend will relay to her ministerial colleagues that in reviewing what are the best arrangements and the best structures, there must be a recognition that one size fits all is inappropriate, in that the nature of communities around the country varies very widely. I ask that consideration be given to the model in Scotland, where there is a resilience structure at Scotland level, and then three regional structures—Scotland is perhaps midway between the two largest local resilience forum populations—three regions below that and 12 district structures below that. That enables a detailed look on a local, sub-regional and regional basis at how resilience is carried out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that one size does not fit all in this respect. He may be aware that my fellow Minister, my noble friend Lady Twycross, and myself have both worked in emergency services, so we know how important it is to get this right for local areas, and that absolutely goes alongside the devolution programme. Alongside that reorganisation and devolution, we are committed to strengthening the role of strategic authorities and mayors in local resilience, which will give the opportunity to develop local solutions. We are safeguarding emergency preparation and response effectiveness, making sure we get that continuity through the reorganisation programme. Part of the trailblazer programme is to introduce the concept of chief resilience officers, which we are looking at and will be testing. That will inform the 2027 review of the Civil Contingencies Act.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, utilising modern science and technology, the police appear to be addressing the most serious crime very effectively. But we all know that we have an epidemic of offending on our streets—and our high streets—unmatched in my lifetime, with shoplifting, phone-snatching, drug-dealing and rogue bikers. Does the Minister accept that we need to take a fresh look at how the police are organised and tasked?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Hanson, who has the next Question, may be better placed to answer that question. I agree that there was a real error made in decriminalising shoplifting. We are addressing that now and work is being done on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, carries on his review of police structures, which will report this summer, the Home Office is absolutely committed to ensuring that local policing remains at the heart of any changes to force structures. The policing White Paper is clear that responsive local policing will be guaranteed through local policing areas, with local officers focused on tackling the epidemic of everyday local crime. That undermines our communities; it causes great distress in them, and both our mayors and our police service want to tackle that as quickly as possible.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, with the establishment of new strategic authorities, the Minister has indicated that the Government plan to publish guidance on their duties and responsibilities. Can the Minister confirm that this guidance will clearly cover how these authorities and their mayors can most effectively work with local resilience forums going forward, and key partners, to ensure we continue collaboration, co-ordinated working and, importantly, operational readiness for major incidents?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness puts her finger on a critical point as we go through this: making sure that the resilience is effective throughout the period of reorganisation and then into the future. We are working in partnership with the Cabinet Office, the UK Resilience Academy, the Local Government Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives to support local authorities to make sure they strengthen their resilience capability. That is with training to clarify expectations, through the guidance the noble Baroness refers to, and sharing best practice. We work regularly with our colleagues in local government on this and through national forums, such as the national strategic forum of local resilience forum chairs.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as head of the Army Reserve. I have been an active reservist now for 38 years and played a very active part during the Covid crisis, but the challenge always is that we tend to default to the military when it comes to aid to civil authority and national resilience. I simply ask the Minister: what thoughts do the Government have on the creation of a civilian reserve, rather along the lines of the model the Swedes have followed, with reserved occupations for times of crisis, so that we can have a civilian reserve and not have to default to the military the whole time?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting question. I do not have a direct answer for him but, having been through the process of being the leader of a local authority during the Covid period I pay tribute, first, to the voluntary and third sectors, which absolutely stepped up during that period, and, secondly, to colleagues in the services who also supported what both local government and national government were doing. We need to think very hard about where we are going to need significant resources and how those will be co-ordinated and arranged. I am sure that the 2027 review of the Civil Contingencies Act will take great consideration of the kind of issues the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, the West Mercia area has an elected police commissioner at the moment, but we have no elected mayor in Hereford and Shopshire. What is the Government’s plan for devolution here? Will we be offered a mayoral deal to run the police?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The local government reorganisation and devolution programme is still ongoing, as I am sure my noble friend will be aware. It is the Government’s intention that when police and crime commissioners come to the end of their terms, there will be mayors in place to take over their duties. We will be making announcements towards the summer in response to all the proposals that have come in for the rest of the country where announcements have not already been made.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, guidance on emergency preparedness issued under the Civil Contingencies Act to the emergency responders who make up local resilience forums includes reference in chapter 14 to use of the voluntary sector. This is often assumed to be where the service provided is wholly or largely relevant to an emergency, such as that offered by Mountain Rescue, Samaritans or the Salvation Army. However, I notice that one local authority listed as an example of best practice includes the use of religious groups, presumably because of buildings and other services that they can provide. Might the Minister consider whether this warrants a discreet but distinct reference in a revision of the guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are very happy to take all suggestions as we refresh the guidance, so I am happy to speak to the right reverend Prelate outside the Chamber to clarify what he wants in there.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, effective emergency response depends on clear lines of leadership and accountability. In the context of local government reorganisation and devolution, when will the Government clarify who will be ultimately responsible for the co-ordination, leadership and performance of local resilience forums? The issue is that emergencies do not wait for the Government to review things and make plans. They happen suddenly and we need somebody leading these resilience forums.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is why it is important that, as well as making sure that we look at how this is done in future with the trailblazer programme and understand what can be done better, we make sure we have ongoing resilience throughout the transformation programme. For those local authorities where there will not be a mayor immediately, announcements will be made before the summer about how local resilience forums will be continued during the process of reorganisation and devolution.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsWednesday 15th April 2026
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 185–I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (14 Apr 2026)
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I beg to move Amendment 3, following advice about the need for a technical amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments following amendments made to the Bill on Report. The Government will not oppose them today.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Moylan, for their constructive challenge throughout the debates. I am very aware of the challenges facing an Opposition Front Bench, and let me say how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and all the work that goes on behind the scenes with me and officials, as well as with opposition Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, deserves much credit from the House for her approach.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pidgeon, for all their work. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, when she could not get her own shoes on because she had a fracture. I thank him very much for his last-minute work on the Bill; his contribution was highly valued. I also thank my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me in the Whips’ role throughout the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxis and licensing has made this Bill a lot easier for me to deal with.
Many noble Lords from across the House have shared their valuable expertise in local government, local growth and community empowerment during the scrutiny of this Bill. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Bassam. Their insights and engagement have allowed us to bring about critical improvements to the Bill, including establishing local scrutiny committees as a first step towards proper public sector accountability at local level. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his work to help resolve the legal lacuna from the Day v Shropshire case. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Borwick and Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Royall, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and many more for their championing of issues such as culture, taxi safety and addressing gambling harms.
We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so that they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. The Bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this Bill: the Bill manager, Hannah, Caragh, Jenna-Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel; and to Nadja, Beth and Anna in my private office. I also pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House: the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, the Public Bill Office and our excellent Whips’ team. We have not had as many late nights on this Bill as we did on the planning Bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here until 1 am that we had a whole team supporting us.
I am pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex Bill, both in Committee and on Report. While there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I think there has been a shared sense that this Bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we are seeing regional centralisation and, instead of community empowerment, we are seeing yet more direction from central government.
To many, it is still not clear why the Government have decided to pursue this course of action or what the underlying vision is behind the Bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, as we are seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe that we are beginning to see it now.
That said, we on these Benches believe that the Bill as amended on Report leaves this House as better legislation than when it came to your Lordships. I am pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land for development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas and to amend Schedule 1 to safeguard local consent in local government changes. In addition, in the light of the Government’s amendments to increase the number of commissioners that mayors can appoint, I am glad that our amendment to ensure that they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I extend the thanks of these Benches to the Minister, all her staff and the Bill office. She was right to point to the amount of work that has gone into getting the Bill to Third Reading. I thank her for her engagement with the Bill; it is of major constitutional importance and therefore has to be as good as we can make it. I am personally grateful for all she did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and audit, which will make a big difference. I extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, where a number of people have done a lot of detailed work. I pay tribute to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his excellent support to the Bill team over many months.
I see the Bill as a work in progress. I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and that we want it to succeed. Everything we have said at each stage of its passage has been about trying to make it better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled “devolution”, but actually it is about decentralisation and does not say very much at all about community empowerment. We are a glass-half-full group on these Benches, and we want the Government to succeed. You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy, and I wish the Government well.
I just hope when the amendments, which are not many in number, are considered in the other place that our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which should become a strategic authority competence. As I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, moved one on the appointment processes for commissioners. How they are appointed needs to be in the Bill, not in guidance. It is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them, rather than having a single model which is imposed out of Whitehall by the Government.
Crucially, to demonstrate that the Government are serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance. With the Bill, the Government are creating very large democratic units that are increasingly remote from people. All that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance is trying to bring decision-making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it.
With those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping-pong. These Benches are pretty firm on some of these issues, so I hope the Government will be flexible in their approach. With that, I thank the Minister for the leadership that she has shown, and her staff. We have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for those contributions. They were in the same tone that we have had all through the Bill of constructive challenge where it is appropriate. I say to both opposition Benches that there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping-pong and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we have dealt with the rest of the Bill.
I have been in local government for a very long time and there have been numerous attempts at reorganising and devolving over the years, but most of the power still sits here in this very small part of London when it should be out there with local people. I hope, as we go through the final processes of the Bill, that we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that power, funding and decision-making are devolved out of Whitehall back to local areas where the people taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level to take the right decisions for the people who we all serve. That is what we all want to do, and I hope, as we progress through the final stages of the Bill, that we will get to a good place on that.
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers these draft regulations. Before I speak to them, I thank both Local Authority Building Control and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising the important issues that led to these regulations coming before us today.
The amendments are technical in nature. The purpose is to maintain legal clarity and make sure that the responsible actors scheme and its associated prohibitions operate as intended. They do not alter in any way the legal requirements on developers to undertake remediation under the responsible actors scheme.
These amendments are made using powers in Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and amend the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating, or paying to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years prior to April 2022. It is an important scheme under which more than 2,500 buildings are being remediated at an estimated cost to developers of around £4.1 billion.
The scheme is underpinned by planning and building control prohibitions. Where an eligible developer decides not to join the scheme or seriously fails to comply with its conditions, those prohibitions can prevent that developer and entities they control from operating freely in the housing market. This incentivises developers to sign up to the scheme and undertake remediation. The amendments in this instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and exceptions to how they are applied would operate in practice if a developer was prohibited, following a failure to join the scheme or live up to the developers’ obligations. It is important that if this eventuality occurs, protections for residents, leaseholders and property purchasers work as intended. These amendments make sure that this will be the case.
First, the instrument clarifies the scope of the building control prohibition. The Building Safety Act 2022 provides that the building control prohibition should prevent prohibited developers from making applications for building control approval. However, as currently drafted, the implementing regulations do not clearly capture applications for building control approval within the prohibition. This creates a risk of ambiguity and inconsistent application. The amendments correct that omission to align the regulations with the intent of the primary legislation and update terminology to reflect current building control processes. The result is greater clarity and certainty for the building control bodies administering the system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument before the Committee. As the Minister said, this instrument makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. These amendments are minor and seek to ensure that the exceptions to the building control prohibition are effective and clear to the building control professionals, and that they respond to the drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We support these changes, but I have a couple of questions.
First, I understand that the Government will continue to monitor and publish data on the RAS regulations to determine their effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of these technical changes. I would be grateful if the Minister can provide the Committee with an update on the progress made so far by developers in meeting their obligations under the RAS regulations.
Secondly, the responsible actors scheme is part of a wider range of actions to address building safety, a key part of which is the building safety regulator. In October, only 15 of 193 high-rise applications had been approved. Can the Minister update the Committee on the number of applications and approvals, and the average turnaround times for each of the stages? I appreciate that the Minister may not have that information with her and would be very happy if she would write. With that, we support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the instrument and I will pick up his two questions. First, on the publishing of data for developer-led remediation, the ministry carefully monitors developer remediation performance, including through scrutinising detailed quarterly data returns. Data from these quarterly returns is published on GOV.UK and includes information about each developer’s progress. In relation to the BSR, I may have to come back to the noble Lord on the specific numbers that he asked for, but, in general, improving the speed in which remediation applications are approved is an absolute priority for the BSR, which has recently announced a remediation improvement plan.
Before I go on to the rest of the answer, the change in management of the BSR has driven very considerable improvements in its performance and I am very pleased to see that. The improvement plan includes improving internal processes, ramping up capacity to deal with remediation cases and working very closely with the industry to support applicants to improve the quality of their applications. That was one of the issues that was raised when we debated this previously. We expect applicants, particularly large developers, to work with the BSR to improve the quality of their applications, so that remediation can progress without delay. I hope that, with those improvements and the improvements that are taking place within the BSR, we are already starting to see considerable improvement, and I hope that that will continue. I will respond in writing to the noble Lord on the numbers issue.
In closing, this instrument makes technical amendments that clarify, as I said, drafting inconsistencies and defects previously reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and makes sure that the responsible actors scheme and its prohibitions will function smoothly in practice, should they be applied. It maintains the integrity of the existing system while making sure that residents and other affected parties are protected.
HMT “Empire Windrush”: 80th Anniversary
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this Question and for her leadership in championing Windrush recognition. The 80th anniversary of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” will be a significant national milestone. The Government will work with communities to mark Windrush 80 with care, respect and pride, acknowledging past injustices while marking a moment of reflection, learning and pride in a legacy we must cherish, recognise and pass on. The noble Baroness will know that we are already working on a project with the railway industry to reflect the Windrush journey and its enduring contribution to modern Britain
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. My Lords, I am so proud to be part of the Windrush generation who, like thousands of Caribbeans, have played and continue to play a part in British society, despite having faced hostility and rejection. It is great to hear that the Windrush Day scheme provides grants for local activities in recognition of their resilience and celebrates their invaluable contribution to Britain. However, the 80th anniversary in 2028 of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” is a significant milestone which deserves far greater recognition to clearly define the occasion’s identity and the scale of its importance to modern British history. Will the Government consider providing additional funds for signature events for the whole country to recognise and show appreciation of the contribution made to the UK by the Windrush generation and really push the boat out, if you will excuse the pun? I am happy to meet the Minister to discuss this further.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness’s energy for this subject is well recognised and welcomed across the House, and I celebrate and support what she does. One of my very closest friends, who has sadly now passed away, was part of the second generation; her family came from Trinidad. I knew this lady from junior school, so all through my life I have been hearing these fabulous stories of the Windrush generation. The Windrush generation and their descendants have made a very profound contribution to Britain, helping rebuild the country after the Second World War and playing a central role in shaping the NHS, public services and national infrastructure. As the noble Baroness said, it is a story of resilience and contribution, reflecting both the hardships people faced and the barriers they overcame.
The noble Baroness asked a very important question about funding. The Government are looking very carefully at the programme for funding. We need to make sure that it is funded properly, but it would not be right to pre-empt the decisions on funding before we have spoken very carefully to the steering committee that is working on this and will be making sure that we mark this in a way that is relevant for the community. Once we have done that, we will be able to put some costs against it, and the Government are determined to make sure that we recognise it properly.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, as we approach this significant anniversary, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on the progress in delivering the Windrush compensation scheme? What is being done to speed up the claims, especially of elderly applicants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue. As of January 2025, over £124 million had been paid across to 3,866 Windrush compensation scheme claims, and 94% of claims have now received a final decision. We remain committed to improving the compensation scheme to make sure that it reflects the lived experience of individuals. In response to feedback from the Windrush commissioner, communities and claimants, significant policy improvements were announced in October last year and implemented in January this year.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we recognise the contributions of the Windrush generation to our country. The previous Government introduced the largest Windrush grant scheme to support charities, local authorities and community groups across the UK. However, we must ensure that these applicants genuinely intend to benefit the communities. Can the Minister clarify whether, under this scheme, grants have ever been awarded to the Muslim Council of Britain?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I know that the grant system that the noble Baroness spoke about has designated around 700 lasting assets, from books and exhibitions to films, educational resources and help for communities to commemorate, learn and come together. I will respond in writing to her question about the Muslim organisation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. Will there be some national recognition of what those who came over on “Windrush” have done for this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The answer to the noble and learned Baroness’s question is that the specific projects for Windrush 80 will be confirmed in due course. We are having further discussion across government and with the Windrush 80 steering committee. Whatever the legacy will be, it is critical that it is designed by the community. The Government are clear that Windrush 80 should leave a legacy that endures beyond 2028. I hope that answers her question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for campaigning on this issue. Yesterday, with her, I had the privilege of meeting victims of the Windrush scandal at a round table. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about improvements to the compensation scheme, we heard that families are still struggling with an overly bureaucratic system and a lack of available legal support. If the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, will meet my noble friend, can we ensure that one of the ways of recognising the anniversary will be to ensure that, at that point, there are no longer any outstanding claimants to receive the justice that they deserve?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think what we all want to see is that the claimants’ claims are processed quickly and in the most straightforward way possible. I am very happy to meet the group that the noble Lord met yesterday. It is clear that compensation cannot undo the harm that was caused, but the Government remain committed to improving the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that it reflects the lived experiences of communities and that it can be accessed simply and in a straightforward manner. The fact that 94% of claims have been dealt with now shows some progress in this area.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given the fact that Windrush 80 is a massive opportunity for the Government to continue to welcome people from my community—I am second generation—what work are they doing to make sure that young people are seeing this celebration as an opportunity to lean into their Britishness and not be portrayed as other? We are British, we are proud of being British and we want the Government to acknowledge that in these celebrations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to say that the important thing in all this is that we recognise the contribution of both the Windrush generation and the second generation in designing whatever the legacy of Windrush 80 is going to be. As he rightly suggests, that should include young people who are the descendants of the Windrush generation. I hope that significant work will be done with the steering committee to make sure that that happens and that it is the community that designs the lasting legacy.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I am very much in favour of these positive remarks, but please remember why we are making them and why we are having this discussion. In my time at the National Audit Office, we examined the treatment that many of the Windrush generation had, which cannot be described as anything but disgraceful, and we cannot forget that. We treated those people whom we asked to come to live in our country disgracefully, and we have taken a very long time, in my view, to put that even vaguely right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to highlight that issue. There has been a focus on the fact that, while we cannot take away the hurt and harm that was done, we can do our best to recognise the contribution made by the Windrush generation and deal with the issues outstanding from the hurts caused to them. I thought that it was very interesting, when I was reading up on this, to read the poem included on the Windrush memorial at Waterloo station. The last few lines of it are:
“Remember … you called.
YOU. Called.
Remember, it was us, who came”.
I think we all have to remember that.
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsTuesday 14th April 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill 2024-26 View all Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the bereaved family members of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire, as well as survivors and members of the local community. Nothing that can be said in this House can diminish the loss they have endured or the impact this tragedy has had on their lives, but they have the respect of this House and of the country as a whole.
The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed the lives of 72 people, was a profound and avoidable tragedy. Its consequences continue to be felt by bereaved families, survivors, the local community and far beyond. Grenfell must never be forgotten, and we must continue to ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There remains much work to do on justice, reform and making homes safe, but this Bill is concerned with one clear and specific responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we ensure that remembrance is properly supported over the long term.
From the outset, I want to be clear with noble Lords. This is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It exists to provide the statutory authority necessary to support the construction and long-term care of a Grenfell Tower memorial and related activities. The design of that memorial and the way it is shaped must remain with the bereaved families, survivors and the community. This Bill is intended to support that work, not to replace or override it.
Grenfell has never been, and must never become, a matter of party politics. It is about doing what is right and keeping our word. A commitment was made to support the bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower. This Government are honouring that commitment. That is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was established in 2019. From the beginning, its work has been community led: listening to bereaved families, survivors and the immediate community, and helping to shape a shared vision for the future of the site.
After extensive engagement over several years, the commission published its report, Remembering Grenfell, in November 2023. The report set out clear recommendations, including the creation of a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower: a private space where elements of the tower can be laid to rest with dignity and respect, and a physical and digital archive, alongside a permanent exhibition, to ensure that the story of Grenfell is preserved honestly, sensitively and with care.
This work has been guided throughout by those most directly affected by the tragedy, and it must continue to be so. Views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The process supported by this Bill is one that remains firmly community led. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will support it to carry them forward. Community led design work is now under way, following the appointment of a design team through a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and members of the local community.
This is a focused Bill. It provides the statutory authority required for the Government to spend public money on the construction of a Grenfell Tower memorial and on its long-term management and care. It also enables spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and a site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, and allows for land to be acquired and works to be carried out where necessary. Although preparatory work and community-led design are already under way, Parliament must provide the statutory authority required to fund the delivery of this national memorial and ensure its upkeep over the long term. The Bill provides that authority.
I underline one important point for noble Lords. The Bill is deliberately narrow in scope. It does not determine the design of the memorial, make planning decisions or set governance or ownership arrangements. Instead, it does one essential thing: it ensures that the expenditure connected to the memorial is properly authorised, in line with the rules governing public spending and with Parliament’s consent.
Community-led design work will continue while Parliament considers the Bill, allowing progress to remain on course. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were permanently changed by the tragedy. It will be a place for remembrance, reflection and respect.
The memorial does not diminish the other work that must continue following Grenfell. Bereaved families and survivors have waited far too long for justice. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan Police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever undertaken.
We must continue to reform the system so that residents’ voices are heard and safety concerns are never ignored. The Government remain committed to implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to deliver real and lasting change, and to ensuring that everyone can have confidence that their home is safe.
This is a modest Bill in form but it carries real weight. As I said, it is not about party politics but about how we remember Grenfell, what we learn from it and what we choose to do as a country. It does not address every issue arising from the tragedy, and we acknowledge that there is still much to be done. What it does is ensure that the national remembrance is properly supported and protected, with Parliament’s agreement and in a way that respects the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. Above all, it helps to ensure that Grenfell remains part of our national memory and that its lessons continue to shape a safer and fairer future. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving, thoughtful and serious debate. I begin by thanking noble Lords across the House. The contributions we have heard reflect the weight of Grenfell’s legacy for bereaved families, survivors, the local community and the country as a whole. I want to reflect on those very precious lives, brought to us so vividly in the testimony of my noble friends Lord Roe and Lady Hazarika.
Today’s debate has shown that, whatever our political differences, there is a shared understanding across the House that this Bill is not about party politics. It is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on our national conscience. It is about doing what is right and about keeping faith with those most directly affected by the tragedy. It is about the collective commitment made by Parliament that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence.
Before I turn to the points raised during the debate, I want to restate very clearly exactly what this Bill does. It is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It provides Parliament’s authority for the public spending required to deliver the Grenfell Tower memorial so that it can be constructed, cared for and sustained over the long term. It authorises spending on any site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, in the peace that the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, so powerfully reminded us of, as well as spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and land acquisition in support of those activities where needed and for works to that land.
The Bill does not determine the design or location of the memorial, nor does it set governance arrangements for how it will be run. That is because, as many noble Lords have mentioned, this Bill is not about taking control; it is about supporting the community-led design work that is already under way and ensuring that it has the financial backing it needs, with Parliament’s consent. In doing so, the Bill helps ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten, and that remembrance of the tragedy continues to sit alongside and support the Government’s wider programme of reform following Grenfell. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Dixon. I am so pleased that she has sat patiently in the Gallery all through our debates today to hear what your Lordships had to say.
I will respond to the detailed points raised by noble Lords in a moment. First, I turn to the very powerful testimony of my noble friend Lord Roe, who spoke about the courage of all those involved. I thank him for his service on that dreadful day; I thank all his colleagues in the London fire service and all those who have been involved in supporting the survivors, the families and the community since then. My noble friend put the emphasis on the responsibility to ensure that families, survivors and the community are front and centre of this project. We must honour their memory by ensuring that we continue to strive to move this on in all respects, so that the failure he highlighted is confronted, dealt with and brings justice, safe homes and the lasting legacy that says, “Never again”. I thank my noble friend Lord Roe for his work and testimony.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Nargund, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and my noble friend Lord Forbes and many others, raised concerns surrounding support for the Grenfell community going forward. Supporting remembrance does not detract from supporting bereaved and survivor families and the immediate community. I reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to work through local authorities, health partners and the community to ensure that those families are supported. The memorial forms part of a long-term national commitment, not an alternative to action elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke about the centrality of the community whose voices have been ignored, leading to this dreadful tragedy. I reassure him, and others who have spoken about this, that the Department for Education and MHCLG have jointly issued additional funding to Grenfell-affected schools to support children, young people and the entire school population throughout the period of works to carefully take the tower down. Likewise, NHS England has confirmed that Grenfell-specific NHS services will continue to be provided as the tower is taken down. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned support for young people involved; that is very important. Departments across government will continue to work together to make sure that we provide the best joined-up service possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about funding and whether we had a specific amount. The Bill authorises expenditure but does not approve budgets or set spending levels yet. I reassure the House that detailed funding decisions will be taken through the usual scrutiny and controls set out for managing public money. Introducing a fixed amount at this stage would be premature, particularly in the light of the fact that the community-led design work is still under way.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Boateng, raised the issue of the Lancaster West estate. To support the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate, MHCLG has already provided about £25 million in funding. This is in addition to other funding issued to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the Lancaster West estate, including from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Government have no direct management over the refurbishment of the estate, but I am sure that we will continue to work with colleagues in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as they complete the refurbishment works and deliver for their community.
Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the national oversight mechanism. We recognise that, in the past, inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted but, as one noble friend mentioned, are then left as dusty tomes on the shelf. That must not happen. The Government are continuing to explore ways to improve the transparency and accountability of recommendations made to them by public inquiries. I reassure the House that we will continue to listen to the views of groups that have been impacted by public inquiries so that the Government’s progress towards implementing inquiry recommendations is properly scrutinised. On the Grenfell Inquiry’s recommendations specifically, we will continue to provide progress updates until all the recommendations have been implemented.
My noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Hyde raised community engagement. My noble friend Lady Dacres spoke about lessons from a community that had not been listened to, and my noble friend Lady Hyde spoke about a relentless focus on voices that had not been heard. I want to be clear that this Bill does not change who leads the design, vision or decision-making for the Grenfell Tower memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage technical delivery of the programme; they will not lead memorial design. On behalf of the independent memorial commission, Freehaus, the appointed design team, is now working with the community to develop the design to honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were for ever changed by the tragedy.
My noble friend Lady Warwick highlighted the housing aspects in relation to the Grenfell tragedy, as well as the avoidable deaths and the need for a change in culture towards transparency. We are committed to continuing to work closely with social landlords and regulators to deliver the joint plan, backed by over £1 billion of investment, to speed up remediation, improve support for residents and maintain momentum against the plan’s target dates, so that unsafe homes are made safe faster and the lessons of Grenfell are never forgotten.
I am doing a specific piece of work around social housing stigma, which sadly still exists. In the case of Grenfell, this was further exacerbated by the racial inequalities powerfully highlighted by my noble friends Lady Nargund and Lady Hyde. We need to work with tenants and the sector to consider how we can tackle this stigma. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, raised qualifications in social housing; that is an issue that we are looking at very closely. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, quite rightly, that housing is a human right. I absolutely agree with her on that. We all have all to pick up the lessons we learned from Grenfell in our action on social housing.
I want to reflect on the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on corporate responsibility. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also referred to corruption, cover-up, greed and negligence, as did other noble Peers. On accountability for building safety in the specific case of Grenfell, those responsible must be held to account, and the Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. I also flag the forthcoming remediation Bill, which will introduce new criminal penalties for people who refuse to remediate similar fire safety defects to those that existed on Grenfell Tower. I will also take up with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade the issue of corporate accountability laws raised here today, and I am happy to take part in further discussions with the noble and learned Lord if he feels that would be helpful.
The Government are currently introducing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, usually known as the Hillsborough law, which is about public body accountability. The noble and learned Lord made an important point about the need for accountability in respect of corporate bodies too. While I mention the Hillsborough law, I should acknowledge that tomorrow is the anniversary of Hillsborough; I think we should reflect on that and take the action necessary to deal with the recommendations on that.
In relation to the current investigation, I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that 180 officers and staff are working on this in the Metropolitan Police Service. We want to see the justice that many noble Lords have mentioned during this debate, and I know that that inquiry is being progressed with appropriate resources and as quickly as the Metropolitan Police Service can do it.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lady Gill, mentioned cladding remediation—
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
If the Minister is moving on to cladding, I go back to the police investigation. Does she have an update on the position on the special grant and Operation Northleigh, and whether it has been granted or not? Could she write if she does not know that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will write, and I apologise for missing the noble Baroness’s point on that issue.
On the matter of cladding, a number of noble Lords mentioned failures caused by deregulation and a failure to listen to local voices. I reassure the House that for both me and the Minister and the other place, speeding up remediation is one of our top priorities. We are working to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to feel safer in their homes. Nearly nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sikka, have raised issues of negligence in building, and over the past year we have taken steps to remove barriers to remediation, strengthen accountability for those responsible for unsafe buildings, and support residents facing delays or uncertainty.
It is not for this Bill to legislate on remediation matters, but that work, as my noble friend Lord Forbes said, remains a moral responsibility for all of us, and the Government will bring forward a remediation Bill, which will drive forward the remediation of historic unsafe cladding by compelling responsible entities to remediate their buildings by clear targets or risk criminal prosecution. We will bring forward that remediation Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
In respect of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng as co-chair of the commission, and I thank his fellow co-chair, as he rightly said, for incredible service to the commission, and all the commissioners for the work that they have done, which was powerfully outlined in my noble friend’s speech, The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, also mentioned the commission, which is an independent, unincorporated, community-led body. I can confirm that the commission leads on the engagement with the community and the appointed design team is working with the community to determine the design for a lasting and fitting memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage the technical delivery of the programme—but I hope that the positive comments made by my noble friend Lord Boateng will be reflected as we go forward with this work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, mentioned the taking down of the tower—and I know what an incredibly sensitive issue this was. Work has been paused in a particular area of the tower in relation to a recent request to preserve certain elements. Subject to that, work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower is progressing and is due to complete in 2027. This will ensure that it is done respectfully, minimising noise and dust compared with other methods. I reassure all noble Lords that we continue to engage with the bereaved, with survivors and the immediate community during this very sensitive piece of work. I have met the co-ordinator, who is there on site, to discuss this with her. On the particular issue around the helpline, I will confirm the details of that in writing.
A very important matter that has come up during the debate has been the issue of justice. I think nearly all noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned it. I have spoken about the investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Those responsible—and I want to be very clear about this—must be held to account. The Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. Of course, it is important that the Government do not take any action that could risk prejudicing those processes, but we must all be focused on the justice that the memory of those lost and the lives of those who survive absolutely demands.
I am so grateful for the very thoughtful scrutiny and contributions offered in this debate. The legacy of Grenfell, the justice, the lessons learned and the memorial must lead us to the light mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng—the light of hope for a better future.