English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.

Motion agreed.

High Streets and Towns: Regeneration

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns.

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

My Lords, this Government recognise the very real pressures facing high streets and town centres, from long-term vacancy and rising costs to crime and changes in how people use town centres. That is why we are backing councils with long-term investment through the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, and with new powers such as high street rental auctions to tackle vacancy and shape high street uses, strengthened community right to buy, and bringing forward a cross-government high street strategy later this year, backed by at least £150 million. Together, these measures give councils the funding, powers and flexibility that they need to drive regeneration locally and restore pride in place.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Pride in Place is a programme delivering to 300 communities over the next 10 years. In those next 10 years, what financial support will be available to those hundreds or maybe thousands of communities across this country that are not included in the scheme but whose high streets are also struggling, mainly due to the Government’s policies, taxes and national insurance increases?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think that might be more due to 14 years of letting high streets sink into decline. However, the places that are subject to Pride in Place funding will also be joined by the new cross-government high street strategy, which will look at all high streets. This will be backed by £150 million of targeted support, which will help to tackle some of the structural issues holding high streets back and the challenges facing retail, leisure and hospitality. We will align policy across government and strengthen our councils’ roles as leaders of place-based regeneration. We will develop that with councils, businesses and communities. We recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all for high streets, and this builds on our commitment to pride in place everywhere.

[Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the executive chairman of Iceland Foods. Does the Minister accept that it is retail businesses which are the catalyst that make a high street thrive? Yet many fail to survive because of the outdated Victorian taxation system of business rates, which are simply too high. Although the recent reduction in the multiplier is welcome, the balance between bricks and mortar retailers and online giants remains badly out of kilter. Will the Minister do all that she can to speed up the rollout of a new, fairer system that we promised in our manifesto and consider including an online sales tax? I say that as one of the biggest online retailers in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was tempted to ask whether my noble friend wanted to answer the Question rather than me; I am sure he knows a great deal about high streets. I thank him for his support for the new business rates multipliers announced at the Budget. The new multipliers replace the temporary relief that has been winding down since the pandemic. Unlike RHL relief, the new rates are permanent, giving businesses certainty and stability. There will be no cap, meaning that all qualifying properties on high streets across England will benefit. The Government are introducing a higher rate on the most valuable properties, which he rightly pointed out should and will include large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online giants. The high-value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties. We are carefully considering representations to the call for evidence, which asks for much more detailed evidence on how the business rates system influences investment decisions. I hope that will result in some movement on business rates.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware—obviously, because it has been discussed already—that pubs are a vital part of the high street. Is she also aware that, since Labour came to power, on average one pub per day has closed? A total of 10,000 jobs have been lost in pubs and hospitality. This Government came in on an agenda for and a commitment to growth. What has gone wrong?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We do have an agenda for growth, but we are having to tidy up the mess that was left behind before we can achieve it. We are introducing the hospitality support fund, which has been more than doubled to £10 million over three years, helping over 1,000 pubs to diversify, boost productivity and support people into hospitality jobs. Those measures sit alongside business rates support and the wider planning and licensing reform that we have introduced.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, initiatives such as “health on the high street” in Doncaster, where the NHS uses buildings in the city centre to provide scans, blood tests and physiotherapy, are a very good way of drawing people into the city centre and regenerating the area. Will my noble friend the Minister talk with the NHS and other departments about how initiatives such as this can be spread to other areas and help with overall regeneration?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right. One thing that happened as a result of Covid was seeing vaccination centres, for example, introduced into high streets. In my own regeneration scheme, part of the plan was to have a healthy hub in the middle of the town centre so that people could come and get their health treatment there. I absolutely understand the point that she is making. I talked about the high street strategy, which will be a cross-departmental strategy. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is determined to have neighbourhood health hubs and I am sure that our discussions will consider how we can incorporate those into high streets.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government look at implementing a commercial landlord levy, which would help small businesses by moving the cost from them on to commercial landlords? It would also have the benefit of ensuring that landlords have an incentive to fill vacant units.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are very keen to make sure that vacant units get filled. We have introduced lots of powers to enable councils to do that, but we also recognise upward rent pressures. Many landlords have upwards-only rent reviews now, so we are bringing in a step in the English devolution Bill to make sure that there are no more upwards-only rent review clauses by which rents can only stay the same or rise. We are legislating to ban those in order to help smaller retailers have more stability in their outgoings.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I hate to be a killjoy, but will the Minister accept that she has no hope of regenerating our high streets unless she works closely with the Minister from the Home Office to sort out the ever-increasing infection of streets full of county lines drugs and drug dealing? The shops that call themselves Turkish barbers, vape shops and everything else are cash only and have no interest in business rates. They are not paying business rates. They are destroying our high streets and our way of life. What is she doing to work with the Home Office to change this?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not share the noble Baroness’s pessimism about high streets. It is perfectly possible to re-energise our high streets. We are already working with the Home Office, and one of the things we are doing is stopping the shoplifters’ charter, introduced by the last Government, of discounting or decriminalising thefts worth under £200. We are also providing over £7 million to support the police in tackling retail crime, including continued funding for a specialist policing team to tackle organised retail crime gangs and identify more offenders. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we will scrap that failure to prosecute shop thefts worth under £200. We are also introducing more training for the police to identify illegal trading and fraudulent shops, and supporting trading standards officers through more funding to local government.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, although the 10-year Pride in Place funding is a welcome step towards longer-term investment, and there are other funds available for town centre regeneration, some towns in Nottinghamshire, such as Mansfield and Newark, continue to face increasing vacancy rates, declining footfall and concerns about safety in the town centres. What assessment have the Government made of the role of churches and other community groups using vacant shops to set up services that create social capital locally? Will the Minister reassure the House that faith communities and charities are enabled to apply for the various funds?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. Meanwhile uses in our shops can often help regenerate whole areas, because they bring footfall into those areas. Junction 7 Creatives has been a very successful project in my town centre. We are taking steps to allow communities to take back control of some of those vacant shops and give them the power either to purchase valued local assets, such as shops, pubs and community centres, or to take them over as meanwhile uses.

Birmingham City Council and Unite: Refuse Workers’ Pay

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government recognise the deep frustration of residents with the ongoing waste dispute. The people of Birmingham must be at the heart of resolving this issue. While the Government are not a party in this dispute, the Secretary of State has met both parties and urged them to bring about a sustainable solution to end it. We continue to monitor the situation, alongside the associated impact on local communities.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

The Minister is well aware that, almost a year ago, an agreement was reached at ACAS between the chief executive of the council and Unite to end this dispute, only for it to be vetoed by the commissioners appointed by the last Government on about £1,200 a day. Does the Minister agree that this agreement must be honoured, or the commissioners replaced, to end this rat-infested, unnecessary dispute that has cost over £33 million to date and is badly damaging services that are so important to the people of Birmingham?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We all want to see the dispute brought to a resolution as quickly as possible. The government-appointed commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. That involves working with the council to make sure that its decisions align with its statutory duties. On the waste dispute, it is not true that the commissioners are blocking a viable deal. As noble Lords would expect, the commissioners are supporting Birmingham City Council to ensure that its approach is in line with its legal obligations, including the best value duty. They report regularly to the Secretary of State, but they are independent of government and Ministers do not dictate their decisions or approve their actions.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Is it possible for us to agree that one of the reasons we are in this dispute is that refuse workers are so badly paid? I am a former refuse worker —I was a road sweeper for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—and I can honestly say that this is a disgrace. If we do not have the removal of rubbish, cities just fall apart.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point about the pay of public service workers, and it is very important that they are recognised for the real value they provide in our communities. But even before the strike, Birmingham’s waste service was failing residents. For example, in 2024-25 residents registered over 120,000 missed bin collections. The council now has to press ahead with the much-needed transformation to build a waste service that is fit for purpose and delivers for the people of Birmingham. That of course includes recognising the staff as they should be recognised.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

Bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on the position of the commissioners, do the Government have full confidence in the commissioners appointed to do that job?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The commissioners are reporting regularly to the Secretary of State. They are independent of government, but they are carrying out valuable work in Birmingham. In their most recent report, they highlighted that the council has made very positive progress in key areas, including in service delivery. They also noted that the waste dispute has diverted attention and that the council has significant work to do to meet the best value duty. The commissioners are providing good support to Birmingham City Council, and I am sure they will continue to do so.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, my concern is that for a whole year, the residents of Birmingham have had to endure worsening public health conditions. What additional public health powers are Ministers prepared to use if the situation deteriorates? How bad do things have to be before the Government intervene? A year is far too long.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not quite understand what went wrong last May, because an agreement was reached and the news was that the commissioners had blocked that deal. Have the Government looked any further into this to be sure of exactly what happened, what went wrong and how it can be improved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I have said, it is not correct to say that the commissioners blocked a viable deal. We want to urge both parties to get back around the negotiating table to find a sustainable solution to end the dispute in the interests of residents. Of course, it is very important that both the equal pay settlement that has been agreed in Birmingham and the best value duty are met in the course of those negotiations.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, is the truth not that these insanitary and insalubrious horrors being visited on our second city are the result of an act of grotesque judicial activism? Everyone understands what equal pay means: men and women should get the same for the same job. Here is a court saying that if one profession mainly has men, that allows it to intervene. That disregards what the law says in favour of what it thinks the law ought to say. How many other local authorities in this country face potential bankruptcy because of these perverse and expansionist rulings by politicised judges?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that this year, very recently, the council passed a balanced revenue budget without the need for exceptional financial support for the first time in recent years. This is possible because the Government delivered fairer funding, meaning that Birmingham will receive an increase in core spending power of 45% to help restore its services and the recovery of the local economy. That is very positive progress for delivering financial sustainability for the residents of Birmingham. I commend the hard work of the council leader, members and officers, and the commissioners, in getting to this point.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not be a good idea for ACAS to get involved again to see whether progress can be made with this dispute? At the moment it does not seem to be going anywhere, and both the people of Birmingham and the workers are suffering.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We would certainly encourage all parties that can help with this dispute to get around the table and make sure that this is resolved. It is not in the interests of the people of Birmingham for this to carry on a day longer than it needs to.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, for two years the poor council tax payers of Birmingham have paid a 10% council tax rise and a 7.4% council tax rise but have not been able to get the basic service of having their bins emptied. What would the Minister say—other than that people need to get around the table—to those people in Birmingham to get the most basic of council services?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a point that I want to expand on. It is very important for Birmingham and the people of the West Midlands that the economy can be driven forward so that we can develop the potential that we know Birmingham has. Having this dispute hanging over both the council and the people of Birmingham is not helping that to take place. That is why I say that the sooner we can get this dispute resolved, the sooner we can start building the economy, the potential and the future for Birmingham that we know are there and waiting to happen.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend’s question. How many other councils could be in this position on equal pay?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think it is fair to say that the situation on equal pay has now been resolved in most councils. In my own council, it took a very long time indeed to resolve because it had not been looked at for a number of years. It often results in large costs for the councils. I cannot say specifically how many councils have not resolved it yet. I think there are probably very few, but I am happy to look into that and come back to the noble Lord.

UK Domestic Visitor Levy

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the precise design and scope of the visitor levy power is still under development. Our consultation closed on 18 February and the Government will publish our official response in due course. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy and, if so, consult on specific proposals. This will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied and how any revenue is invested. Evidence from international schemes suggests that modest rates have a minimal impact on visitor numbers. Improved destinations and visitor experiences may also offset price sensitivity over time.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, but the facts in this country are probably a little different from those she has given. According to the World Economic Forum’s travel and tourism development index, the United Kingdom currently ranks 113th for price competitiveness. A soon to be published Oxford Economics study suggests that, even under the most benign visitor levy scenario, which is a £2 per room per night charge, the effect in 2030 would be millions fewer nights in paid accommodation, nearly £0.5 billion less in total tourism spending and thousands of fewer jobs. Given those figures, why are the Government contemplating a holiday tax at all?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the Government want to see the tourism economy in Britain reach its full potential. The decision on whether to introduce a levy will be for mayors, and they will need to consult ahead of making those decisions. As a mayoral power, the ability to create a visitor levy will ensure that those with the best understanding of their region can tailor investment towards growing the local economy, whether that be in tourism or other areas, bearing in mind its needs, including those of the accommodation sector. This puts the power back in the hands of mayors to develop their own tourism economy in the way that they see fit, and it may lead to new visitor attractions and better quality of accommodation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, where there are no mayors, it will be up to local authorities whether to implement this levy? Will she undertake that, whether this levy is implemented locally or nationally, there is a consistent system of collection right across the country? Will she make sure that it is not as cluttered and badly designed as the Scottish system is now?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The power will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities, because they cover the functional economic areas and mayors have strategic roles in driving growth. The power is principally linked to the growth remit that we have given our mayors and to the powers of mayors, and any revenue is expected to be invested in growth, an agenda for which mayors are responsible and accountable. They can use their mandate for change and take the difficult decisions necessary to drive it. That could include, for example, subject to consultation, giving a portion of revenue to local authorities to deliver the services that support growth, including in tourism and the visitor economy. It is important that mayors have those powers. It is for mayors to design the system that works for their local area.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this levy, which should be used to help support what visitors come to see—namely, arts and cultural attractions. Do the Government recognise that reintroducing tax-free shopping would significantly boost the number of visitors and hotel revenue, as well as being a boon to the economy more widely, including creating thousands of jobs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I always appreciate the noble Earl’s championing of culture and leisure, including the impact that that has on tourism, and I am grateful to him for the work that he does in that area. I am afraid the consideration that he asked about is very much the responsibility of His Majesty’s Treasury and not my department. However, we are proposing that revenues from the visitor levy will support local economic growth, including the visitor economy, and that can take the form of capital investment and the provision of growth-related services. Mayors can then take decisions informed by their consultation on how the revenue raise should be invested in their region.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the key achievements of the last Labour Government was free entry into museums, which had a huge effect on boosting tourism? Can she assure me that this Labour Government will continue to do all they can to boost tourism in that way and keep free entry to museums and other cultural visitor attractions in this country?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend that that was a great step forward. I should declare an interest, as I benefit from that free entry when I am on my granny duty in the recesses. She makes an important point about access to leisure and culture, which we should always aim to make as widely available as possible, because it opens the eyes of not just young people but all of us to the richness of our history and culture.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, with regard to the introduction of a levy, which I personally do not support, will the Minister look at the situation in relation to current tourists who are taken ill? Those who have emergencies are well looked after by the NHS, but, at least in my own research, half of our NHS hospitals are not charging tourists who are not in an emergency when they should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble friend Lady Merron, who is sitting next to me, will be happy to respond to that question. It is important that people who find themselves in a medical emergency get treated promptly and that that is dealt with as quickly as possible. It is reassuring for tourists who come to this country to know that they will receive support if they are taken ill while they are on holiday here. On the issue of charging, I will defer to my noble friend.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, there are some major tourist areas in England that are not part of a devolution deal and have no plans at present for a mayor. Why should they be disadvantaged in their areas and growth, based on not having a particular elected person in that area?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have much sympathy with the noble Lord’s point. We have consulted on whether and how to extend the power to local leaders with similar geographic footprints and powers relating to transport skills and strategic planning, such as the leaders of the foundation strategic authorities. We will look at the responses to that and I will be able to inform the House in due course.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister clarify that the scheme that she is talking about would be applicable to England and not to Wales? That must be the case for two reasons: first, there is a facility in Wales for having these sorts of charges; and, secondly, elected mayors to take this forward do not exist.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that this system is for English mayors.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s priority today appears to be to reduce the cost of living. If that is the case, why do they feel that introducing new taxes to make holidays in the United Kingdom more expensive for British people is a good idea?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We would not have such a problem with the cost of living if the previous Government had not driven up cost of living pressures, as evidenced by the action we had to take in this Budget to take an average £150 off household energy bills from April and to freeze rail fares and prescription fees for a year. We understand that potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy. That is why local leaders will run a formal local consultation before making use of the new power.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Will the money raised from visitor levies stay with the local area?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is a very simple answer to that question, and it is yes.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask a question by way of clarification. Will I have to pay this levy when I go up to watch my beloved Manchester United every week?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, may want to think about a team closer to home—there are some very good ones near to where he lives. However, football allegiance apart, it depends on the accommodation that people are staying in. This applies only to commercially let short-term accommodation—only that will be in scope of the visitor levy. This includes holiday lets, hotels and guest houses, subject to local decisions on the scheme. The noble Lord always has the option to support a team closer to home.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s action plan for social cohesion, and I pay tribute to the working group for all the work that has been put into this over the past few years.

I am proud that I grew up in a multicultural, multiracial society. I was born in this country, but my parents were not. When I started school at the age of five, I could not speak English, but I learned it very quickly, like most children do, so I am bilingual, like most children who come from backgrounds such as mine, and it is a good thing. Much has been said recently about how multiculturalism has failed. Maybe it is because I grew up in inner London, but I do not think it is a failure at all. I think it is a huge success and something that this country should be proud of. London is the most multicultural, multifaith city in the world, certainly the most successful and the most visited. I am not going to take criticism of that, because I have lived it, and I totally respect people from all faiths and backgrounds who I grew up alongside and went to school with.

I turn to some of the most contentious issues, as someone who grew up in a Muslim household as well. Home Office statistics show that Muslims have been the most targeted religious faith group in terms of numbers and overall share in nearly every single year since records began in 2017-18. Hate crimes against British Muslims now account for the highest share, at 45%, with a 19% rise in anti-Muslim offences and a sharp spike since August 2024 following the tragic Southport murders. During the riots that ensued in July and August 2024, hundreds of rioters attacked the Southport mosque within 24 hours, hurling bricks and bottles, smashing windows, and setting a police van on fire. More than 50 police officers were injured. Violence spread across nearly 30 towns and cities in England and Northern Ireland. Mosques were vandalised, Muslim-owned businesses attacked, and hotels housing asylum seekers set ablaze. The Southport attack had no connection to Islam or Muslims, but on social media word spread that it did.

Mosque attacks have soared and become more widespread. Between July and October 2025, the Government’s own appointed monitoring body, the British Muslim Trust, recorded 27 verified attacks targeting 25 mosques across the UK in a report titled A Summer of Division. Attacks included arson at the Peacehaven mosque in East Sussex, described by the Muslim Council of Britain as coming after

“a disturbing pattern of violence and intimidation”.

The BMT found that perpetrators were now acting

“with growing confidence and a visible sense of impunity”.

It takes me back to when I was young, when the BNP marched openly in the streets of London. But then we had legislation that changed all that. I find myself thinking that we are going back to those days of division and a lack of social cohesion, and that people now are being proudly racist and aggressive towards sections of community. I include antisemitism in this. I have Jewish cousins so I know what that can be like. I just feel we are going backwards instead of forwards. That is why I welcome this action plan wholeheartedly.

The BMT also found that perpetrators were directly linked to the surge of far-right campaigns, including Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally. In recent weeks, we have seen much disinformation disseminated by the media on various online platforms. Although it is clear that a working definition of anti-Muslim hostility is legally non-binding, exactly like the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, in the past few weeks since the report was leaked and then published, we have seen outright misinformation spread widely and deliberately put out by these far-right groups, publications and broadcasters.

If we turn to the significant contribution made by Muslim communities in the NHS, for example, an estimated 46,200 British Muslim staff work in the NHS, including 15% of NHS doctors, which is quite remarkable when the Muslim population in the entire UK is only 6%. They are in the front line and face greater anti-Muslim intolerance and hatred. We have Muslim staff working here in Parliament who we rely on to look after us. They are also aware of growing anti-Muslim hate and language. It pains me to say this, but offensive comments have been repeated by a few individuals in your Lordships’ House over a number of years. Our staff deserve more respect. It is important for public bodies, councils, universities and employers to understand what anti-Muslim hatred looks like so that they can identify it, record it, and act on it—nothing more. There have been outlandish assertions from, among others, the vice-chair of Reform who stated as a fact that this will stop any debate about Islam. It will not, so debate away.

Many of us from a Muslim background strongly believe that the protection of British citizens from hatred and violence is not conditional on the approval of those who have made a habit of treating one community as uniquely suspect. Those who claim this is an Islamophobia law or a blasphemy law are deliberately spreading disinformation. There is no difference in substance from the antisemitism definition already in place. There is therefore no principled basis for opposing this one. Does the Minister agree that we need to repeat clearly and loudly that we are not legislating on belief or restricting criticism of ideas, we are protecting people? How will the Government ensure that these important guidelines will be disseminated to combat this disinformation? How will they ensure that British Muslim communities will be protected, just like all communities, especially the most vulnerable?

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful comments from the noble Baronesses.

Last week, the Secretary of State responsible for housing, communities and local government announced this publication, Protecting What Matters, which sets out the first steps towards a more confident, cohesive and resilient United Kingdom, focusing on three key pillars.

First, we will build confident communities. Cohesion relies on confidence in the social contract, yet when people look out from their doorstep, too often they see a future that they did not ask for. Put simply, there is a direct link between the degradation of the public realm and the division that we see happening in our communities. The Pride in Place programme will commit more than £5 billion across almost 300 constituencies to be spent through neighbourhood boards. This alone is not enough: we must meet our responsibility to protect young people. That is why this section includes tougher regulation of home schooling.

Secondly, we will build cohesive communities through a social cohesion measurement framework. This means consistent clearer metrics to identify risks early and to act quickly. We will set clearer integration expectations, based on British values, for existing communities and new arrivals, focused on a shared language, participation and respect for British values. We will develop a cross-government integration strategy and conduct a review of English language provision to identify best practice. Strengthening cohesion also means managing the pace of change. We will deliver an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and works better for communities.

We will boldly confront hatred in all its forms, head on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, Muslim communities are facing growing hostility, discrimination and abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels, and they now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes. We have a duty to act. However, we cannot tackle something if we cannot describe what it is. That is why we have announced that we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This makes clear what is unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims. By describing these distinct forms of hostility, the definition will increase understanding across wider society; give victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously; and help organisations to take action, as the noble Baroness said.

By setting clearer boundaries around what is and is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for more open and honest discussion of sensitive but wholly legitimate issues. Critically, the definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech. It is about the unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems. It will not impede the raising of concerns in the public interest. I take this opportunity to thank Dominic Grieve KC and the members of the independent working group who have provided advice to Ministers on this. I thank two Members of our House who have done a lot of work on it, the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and my noble friend Lord Khan, who took on this work when he was in MHCLG. We will now work with various groups across society to consider how this definition can work most effectively in different sectors.

We remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have seen horrific antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad in recent months. Since coming to power, this Government have taken decisive steps. We have invested record funding for security at synagogues and schools, and millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities. We have changed the law to address pernicious protests by places of worship. In this plan, we are going even further by tackling antisemitic extremism and addressing antisemitism in schools and colleges, the healthcare system and the workplace. Work is under way across government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life.

Finally, our third pillar is building resilient communities. That means confronting extremism in all its forms. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, including by embedding the extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report with lists of the groups that meet the definition—to answer a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and transforming our disruption capabilities. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations; strengthen the Charity Commission’s ability to tackle extremist abuse; expand the reach of the visa taskforce; and promote safe, respectful campuses and workplaces.

Our universities should be beacons of free speech, but in recent years that has been undermined, as we heard in the debate in your Lordships’ House earlier today. We are now introducing new measures to tackle the rise in extremism on our college and university campuses since the 7 October attacks. That means strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, and providing oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and our ability to take robust enforcement action where needed. We will also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in workplaces and build on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act. By global standards, Britain is cohesive, and that underpins our economic strength, democratic resilience and national security.

I will try to pick up a couple of the questions from the noble Baronesses in the minute I have left. On the public interest test that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about, it is probably better if I send a full reply in writing. Broadly speaking, the definition does not create a new test. “Public interest” should be understood in its ordinary and commonly used meaning in UK law and policy: matters that serve society’s wider interests. There is no single person or authority who decides that, and the application of the definition depends on the context. The definition provides a framework, and decisions will be made by the relevant body in that context using their existing judgment and powers.

I have picked up the questions on schools and universities. There will be a curriculum on civic education for all levels. That is really important.

On stakeholders, we consulted with a very long list of stakeholders during this work. I can provide a list, if Peers would like to see that.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for her comments. I am very proud of the multiculturalism in this country. I was at an iftar ceremony on Friday evening, and it was great to see members of the Jewish, Hindu and Christian communities, and others of no faith, there celebrating together. That is part of our culture. The Southport mosque incidents were absolutely terrible, but it was good to see the community come out and do the clean-up afterwards.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned attacks, both online and in person, on NHS staff. I commend my colleague Shabina Qayyum, the leader of Peterborough City Council. Since she became leader recently, she has suffered some of the most horrendous abuse. Shabina is not only leader of the council but an NHS doctor, and she gets abuse in both sides of her life. It is unacceptable and we have to do everything we can to stop it. I hope Members will support this action plan, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to, in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions of the Minister.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister say why, in the report, there is no mention of Sikhs or Buddhists, one mention of Christians and only two mentions of Hindus? We are incredibly worried that we constantly are being ignored, and yet we are also victims of hate crime—and often from other minority communities. It is about time that we started to address this. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we need to talk about one Britain, where everybody is treated equally. I am really disappointed by the report that was issued by SOAS on the riots in Leicester; it is a very poor reflection of what actually happened.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that everyone deserves to feel safe in our country. We will work with and celebrate our faith and belief communities to improve understanding of different religions, support tolerance and build a more cohesive and resilient country.

We need to continue to support programmes such as Near Neighbours, which brings people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to collaborate on community initiatives. We also want to grow Inter Faith Week. I have seen a lot of the very good work that is done in interfaith initiatives in my community. It builds an understanding and interaction between people of different faiths. We also need to promote the role of the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education by supporting improved analysis of its annual reports to understand the role that it can help to play in communities, leading to cohesion. We are taking action to deliver the £92 million places of worship renewal fund to champion freedom of religion or belief globally through sustained diplomatic engagement and multilateral partnerships.

I understand the point that the noble Baroness made. The reason for the definition in the report was to tackle the very large percentage of our Muslim community who are suffering from crimes at the moment. I will run a session next week on the whole report, and I hope that people come along to that. The whole programme is directed to making sure that we have more cohesive communities overall.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK. I was also a member of the working group on the definition. There was an orchestrated campaign to derail the work. Thankfully, it did not, and I thank the Government for adopting the definition.

Are the Government going to compile a list of all the misleading arguments that are being spread out there—the campaign is continuing—so that the public are aware of the counterarguments? The consequence of the misinformation—the disinformation, more accurately—is abuse of Muslim women. They are being targeted. We got a call today with a report of a Muslim woman on the Tube who was told to take off her headscarf. Why are the Government not addressing the safety of Muslim women? I would appreciate it if the Minister did not give the standard answers that I have received before from the Government—£40 million to mosques, millions to the British Muslim Trust and Pride in Place. What specific action is there for Muslim women? It almost feels as if the safety of Muslim women does not matter.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I start by reassuring the noble Baroness that the safety of Muslim women matters a great deal indeed. I could quote the figures of the sums. We are working with the British Muslim Trust to help tackle anti-Muslim hostility. We all have to concentrate on making sure that this actually happens in reality. Through our work across communities on cohesion, combined with the education programme—that will probably be slower—we need make sure that people understand different religions. I hope that will start to tackle the hostility. Having a definition in place is important in helping organisations right across the board—in the case of the Tube line, for example, it might be Transport for London—to understand what this means.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I spent 25 years of my life trying to build community cohesion in a north London borough. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, I realised how important that is. That period, which is a generation ago, felt difficult at the time, but it is actually much more difficult now because of the tide of misinformation, disinformation, and the deliberate attempts to breed extremism and create division. That is what this paper is all about and why it is so important.

I will ask two specific questions. There are references in this paper to doing more in schools about citizenship and critical thinking. It is crucial that we equip children and young people to challenge the misinformation and disinformation that they receive and to question its sources. I would like some more information as to what is being done about that. The second point is that there is a vague statement about using all the powers to deal with misinformation and disinformation online. I am sure that the Government will try to do that, but could they tell us what is being done to make sure that authoritative material is put out and clearly labelled so that people can have trust in the information they receive?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his many years of work to create cohesive communities. I will just briefly outline some of the measures that are in schools and universities. As he says, it is very important that we make sure that those who are trying to radicalise the minds of our children and young people face the education that stops that happening and that will encourage our young people to engage in the kind of critical thinking that makes them able to ask the questions themselves.

First, we are co-designing a cohesion charter with students to bring together a set of agreed principles that guide students’ conduct and engagement on issues that underpin or undermine campus cohesion.

Secondly, the Office for Students will further strengthen its monitoring of universities’ efforts to prevent individuals becoming involved in or supporting terrorism. Universities should be alert not only to violent extremism but non-violent extremism, including the certain divisive and intolerant narratives that can reasonably be linked to terrorism.

We want to strengthen the Department for Education’s oversight of compliance issues and take appropriate enforcement action. There will be enforcement powers for the Department for Education, and it is important that people have those powers.

We are working with the Office for Students to bring together clear and concise information on higher education complaints into a single online portal, so that staff and students have quick and easy access to organisations best placed to support them. We are also enhancing the higher education sector-wide capability to meet Prevent duty obligations, while, of course, upholding freedom of speech. It is very important that we do that as well. So, there are a number of steps in the action plan.

On my noble friend’s point about online platforms, we need to increase transparency about how those online platforms operate and comply with the Act. Platforms will be required to publish regular reports, summarised by Ofcom for public understanding, to give the public a clearer picture of platform compliance.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, may I take the Minister back to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not think I know the height of the London Eye either—I will be straight up about that. I will look it up after this.

We recognise that a new approach to integration must consider the broader immigration system and what level of immigration is tenable in maintaining a cohesive society and meeting the needs of existing communities. Integration is of course a two-way process. Society must enable participation, while newcomers are expected to engage, learn English, respect our values and contribute.

I agree with the noble Lord, in that the test must have sensible questions. I do not have a date for when that will be reviewed, but I will find out for him after this evening.

As part of this publication, we will set clear expectations for integration, including English language proficiency and participation in work, and we will develop a cross-government integration strategy. Efforts will focus on removing barriers to participation, supporting underrepresented groups and fostering the shared sense of values across the UK that I know, right across the Chamber, we all want to see.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I take the Minister back to the question that she was asked by my noble friend Lady Scott in the context of the excellent report Time for Change by the Union of Jewish Students. This unfortunately makes it clear that antisemitism is being normalised across campuses. If university leaders fail to take action, how will they be held accountable? I have looked in the plan that has been published and there is nothing there about holding those university leaders accountable, so what specifically are the Government going to do to make sure that antisemitism is not normalised on our university campuses?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is clear that there are some shocking statistics in that report. We must focus on making sure that Jewish students, along with students of all faiths, feel safe in our universities. On the noble Lord’s specific question about sanctions for university leaders, I will have to come back to him. I do not have the information on that in front of me. With all the very concerted work that is set out in the programme in relation to campuses and universities, the Government have a clear intent to make sure that our students can feel safe and be safe on a university campus.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I exhort the Whip, since he started by asking people to be extremely brief in their questions, to give some practical effort to controlling the Chamber in that regard.

I welcome the Government’s overall strategy but want to ask specifically about anti-Muslim hostility. The paper accompanying the definition says that if you are unable to define an issue, you are far less able to tackle it. Can the Government define hostility and give examples of what behaviour would be covered by hostility? The other aspect of the paper, in Chapter 5, says that it will need to evolve over time. What tests will be used for the evolution over time, and what do the Government anticipate doing over time in terms of a public consultation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness says, the reason for a definition is that if you cannot clearly define an issue, you cannot properly identify it, measure it or address it. This definition provides the clarity needed to respond consistently and effectively. It helps to distinguish between legitimate debate—which remains fully protected—and unacceptable hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals, enabling people to name and describe specific forms of hostility that Muslims experience, helping to build understanding in wider society and giving victims confidence that they will be taken seriously.

Government and organisations will then have a consistent framework for training, reporting, data collection and prevention work to improve how incidents are recognised and addressed. That is the longer-term process. This is protecting people, not beliefs, and helping to prevent harmful behaviour while safeguarding open discussion and criticism of ideas.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I strongly support this action plan. Like my noble friend Lord Harris, I say this in the context of having spent decades on the front line of where cohesion fails. Very few people in this House have had to pick up the bodies at the endpoint of failure, where cohesion has fractured and where enmity has played out on our streets. I have seen that in my career as a soldier and as a firefighter in the most terrible way.

I would like to see non-partisan politics in this space because, regardless of which Government have brought this plan forward, we should all support it. We should all support it with the way we use our language because not doing so—with an increasingly divided politics—ends in a most terrible way. How will we measure early the impact and effectiveness of this plan? If we do not, I am afraid that the first we will know of its ineffectiveness is when the most terrible things play out.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend not just for his very important question but for all his work on this during his career. We are setting out a bold new approach here, not just tackling hate speech but countering extremism by adopting and implementing definitions of extremism. We will publish the annual state of extremism report. That is one way of making sure that we are keeping a focus on the issue. We are strengthening Charity Commission powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the power to shut down charities and suspend trustees—and there are the measures I have already mentioned on tackling extremism on university campuses and in health.

We will work to implement the definition to make sure it has real effect, making sure that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups. We will work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure robust use of existing legislation on that harmful extremist conduct. As my noble friend said, the consequences of not taking action here are critical and dangerous. We will make sure that all organisations, now that they have this definition, can take action and monitor what is happening.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. It is not particularly helpful to accuse those who have expressed concern that this definition will operate like a Muslim blasphemy law by the backdoor of spreading dangerous disinformation, not least because knowingly spreading dangerous disinformation is a criminal offence under Section 179 of the Online Safety Act. Suggesting that those who raise the alarm about the chilling effect of this definition on free speech should be prosecuted makes the point far more eloquently than we could.

I note that when the Communities Secretary unveiled the definition of anti-Muslim hatred in the other place, he said that he hoped it would be taken up by the police; the Minister just expressed the same view. Is it the Government’s intention that when someone is found to have said or done something that meets the definition of anti-Muslim hostility, it will be recorded by the police? Could it then be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check if that person applies for a job as, say, a teacher at a school in a Muslim neighbourhood?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I set out very clearly that this is a non-statutory definition. It is there to assist organisations to understand what we mean by anti-Muslim hostility. I remind the noble Lord that there is no blasphemy law in this country and that this Government have no intention of introducing one.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the strategy places significant emphasis on engaging faith leaders as key arbiters of community cohesion. However, does the Minister agree that true social cohesion is built not on the mediation of religious blocs but on the primacy of civic values and a singular secular rule of law? When religious sensitivities collide with fundamental civic rights, such as LGBT equality, will the Government prioritise civic democratic values over the avoidance of religious offence?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The importance of this strategy is that it concentrates on all these angles, including creating confident communities and protecting that confidence. We have to create the conditions for cohesion. Our aim is to bring people together through community-led schooling, youth and sports infrastructure, trusted local venues and major cultural and sporting events with strong community legacies, focusing on restoring pride in place through long-term investment in left-behind areas, support for local media and high streets, improved digital connectivity, neighbourhood policing, tackling anti-social behaviour and reducing reoffending. All these things are positioned as essential to safety, pride and cohesion. I hope that this action plan will take us a long way towards doing that.

Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government have adopted a definition of anti-Muslim hostility focused on protecting individuals. The definition provides a shared practical framework to help victims, communities and services respond to anti-Muslim hostility while improving understanding across wider society. It also explicitly safeguards free speech, making it clear that criticism, debate or even ridicule of religious ideas remain lawful. Keeping citizens safe is a fundamental duty of government. I would always hope that we did not need these definitions, but we know we do, and this definition is a crucial step in strengthening the protection for our citizens.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, and I appreciate that the Government have made a real attempt to balance protecting Muslims on the one hand and safeguarding freedom of speech on the other. While I can see that the definition might be quite useful from a cultural point of view, it is very difficult to see how it is going to work in relation to the law. The Government’s statement specifically says:

“The definition does not change what is or is not a crime, nor does it equate anti-Muslim hostility with crime”.


My question is really this: in what way, if any, does this definition make a difference to the application of the law? After all, violence against Muslims is already a crime. By having this definition, what difference does it make?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord is quite correct to say that this definition does not change the law. However, it describes distinct forms of unacceptable hostility that many Muslims experience. We know the terrible things that happen, online and in person, to members of our Muslim community. This should increase understanding across wider society. It gives victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously. By setting clearer boundaries around what is and, importantly, what is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for a much more open and honest discussion of sensitive—we know how sensitive these issues are—but wholly legitimate issues. The definition does not restrict criticism, debate or even ridiculing. It is about unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the working group on a very clear, common-sense definition. Does she agree that it is a very useful public educational tool, not least for signposting actual hard law, such as articles in the human rights convention on free expression and discrimination, and, as my noble friend said, for being clear that free speech, including critique of religion, is protected?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for making the point about thanking the working group. This has been a very sensitive and very detailed piece of work for it to do, and I am very grateful to the working group, my honourable friend the Minister for Faith in the other place and, of course, my noble friend Lord Khan, who started working on this and did a great deal of work on it previously.

My point, which my noble friend echoed, is that if we cannot clearly define an issue, we cannot properly identify, measure or address it. A definition provides the clarity needed to respond consistently and effectively. It helps distinguish between legitimate debate—which remains fully protected—and unacceptable hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals. Very importantly, there are elements of the definition that refer to legal procedures and other elements that are aimed more at society’s acceptance that we should not be hostile towards our communities.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, to build on the Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of course the Minister will be aware that the previous Government back in 2016—I know because I was instrumental in that—brought in the specific crime of anti-Muslim hatred, but the approach they took was one of inclusivity; that is, it was not just for one faith but for ensuring that all religious hate crime could be reported. Indeed, the statistics we have now reflect that. I respect very much Dominic Grieve, who I worked with very closely. How will this definition fit in specifically? The second element is on education and ensuring that hate crimes are reported and accurately recorded.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, it is really important that we make sure that the reporting and recording are done. In terms of support for other faith groups, we will work with and celebrate our faith and belief communities to improve the understanding of different religions, to support tolerance and to build a more cohesive and resilient country. A very detailed action plan sits behind the whole of Protecting What Matters, which is where the definition is included. The education the noble Lord refers to is very clearly and consistently part of that action plan—we will have another opportunity to debate that on Monday when I will answer questions on the Statement on it. We continue to support programmes such as Near Neighbours which bring people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to make sure that they are collaborating on community initiatives. The action plan supports all that work as well as providing this very clear definition of anti-Muslim hostility.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I welcome the action plan and pay tribute to all the work that has gone into arriving at it. In 2019, the then Conservative Communities Secretary, James Brokenshire, said:

“The government is wholeheartedly committed to ensuring that Muslims are not targeted for hatred, persecution or discrimination”.


The Government’s press release at the time said that they agreed that

“there needs to be a formal definition of Islamophobia to help strengthen our efforts against anti-Muslim hatred”.

In recognising, as the Minister has set out, that this definition is not about preventing free speech but about protecting individuals, can I ask her to articulate how this plan and this definition would operate on exactly the same principle as the widely adopted working definition of antisemitism, and that those who claim this is an Islamophobia law or a blasphemy law—which is widely being put out there now, very destructively—are simply spreading disinformation and sowing division? Hate speech is not free speech.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I want to be absolutely crystal-clear on the point about blasphemy. There are no blasphemy laws in England, and the Government have no plans to introduce any. The UK has a very proud tradition of religious tolerance within the law, and the Government are committed to building a strong and integrated society in which hatred and prejudice are not tolerated and where everyone is free to express their religious identity and live without fear of discrimination or harm. Muslims are currently subject to 45% of hate crime and we have seen horrific incidents aimed at our Jewish communities and, shockingly, a spike in antisemitism in our communities following those incidents. We need to support those communities, and the Government are absolutely committed to doing so.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, it has been a great honour in the last few weeks to have been the guest at several iftar meals with the Muslim community in Yorkshire, where I am based. I know the noble Baroness mentioned the debate on Monday, but knowing how real Muslim hate crime is and hearing stories from Muslim neighbours just in the last few days, it would be good to hear more about how this is going to be implemented, because this is a definition not to sit on a shelf but to be used to help us become a more tolerant society.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the most reverend Primate. I am going to the iftar in Stevenage tomorrow evening, and it has been great to see the cross-community participation in iftars around the country. The Government are taking a number of steps to support this definition, with funding that will help to tackle some of the anti-Muslim hostility that we have seen. For example, we have put additional funding for cohesion into the Pride in Place programme to enable us to tackle some of these issues. I will go into more detail on Monday.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the anti-Muslim hostility definition allows things to be said that are “in the public interest”. Can the Minister clarify who decides what the public interest is, and how?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The definition of anti-Muslim hostility is accompanied by a statement very clearly setting out what the definition does not do. It is not legally binding; it does not override or change the law; it does not affect sentencing or create new crimes, and it does not prevent raising concerns in the public interest. It is very important that people feel able to raise concerns where they feel that they are in the public interest. It is not about protecting religion from criticism but only about protecting people from targeted hostility. Where people want to raise criticisms of a religion, and if that is in the public interest, they are perfectly able to do so.

Stamp Duty: Periodic Tenancies

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether periodic tenancies draw more tenants into Stamp Duty Land Tax lease returns than fixed-term tenancies; and what legislative or other steps they intend to take as a result.

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

My Lords, the Government are aware that the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which abolishes fixed-term tenancies, may in some very rare circumstances bring more tenancies into the stamp duty land tax regime. We are working closely with His Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC to ensure that no tenant is brought into paying stamp duty on the rent they pay as a result of the Renters’ Rights Act, and we will update Parliament shortly.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Will any guidance be issued by HMRC or anybody else to tenants, landlords and agents to let them know whether their tenancy will come under stamp duty land tax and they have to issue some kind of return to HMRC? Many tenants are very worried that this will happen to them, and lots of agents have no idea that this is coming.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I want to reassure tenants and landlords that very few tenants will be affected by this in the first year. A tenancy must have extremely high rents or have been running for a very long time under the previous system to even approach the stamp duty threshold in the first year. HMRC’s assessment is that this will be a very small number of cases. We intend to ensure that even in those rare instances, tenants do not face a stamp duty land tax charge as a result of these reforms. We will work with HMRC to make sure that clear and accessible guidance is available for both tenants and landlords.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the ways in which we meet the concerns that the noble Lord has raised is by increasing the housing supply. Can my noble friend the Minister give us an update on the social and affordable housing programme that the Government are supporting?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very pleased to give the House an update on the social and affordable housing programme. We have now published its prospectus, and the Government have put in £39 billion of funding to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. The core objective of that new programme will be to maximise supply, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme at social rent. That will be around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime. We published the guidance in November 2025, and we are now calling on all registered providers to review the details confirmed and to prepare large and ambitious proposals. We want to see the social landlord sector really embrace this. The bidding process opened in February, and we look forward to receiving some good bids.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Renters’ Rights Act places the full weight of delivery and its success on two public bodies—the courts to provide timely justice and local authorities to provide enforcement. Can the Minister please reassure the House that on 1 May, when these additional rights are switched on, both the courts and councils will have sufficient capacity and resources to deal with this additional workload, given that, at the moment, court delays are still long and council enforcement capacity varies according to your postcode?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government told us last year that there would be a consultation on creating a new ISA product to support first home buyers in early 2026. Can the Minister confirm the timeline of that consultation and clarify whether there will be any changes to the existing lifetime ISA, which is helping first-time buyers significantly?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am currently working across the sector on a wide range of support to provide the framework that first-time buyers will need in order to take the practical steps to access the market and to build up confidence. That work is going very well. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty up to £300,000 and can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. Further steps will be announced in due course.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments on the community right to buy and assets of community value, which I will refer to as ACVs. I know we debated this as far back as 11 February and, if it were not for the magic of Hansard, it would be a considerable memory test as to where we got to.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the determination of our Government to strengthen community right to buy and make it work. I will turn first to Amendment 222A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the subject of funding for the purchase of ACVs. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we are already putting record investment into communities, supporting them to take ownership of valued local assets and ensuring that they can make effective use of the new community right-to-buy powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that if you do not do that, there is little point in having a community right to buy at all. Our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places to regenerate and improve their communities. The Pride in Place impact fund will also provide £150 million of funding for up to 95 places to support the development of community spaces, as well as revitalising local high streets and the public realm.

The Government launched the £175 million community wealth fund in September last year as part of our commitment to put power in the hands of communities and deliver on the Pride in Place strategy. The community wealth fund is funded, as the noble Baroness indicated, through dormant assets and match funding from the National Lottery Community Fund, our delivery partner. Disadvantaged communities will receive funding pots of between £1 million and £2.5 million each over a 10-year period, building community power in the places that need it most. Local people will have a say on where the funding should be spent, be that community cooking classes, after-school clubs, improvements to the look and feel of neighbourhoods, sports facilities or many other projects that have come forward for that funding. We believe that providing funding directly to the most in-need communities and putting them in the driving seat is the right approach. Communities can use their funding on the projects that are most important to them, including protecting local assets.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand all that money coming in, but it is targeted to certain communities. The community right to buy was for communities across the whole country. They had the ability to ask for support to save their pubs, or village or town amenities. I worry that those not in the schemes that the Government have now set up are going to be left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The point is that many communities have managed to raise funding for schemes themselves. We are trying to target those communities that are less able to do that, and that is the point of the way in which this is funded.

Turning to Amendment 222D, I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to ensure that communities do not lose local assets that are important to them. She tabled an identical amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and, as she will be aware from the debates on that amendment, it is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings that may be designated as ACVs. This includes pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and so on. Local planning authorities are able to use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area where they consider it appropriate to do so.

However, as the Minister for Housing and Planning acknowledged during Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill,

“we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 362.]

The Minister has, therefore, already committed to consult on this matter. We intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish in due course.

I turn now to Amendment 222E on the listing period for ACVs, which was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Under the provisions in the Bill, a local authority must remove an asset from its list of ACVs after a period of five years, with the Secretary of State able to amend this period through regulations. Although we want to ensure strong protections for ACVs, we do not think that it would be appropriate to remove this requirement and thereby make the listing period indefinite. Our intention is to empower communities at the same time as protecting the rights of asset owners. Indefinitely subjecting asset owners to the sale restrictions created by community right to buy would not be justifiable, given that the value of an asset to a community may diminish over time. There is also a risk that local authorities would be incentivised to make tougher judgments on requests from the community to list ACVs if listings are indefinite. This would conflict with the intention of the policy to allow communities to protect as many locally important assets as possible.

The noble Baroness pointed out that sporting assets of community value will, by contrast, be indefinitely listed. This is to provide sports grounds with longer-lasting protections, in recognising their inherent value to communities as places that foster local pride and identity and promote healthier lifestyles. It also reflects the low take-up of sports grounds under the existing regime for ACVs. Eligible sports grounds will also be listed automatically, meaning that there is not a similar risk of indefinite listing resulting in tougher listing decisions by local authorities.

The current five-year listing period for ACVs recognises that the needs of the community can change over time and that an asset may not retain the same value for a community in future. The policy must be responsive to this, but I will of course reflect on the noble Baroness’s proposal to ensure that this period is the right length. 

I turn now to Amendment 222F. I agree that the scheme should not be limited to assets with a current use that furthers the economic or social well-being of the community. There are many assets that have had a community use in the past and continue to hold significant value for a community. It is right that these assets are also in scope of the policy. That is why proposed new Section 86B already allows buildings or land that furthered the economic or social well-being of communities at any time in the past to be listed as ACVs. We believe that Amendment 222F is, therefore, not necessary.

I turn now to Amendments 223, 224, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 and 234 on assets of cultural value. I agree in this case with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—I nearly always do—that it is important to safeguard arts and cultural spaces such as music venues, recording studios, theatres and rehearsal spaces. They ensure that artists can thrive and play an important role in the vibrancy and identity of local areas. However, a broad range of arts and cultural assets will already be in scope of the protection through community right to buy, provided that communities are able to demonstrate a social or economic value to the community. Indeed, the provisions are clear that the social interests of the community include cultural interests. Statutory guidance will make clear the types of assets that we expect to be listed by local authorities if they are nominated; I welcome the noble Earl’s feedback on its development. This guidance will also be explicit that cultural assets are in scope of the policy, with examples such as the spaces I have already mentioned.

The noble Earl will also be aware that the planning system already offers protection for cultural assets and that there is a range of other government support available for both these assets and the artists who use them. I hope he will agree that, taken together, these measures provide strong support for valued cultural spaces.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

Is the department still looking for feedback on this? It may not be complete yet, so I thought I should ask that question.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Indeed, I would very much welcome the noble Earl’s feedback as we start to develop the statutory guidance on that. He is very welcome to comment further on the issues around this use of cultural assets.

Amendments 223A, 224A, 225, 226 and 228 are on assets that further the environmental well-being of local communities. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Freeman of Steventon—I am sorry that she cannot be here today but I will send a draft of my speech to her—that the community right to buy will empower communities to protect a broad range of assets that are important to local life. That includes environmental assets. Communities will be able to nominate an extensive range of environmental assets, where they further their social or economic well-being, through the current provisions in this Bill. This could include allotments, playing fields, woodlands and farms, to name but a few. Statutory guidance will make clear that local authorities should accept nominations for such assets that meet the criteria.

However, the scheme is not intended to be used as a vehicle for general environmental protection. While excluding land allocated in local development plans will be helpful in preventing the scheme being used to block development activity, it is important that it remains focused on those assets that have an existing or historic role in community life. Environmental problems are best tackled through effective regulation, and this scheme should not act as a fallback or proxy for that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I feel that, once you have left the environment out of the legal safeguards on this particular aspect, you are inviting people to ignore them. I am very concerned about that. I am not just talking about sorting out problems; opportunities for local people could be completely disregarded.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, there is a whole range of safeguards in the planning system for environmental purposes. This asset of community value is there for communities to enable them to protect particular assets that they find of value in the environment. We will be developing the guidance for this and I hope the noble Baroness will take part in that guidance. She asked me earlier today if I will meet her and I am of course very happy to do that.

I turn to Amendments 232A and 232B. I agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiment that as many assets as possible should come into the scope of the policy; however, we have to recognise that there are some types of land that it will not be feasible or justifiable to designate as ACVs, as other interests may take precedence. That includes private residences and operational land used for statutory undertakings such as water, gas and electricity. It is right that the policy prevents the listing of land in these limited circumstances, which is why the Secretary of State has the power to set out land that is not of community value in regulations. We will continue to keep the list of exemptions under review to ensure that it is not unnecessarily restrictive and that communities can protect a wide range of assets.

Amendments 234ZA and 234A seek to broaden the definition of a sporting asset of community value. The current statutory definition of a sports ground in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 explicitly states that the ground must have a spectator facility, so that provides a clear objective framework to help councils assess eligibility for listing as an SACV. There is no comparable alternative legislation that provides a comprehensive or universally applicable statutory definition. Broadening this definition would place a considerable burden on local authorities to identify grounds they consider to be eligible for SACV listing and to retain up-to-date lists of them. Any ambiguity could lead local authorities to being less confident about listing these vital assets.

The current definition of an SACV, which encompasses the majority of grounds that have a spectator facility, will significantly increase the number of assets that communities can take ownership of under the new community right-to-buy scheme. Furthermore, a spectator facility is a sensible and objective indicator of community value. A ground with a built space for spectators is clearly designed for shared organised use and already serves a wider community purpose. Grassroots-level grounds that do not meet the definition under the 1975 Act will still be eligible for listing under the regular ACV scheme.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

If a council decides to designate, say, Hackney Marshes or some other area like that and it is clearly for sporting value, will it then get the same protection even if the council has not initially designated it because it did not have spectator facilities? Will it then get the same protection for life?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a very good question. Because those are sporting facilities, I would imagine that they come under the ACV scheme or the SACV scheme. I feel that they should be because they are all sporting assets but I will check that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to the question. His intention is not to frustrate the purpose of the legislation but to probe an important constitutional question: how powers exercised by the national park authorities will intersect with those newly empowered devolved authorities. National parks occupy a distinctive position within our public framework. As devolution evolves, and as mayoral and combined authorities acquire broader strategic competences, clarity of responsibility becomes ever more important.

We would therefore welcome the Minister’s reassurance on two points. First, how do the Government envisage disputes of competence being resolved where priorities differ between the national park authorities and devolved bodies? Secondly, how will the statutory purposes of national parks be safeguarded within the new governance structures? This is not a question of resi1sting devolution but of ensuring that, in our enthusiasm to devolve, we do not dilute clear lines of accountability or the protection afforded to some of our most precious national landscapes.

This are sensible probing clause stand part Questions, and we are most grateful to my noble friend for raising them today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for opposing Clause 73 and Schedule 30 standing part in order to encourage a debate on the role of national park authorities in the production of spatial development strategies. We have discussed this issue during the passage of both this Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I know it is a matter of great interest to him.

As they are not strategic planning authorities, the legal duty to prepare a spatial development strategy does not apply to national park authorities. That means that they cannot be constituent members of a strategic planning board either. They remain local planning authorities with responsibility for preparing a local plan. Although national park authorities are not formally part of spatial development strategy governance, we still expect them to play an active role in preparing the strategy. This could be as a non-constituent member of a strategic authority or as a co-opted member of a strategic planning board.

Strategic planning authorities will be under a legal duty to consult any local planning authorities within or adjoining the strategic development area and affected by the strategic development strategy, including national park authorities, on their draft spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining a spatial development strategy will want to make sure that any views expressed by consultees have been properly taken into consideration.

During a previous Committee debate, I confirmed that the Government intend to publish guidance to support strategic planning authorities in engaging effectively with national park authorities on their strategic development strategies. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government still intend to publish guidance on this matter alongside other guidance to support the implementation of the new strategic planning system.

To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that guidance will set out how protections are in place for the statutory purposes of national parks, how that can be conveyed as part of the strategic planning process and how park authorities can contribute to the development of strategic plans in that way, and it is the same with the competencies.

With this confirmation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did ask about this: if there is a disagreement between the national park authority and the mayor, who takes precedence?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When it comes to drawing up a strategic development strategy, it will be for the planning inspector—as they would, in the normal way, if there were a dispute between two of the parties engaged in that process—to work through that and determine whose view holds sway in the strategy.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness give me a little more comfort on the timescale for the emergence of this guidance? Without asking her to commit to it, roughly when does she expect it to appear?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will have heard me respond with frustration from the Dispatch Box many times when I cannot give specific dates. Once the Bill has reached Royal Assent, we will aim to make sure that the pieces of guidance that I have referred to throughout the passage of the Bill are dealt with as quickly as possible but, inevitably, there will be consultations to take place. I cannot give him a specific timescale for that. As soon as we have any idea about when that will be, I will let him know.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that answer, as far as it went.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we absolutely understand the intention behind this amendment. Social media clearly brings its challenges, particularly around misinformation, public confidence and data security—all serious matters. However, we do not agree that this is an appropriate statutory duty to place on local authorities.

Councils are already under immense operational and financial pressure. Their focus must be on delivering front-line services: social care, housing, waste collection, planning and public health. Requiring every authority to draft, publish and continually review a bespoke social media strategy, complete with formal risk assessments, would impose additional administrative burdens at a time when capacity is already stretched.

Local authorities should of course act responsibly and lawfully online, as they already must, but mandating a specific statutory strategy in primary legislation is neither necessary nor proportionate. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 241A, which would require local authorities to prepare and publish a social media strategy. When he talked about the values of social media, it reminded me that my local authority has recently introduced food waste recycling. The bin arrived on my doorstep, and I did not know what the system was—I am not the leader of the council any more, strangely, so I did not know it was going to do it. I did not think to open the bin. Inside was a lovely set of bags that you put your food waste in and a little bag you put on your worktop. I managed to get all that from the website before I actually opened the bin and found all the relevant information. As we know, not all social media is as helpful as that.

Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment is well intentioned, we believe it is unnecessary, given the existing legislative requirements that all local authorities must have regard to when using social media. All local authorities are already required by legislation to consider the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity in coming to any decision on publicity, which is defined as

“any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public”.

That definition clearly includes any communications posted on social media. Given that the proposed amendment would, in effect, replicate aspects of the publicity code, to which every local authority must already have regard, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments on my amendment. Although I do not agree fully with them all, I welcome the recognition of the importance of social media for local government and the importance of getting it right. Reflecting the views that I have heard in this debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which concern the proposed local audit office. Having read the statement of intent and the consultation on local audit reform, we recognise that the Government have identified three systematic challenges. Two are particularly pertinent. First, on capacity, there is a severe shortage of auditors and too few firms in the market. Secondly, on complexity, financial reporting and audit requirements are overly complex and difficult to deliver on time. They are modelled largely on corporate auditing, rather than tailored to local public bodies. That encourages risk aversion and delay.

We do not dispute that there are real problems, but we want clarity over the proposed solutions in this Bill and in the transition plan published last November. Our opposition to Clause 74 standing part is not an attempt to frustrate reform; it is a probing step to understand the necessity and design of the proposed local audit office. What specific problem does a new statutory body solve that reform of the existing framework could not?

Regarding capacity, how does establishing a local audit office increase the number of qualified auditors in the system? Will it expand the training pipeline and make local audit more financially viable or attract firms that have previously exited the market? The Bill provides that the office will determine audit fees, while audit firms must nominate a lead partner for each audit. On what basis will the fees be set, and will local authorities and firms have any input at all? If fees remain inadequate, capacity constraints may persist.

There is also the question of delivery. If public provision is intended to sit alongside private provision, what scale of direct audit activity is envisaged for the new body? If it begins conducting audits itself, what impact would this have on competition and the long-term health of the market?

We are also told that the local audit office will reduce the audit backlog and strengthen relationships between local bodies and their auditors. Will this be achieved through simplification of reporting requirements, reform of risk and liability expectations and the adjustment of fee structures, or simply through centralised oversight? We need solutions to underline market weaknesses, not just structural governance reform.

The proposed local audit office will have regulatory functions, including maintaining a register of firms qualified to conduct local audits. Amendment 244 probes why a register is proposed while the office is also able to designate another organisation as an external registration body responsible for holding such a register. How many more bodies do we need in this landscape? At the same time, it may have operational functions. How will a clear separation between those regulating and operational roles be maintained? What safeguards will prevent conflicts of interest if both bodies regulate and potentially participate in the market?

That concern lies behind Amendment 246, which is explicitly a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify why the local audit office should be given the powers to acquire interest in audit firms or to provide assistance to them. What is the rationale for allowing the regulator to act as a market participant? Under what circumstances would it exercise those powers? Would it provide financial support to prevent market exit? What principles would guide such decisions?

Amendment 247 seeks assurance that the local audit office undertakes local authority audits itself and that its works will be subject to the same standard, scrutiny and independent oversight as private firms. Therefore, will the local audit office be subject to equivalent inspections and ethical standards when acting as an auditor? We would quite like a yes or no on that point.

Finally, Amendment 248 probes how rotations of key audit partners will work in practice and how independence will be safeguarded. If the local audit office undertakes audits directly, what arrangements will ensure appropriate rotation of the individuals acting as the key audit partner? What rotation period is envisaged? What process will govern handover and continuity? What safeguards will be put in place to prevent overfamiliarity and to protect professional scepticism? Just as importantly, where will these requirements sit? Will they be set out in the legislation, in regulation or through reference to an external ethical or professional standard? If an existing framework will apply, which one, and how will compliance be ensured in practice? The principle of rotation matters for independence but requirements that are too rigid risk worsening capacity in an already stretched system. How will the Government therefore balance independence with operational resilience?

These are not wrecking amendments. They are intended to provide clarity to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking to them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I will start with the clause stand part notice for Clause 74 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which questions why a local audit office is required at all. The local audit office is critical to overhauling the local audit system. The Kingman review, Redmond review and Public Accounts Committee all recommended a new independent oversight organisation to simplify the system and drive change. The current model of dispersed functions across different organisations has not delivered for the system, local bodies, taxpayers or government. As someone who was involved for many years with the LGA resources board and as a spokesperson for finance in Hertfordshire County Council, I felt sometimes as though I were watching this audit problem occurring like a car crash happening in slow motion—you could see it coming along.

While audit can seem like the dry and dusty aspect of local government, it is of course, as both noble Baronesses have said, absolutely vital to ensuring that members, officers and the public can have confidence in their local authority’s financial systems. That is why when we came into government I was so determined that we would fix this. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has set out some of the reasons why this is even more vital and urgent now, as we enter the new era of devolution. The local audit office will play a crucial role in ensuring that the reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers.

The missing data and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of government accounts for the past two years, providing no assurance to Parliament and a general loss of public accountability and trust. That is just not acceptable and we cannot carry on like that. Significant steps already taken by this Government mean that the backlog has been cleared and assurance is being built back. However, without the establishment of the local audit office and our wider reforms to tackle the root causes, the situation could recur.

To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I will come to some of her other questions as we go through, but the local audit office will support and enable our wider audit strategy, which tackles capacity and capability issues among auditors and account preparers, as well as overly complex financial reporting and audit requirements. Without the establishment of this office and the wider reforms to tackle the root causes of these problems, we could end up back where we were a couple of years ago. The local audit office will be pivotal in rebuilding that transparency, accountability and public trust in local government and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred.

Amendment 243 would give the local audit office an additional function to investigate risk management issues identified by audit committees within local authorities. These committees play a vital role across all local authorities. That is precisely why this Bill requires every local authority to establish an audit committee and ensure that it includes at least one independent member to provide robust scrutiny.

If audit committees identify risk management issues within a body, they should ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address them effectively, escalating serious issues to full council where necessary. The statutory guidance for audit committees that this Bill will enable is the appropriate mechanism to consider such issues. While the local audit office will have an important role in overseeing the local audit system, the statutory audit committee framework will remain with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of local government and, crucially, is directly accountable to Parliament. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate for the local audit office to have statutory responsibility for investigating risk management issues identified by audit committees.

Amendment 244 seeks to remove the statutory requirement for a register of local auditors to be held. The local audit register is a proven and effective regulatory mechanism for audit providers that has been in place since the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Currently, the register is held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, overseen in this role by the Financial Reporting Council. Audit providers that join the register agree to its rules and fund its regulatory activity through their fees. In the short to medium term, we expect the local audit office to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms.

New Section 6A replicates that arrangement for the new system, with two changes. First, the register-holding body will be overseen by the local audit office, not the Financial Reporting Council, meaning that the local audit office will have the final say on enforcement where serious quality or professional conduct issues occur. Secondly, there is provision for the local audit office to hold a register itself, and regulate audit providers directly, in case this becomes a more suitable mechanism at a later stage. In the unlikely event that a register-holding body became unwilling or unable to continue in its function, this provision would also enable the LAO to step in at pace to maintain regulation. This arrangement strikes a sensible balance between independent regulation of private firms and the local audit office providing oversight and taking the final enforcement decision in the rare cases where serious infringements of quality or professional conduct occur.

Amendment 245 would remove the provision enabling the body responsible for maintaining the register of authorised local audit providers to charge a fee to applicants and registrants. The register will be both a statutory requirement and a critical regulatory mechanism, supported through a range of activities that need to be properly funded. It is right that the cost of maintaining the register should be borne by those applying and registered to receive public funding for undertaking local audit work, not through the public purse. It is also unreasonable to expect an external body to assume responsibility for the registration and regulation of the local audit market without a clear mandate to charge for the range of activities required to do so. While it would be possible for the local audit office to rely on more generic fee-charging provisions elsewhere in the Bill, it is more suitable for the register to be set up and maintained by an external registration body. Registration costs covered through fees is current practice, and continuing this is the most appropriate approach, at least in the short to medium term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I have taken a scythe to my speech, so it might come out a bit disjointed. The short version should be directed to noble Lords at the other end of the table: I understand their position because turkeys do not vote for Christmas. It depends on which lens you look at this through.

So it is no surprise that I rise to oppose the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34. They are the mechanism by which the Bill ends upward-only rent reviews for new and renewed commercial releases. Removing them would preserve the system that has been quietly hollowing out our high streets and small businesses for years. The noble Lord talked about evidence and there is plenty of evidence to show that. The real-world effect of upward-only rents is very simple: when trade is good, rents go up, and when trade is bad, rents go up. Rents do not come down. That might look neat in a contract but, on the ground, it has meant businesses paying yesterday’s rents in today’s economy.

We have all seen what that looks like: a shop where footfall has dropped, but the rent is still set at pre-pandemic levels and is going up; a café that has survived lockdowns, energy shocks and staff shortages, only to be hit by a rent review that moves in one direction regardless of takings; or a small local business doing everything right but that is forced out because the lease allows rents to rise but never to reflect reality. I confess to my hairdresser being exactly in that position: after 40 years of work in Watford, she is no more. “The rent rise”, she said, “was the final straw”. This is real.

Clause 85 matters because it allows rents to move down as well as up, so that they can reflect what is actually happening on a street, in a town centre or in a local economy. Markets work both ways and leases should be able to do the same. If we remove Clause 85, we are not defending the market; we are defending a one-way ratchet that has already failed our high streets.

I will blot out a big paragraph here. That does not mean that we should ignore the risks. Markets will adapt and some landlords may try to push the risks elsewhere through higher initial rents or shorter leases. This is why scrutiny, monitoring and review matter, but they are arguments for refining Clause 85, if necessary, not for removing it altogether. Perhaps the Government might consider this on Report.

Likewise, a small caveat: this is a broad reform applying across all commercial sectors, not just retail and hospitality, where the effects and problems are most visible. I would be interested to know what work has been done to understand the impact of this change on commercial property investment, particularly in struggling town centres and regeneration areas. How do the Government justify the big-bang breadth of this measure? Have they considered whether a more targeted approach might have achieved the same aims over time?

If we are confident that this is the right direction—we believe it is—we also have to be confident enough to measure its effects. Therefore, we have some sympathy with Amendment 254 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but we feel that 12 months would not be enough time to measure the true effects of this significant change.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 267 seeks to reflect the change for the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority in the Long Title of the Bill. Similarly, Amendment 265 seeks to make the drafting of the Bill more consistent. These are minor but sensible amendments for which we are grateful.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Norton and Lord Wallace, for their amendments in this group.

Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, does not specify how the objectives of the Bill are to be identified and, as such, it is not clear from the amendment what the Government would be required to report on. The Government already produce the annual report on English devolution, which covers many of the key elements of this Bill, including the establishment of new strategic authorities, and the functions and funding devolved to strategic authorities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 256, and I appreciate his desire to see primary legislation which passes through both Houses commenced following Royal Assent. I commend his desire to tidy up the statute book—I am a bit of a tidy-upper myself, so I appreciate that. However, it is my view that the Government should not prioritise parliamentary time and resource for the repeal of uncommenced provisions in existing Acts which have no impact on the effective running of local government.

Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that legislation which passes through both Houses is then commenced after Royal Assent, this amendment would not be appropriate and risks unintended consequences. Most provisions in the Bill will be commenced either at the point of Royal Assent or two months after it. However, some provisions will need to be commenced by Ministers after Royal Assent using commencement regulations, and some of these provisions will require secondary legislation or guidance to be published before the provisions can come into effect.

The automatic commencement of all provisions in the Bill risks unintended consequences, especially if powers are devolved to strategic authorities and communities without the necessary guardrails in place. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set an arbitrary date at which all provisions need to have been commenced. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are fully committed to delivering on all the reforms in this Bill, so I ask that he does not move his amendment.

Amendments 257, 258 and 259 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Taken together, they would introduce definitions of the terms “community”, “local” and “neighbourhood” into Clause 86. The Bill already provides definitions where they are needed to interpret provisions effectively. Through regulations, we will define what a neighbourhood area is and set out the criteria for these arrangements. However, we recognise that there are differences between places and communities across England and we want to ensure that regulations include an element of local choice. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord not to move these amendments.

Turning to the government amendments, Amendments 261 and 262 remove the subsections on the publication of councillors’ addresses and the extension of the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority from Clause 92(4), which would commence them upon Royal Assent, and insert them into Clause 92(6), so they will commence two months after Royal Assent, as was the original intention for these measures.

Amendments 265 and 267 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 265 changes a reference from “regulations” to “secondary legislation” to ensure that order-making powers are also covered by the commencement provision and to be consistent with references elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 267 changes the Long Title of the Bill to replace reference to “local councils” with “local authorities”. This reflects the Bill’s application to authorities other than just “local councils” following an amendment made in the other place to extend the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority. I am sure that will be a great comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect.

I will move the government amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in Committee. We have had some great discussions, and I have really appreciated the contributions that have been made.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but extraordinarily worrying. It suggests that the Government do not know what they are committed to. All I am seeking is to put in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do anyway. By the sound of it, the Minister is reflecting a view that does not fully understand what the Government have themselves agreed to do. It sounds as if departments are acting in silos, because the response today is very different from the response of the Minister in Tuesday’s debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was very constructive and welcome. I was simply replicating more or less the provision that the Government accepted to that other Bill. As I say, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but very worrying in what it conveys. It reflects very badly on the department and is therefore something I shall most certainly come back to.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have to take issue with what the noble Lord is saying. I pointed out quite clearly that we already produce an annual report on devolution. Most of this Bill relates to the provisions that we are putting in place for the devolution agenda, so they will be covered in the annual report on devolution. It is not that the department thinks that we do not need to report on what is being done; it is that we already have a provision to report on an annual basis on the devolution agenda.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, there is a difference between reporting what is happening and actually reviewing an Act in its totality and—as my noble friend mentioned when we started this Bill, and as she referred to today—identifying what it is designed to achieve, its objectives, and therefore something against which it can be measured. That is why I think it is so important, and certainly something to which we will return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

261: Clause 92, page 87, line 19, leave out paragraphs (z2) and (z3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment of clause 92(6) which would provide for sections 62 and 73 and Schedule 30 to come into force two months after royal assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

262: Clause 92, page 88, line 21, at end insert—
“(z1) section 62 (publication of addresses of members etc in authority registers);(z2) section 73 (and Schedule 30) (extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for sections 62 and 73 and Schedule 30 to come into force two months after royal assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

265: Clause 92, page 88, line 26, leave out “regulations” and insert “secondary legislation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make subsection (8) consistent with subsection (1)(c) (so that they both refer to the wider concept of “secondary legislation”).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

267: Title, line 2, leave out “councils” and insert “authorities”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would change the long title of the Bill to refer to “local authorities” instead of “local councils”. This would reflect the inclusion of clause 73 and Schedule 30 in the House of Commons (which relate to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority).

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interests as a peer mentor adviser for the Local Government Association and Thurrock Council.

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

My Lords, local government reorganisation is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower their communities. We are working with 204 councils across 21 areas. We have already announced two new councils for Surrey, with elections expected there this May. We anticipate decisions on a further six areas later in March, following the closure of consultation on 11 January. For the remaining areas, the Government are on track and committed to the indicative timetable published last July. Decisions on which proposals to implement, if any, will be announced before the start of the Summer Recess 2026; elections to new councils will follow in May 2027, with the go-live date will be April 2028.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. One part of the country that is not included in the current plans for local government reorganisation is London, despite it now being nearly 30 years since the current model of London governance was introduced. Given that the London model is idiosyncratic in comparison with other combined authority models, does my noble friend share my belief that a review of London’s governance is long overdue? If she does, can she tell me when the Government might undertake such a review?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Noble Lords will be aware that the Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor’s work. This model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government hope to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities, and we hope to build on these where possible.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, in a county such as Surrey, where the new arrangements are to come into play shortly, we also seem to be getting parish councils. Why are the Government replacing a two-tier system of local government with a two-tier system of local government?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

A large number of areas in the country already have town and parish councils, although I accept that some do not. But town and parish councils are not in scope for local government reorganisation; they will continue to operate as they do now. Central government has no role in funding town and parish councils, but local government reorganisation should facilitate better and sustained community engagement. We need a clear and accountable system of local area working in governance. Local authorities may wish to collaborate with their town and parish councils to determine how they can most effectively contribute to the delivery of services in future arrangements. Those arrangements for town and parish councils are well established and work well at that very micro local level. So it is not the Government’s intention to do anything with town and parish councils at the moment.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, in recent years there has been a growing concern about the failure of front-line range of local services to collaborate effectively with each other to exchange vital information. Will the Minister ensure that, during this transition period in local government, every effort will be made not only to preserve collaborative working at local level but to build on it, so we can continue to learn from the failures of the past?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Collaboration is clearly a very important part of local government, but it is not helped by the confusion between the tiers of local government and over who does what at which tier. For the 20 million people who currently live in two-tier areas, where services are split across county and district councils, which can lead to fragmented public services, this reorganisation will help to drive that collaboration across areas and bring services together into one local authority, so that everybody knows which council to talk to when they have a problem with their service.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, local councils are huge employers, so will my noble friend the Minister use the opportunity of these reorganisation discussions to emphasise the part that local authorities can play in training and apprenticeships, both in-house and through their procurement practices?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. As we go through the reorganisation process, it is important that we continue to pay tribute to the local government staff who are driving this forward, and that we continue to keep a focus on what local government has to offer in terms of employment. One thing that really surprised me when I first became a local councillor was the huge range of employment in local government. We must strive to make sure that students and others know about that, and that we continue to protect the wide range of apprenticeships and training opportunities that local government provides.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I was surprised that the noble Baroness did not give a more positive response to her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, because he knows that there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. It takes just 3,108 electors to elect a London councillor, but in other parts of the country it takes over 10,000. That is an unacceptable dilution of democracy. What plans do the Government have, when they make their announcement by the end of March, to ensure that there is broad electoral equality across all the councils in England so that, directionally, people’s electoral votes are equal?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Proposals have come from all areas, which have put their own proposals forward; they have worked on them locally. In the areas that we are considering, we have a number of different proposals, but they have focused absolutely on making sure that there is proper representation for people in the new councils. That is very much part of the consideration as we make the decisions on these new areas, and we look at that as carefully as we look at all the other evidence that has been submitted in those proposals.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, what have the Government done to engage local populations and groups in communities to ensure that local people have the chance to feed in to the plans for the new arrangements and engage more fully in voting, thereby lifting the voting figures?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I very much agree with what the noble Baroness says about encouraging people to get engaged with local elections and with their local authorities. We take local people’s views very seriously. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment are both part of our criteria for judging the proposals on new councils, and new councils, like current councils, must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for people to shape the neighbourhoods where they live, because people generally judge their well-being by what they see when they walk out of their front door. We are determined that communities should have their say in the future of public services, so we have gone through an extensive consultation process and we have made sure that, as we judge the proposals put forward, the authorities putting forward those proposals have done that as well.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2015, the previous Government abolished the pension for local councillors— I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, was responsible for that. Do the Government have any plan to reintroduce the pension for councillors?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am delighted to tell my noble friend that the Government are bringing back pensions for local councillors. It is very important that they do that; local councillors provide outstanding service for their communities and many of them have to give up considerable aspects of their working life to do so. I am delighted that this Government see the value of that and have brought back pensions for councillors.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the estimated outcomes of the local government reorganisation are very unclear, so could the Minister clarify how much money overall that reorganisation is going to save taxpayers? What are the geographic boundaries of the new unitary authorities? If she cannot answer today, will she please tell us when she can?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government’s ambition with local government reorganisation is to simplify local government, ending the two-tier system and establishing new, single-tier unitary authorities. Over and again, I have said at this Dispatch Box and in committee on the Bill that we are working on that strong local government will help to growth the economy and drive up living standards. Having one council in charge of each area, making sure that decisions can be taken quickly, will speed up housebuilding, get infrastructure projects moving, attract new investment and help us reform local public services effectively.

On the costs and benefits, each proposal has come forward with its own costs and benefits, and that information will be available when decisions are made on those proposals.

Ballot Secrecy Act: Breaches

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to discuss alleged breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 in relation to the Gorton and Denton parliamentary by-election with (1) Manchester City Council, and (2) the Greater Manchester Police.

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

My Lords, I understand that the allegations have been reported to Greater Manchester Police, which is considering the matter. The Electoral Commission is in close contact with Greater Manchester Police and the returning officer. If coercion at the polling stations had occurred, it would have been a breach of the law under the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. It is essential that electors can cast their vote in secret and without the risk of coercion. Your vote should be yours alone. If anyone believes they have witnessed family voting occurring at this by-election or at any time, they should contact the police.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister. She will know that the previous Government introduced a power in the Elections Act 2022 for the Electoral Commission to draw up a strategy and policy document containing measures to tackle electoral fraud and corrupt and illegal practices, including family voting. However, Ministers have now U-turned on this by indicating that they will repeal the legislation and dump their own 2025 elections strategy. Given the substantial concerns after Gorton and Denton, why are the Government removing safeguards introduced because of the endemic fraud in Tower Hamlets, deleting guidance for local authorities on how to stop family voting and introducing secret election pilots for their own partisan advantage? Are the Government going soft on electoral fraud, or is it worse than that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I fundamentally dispute the tenor of the noble Lord’s question. The Representation of the People Bill, which we will discuss thoroughly in this House, had its Second Reading in the Commons on Monday. The point about the Electoral Commission is that it will set its own strategy, which is a step towards, not away from, democracy. On the voter pilots, it is very important to note that Governments of all political persuasions have had voter pilots to see how we better encourage people to vote. We are seeing increasingly low turnouts, particularly in local elections, as well as in general elections and by-elections. The pilots are intended to see whether we can better tailor voting to people’s lifestyles now. We will examine the results of those very closely and make sure that all the people who vote in those pilot areas are as well protected under electoral law as people using more traditional voting methods.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, family voting, as it is now called, is not an entirely new phenomenon. When I first started out as a candidate, a very long time ago, it was most common in working-class communities; it is now rather more common in communities of south Asian origin. There should have been sufficient staff and police to observe whether the report by Democracy Volunteers—that there was an unusually high incidence of family voting in this by-election—was correct. Was there a problem with staffing? Are the Government ensuring that adequate staffing and policing of polling stations is being maintained?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is an offence to accompany a voter into the polling booth with the intention of influencing how they vote. That was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, as part of the Ballot Secrecy Act, and it put that matter beyond doubt. Elections are run by independent returning officers, who will take account of guidance from the Electoral Commission. The commission’s polling station handbook provides guidance for polling station staff on this matter. It is for returning officers to ensure that their polling stations are staffed. In all the areas I have ever been involved with, returning officers have taken this role incredibly seriously, and they make sure that their staff are well trained and kept up to date on election law. On the police, in my own area I have always found the police very co-operative and supportive of what returning officers and their staff do. We will continue to work to make sure that polling station staff are aware of the rules and confident in challenging individuals, and we will continue to work with the commission and Crimestoppers on the annual Your Vote is Yours Alone campaign to raise awareness of these issues.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, if there were these alleged breaches of electoral laws in the Gorton and Denton by-election, any investigation would obviously be supported by the Green Party. However, it is quite interesting that, in view of the size of the victory of the Green Party over the Reform Party, I am assured by psephologists that there is absolutely no case to be answered that the result could be changed by these alleged breaches of electoral law. Is that the Government’s advice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We do not want to see breaches of electoral law at any time, whatever the outcome of the election. It is very important that voters going to cast their vote can have complete confidence in the system that is operating, whether it influences the outcome of the election or not. It is also very important that we all want to see, both in practice and in the policy that sits behind it, that elections are safe and secure and that people can cast their vote knowing that the elections are above board and legal.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for identifying my involvement in the passage of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, but may I say that it was passed with all-party support throughout this House and the other Chamber? That was very important. In relation to family voting, it should be recognised that Democracy Volunteers identified that this was a national problem at the last general election. It was identified in places such as Stirling and Strathallan, Ceredigion Preseli, and Camborne and Redruth, so it is not new and it is not concentrated solely in certain places. The Minister will be aware, as I am, that urgent discussions have been taking place with the police, the returning officers, the Electoral Commission and Democracy Volunteers. Is this not the opportunity to urge all concerned to concentrate their minds so that we get it right on 7 May?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the work he did on the Bill in 2023. Of course, it is completely right that it should receive cross-party support; none of us wants to see corruption or any kind of illegal activity around our democratic processes. He makes a very valid point about the local elections taking place on 7 May. I know that the Electoral Commission will want to work with Greater Manchester Police to make sure that any lessons that can be learned from that by-election can be carried forward as quickly as possible so that we get any additional steps we need in place before the elections on 7 May and for all future elections.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to explain the status of Commonwealth citizens who are not dual nationals but merely resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of voting? Do any residency lengths of term apply to them before they qualify and does the Electoral Commission have any idea of how many there are in the UK who may qualify?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our close historic ties with Commonwealth countries, and the Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights. I cannot give an answer on numbers right now but I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have announced voting pilots, as we have heard, in a number of local authorities for the May 2026 local elections, which, apart from other things, will allow electors to vote at polling hubs up to seven days prior to actual polling day. How will the Government ensure that the security and the safety of the ballot box—which is so important to us all—will continue in these hubs? In particular, what about the chances of duplication of votes in that system?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are looking to test several ways of making in-person voting more efficient, more convenient and better aligned with the expectations of today’s electors. Two types of flexible voting will be piloted during the local elections in May. The first is centralised voting hubs, as the noble Baroness indicated, where any elector in the authority can cast their vote on polling day. The second is to offer advance in-person voting at designated hubs in the days leading up to polling day, potentially including weekend access. That said, there is no diminution, in either of those processes, of the security arrangements around voting. They will have trained polling staff, people will have to show their ID when they vote, and we expect those pilots to be as secure as voting in the traditional way.