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.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 January be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March. Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Motion agreed.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 14 January 2026. If approved in the House and in the other place, it will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council for two unitary councils, east Surrey council and west Surrey council, covering the entirety of the county of Surrey.

This proposal, alongside a three unitary option, was taken to consultation after councils in Surrey responded to the invitation to submit proposals issued on 5 February. On 28 October 2025, Minister McGovern announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two unitaries proposal. In reaching this decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable.

Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services that its residents rely on, as well as investing in their futures. To deliver new unitary councils, the order requires May 2026 elections for the new councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. Establishing these new unitary authorities will help with our vision: stronger councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers to improve public services and help grow local economies.

Before I outline the content of the draft order, I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords two related issues: the level of unsupported debt in Woking and devolution for Surrey. On Woking’s debt, the Government recognise that Woking Borough Council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt, and value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are also committed to providing the new unitary authority with interim financial support, for example, capitalisation support, until this process is complete.

On devolution for Surrey, on 12 February we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority. This will ensure that relevant functions held at county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint, where possible. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests and local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography.

I turn to the content of the order. It provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking are abolished. The councils of those districts and the county will be wound up and dissolved.

In their place, their functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities—east Surrey council and west Surrey council. This order places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other and the shadow authorities. It also places a duty on existing councils to create joint committees for east Surrey and west Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities. I take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved for their continued hard work and collaboration on local government reorganisation in Surrey.

In conclusion, through this order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.

There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.

Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?

I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?

The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?

Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.

We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.

More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?

This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?

Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.

We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.

Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.

As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.

The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No, I did not say that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.

On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.

On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.

This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.

Motion agreed.

New Housing: Flood Risk

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to mitigate the risks arising from new housing being built in areas of medium or high flood risk.

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

My Lords, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that inappropriate development in flood risk areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. If necessary in such areas, development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The framework also requires any development which could have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are consulting on a clearer, more rules-based framework, including a dedicated chapter on flood risk.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The framework may suggest that, but reliable figures from the insurer Aviva reveal a trend of more and more new homes being built in medium and high flood risk areas, up from 8% 10 years ago to 11% last year, and potentially rising to 15% of new homes by 2050. In addition, of course, the Flood Re insurance scheme does not apply to houses built after 2009 and is due to end in 2039. Will the Government publish their own figures on this worrying trend, and what will they do to ensure progress towards reducing housing construction in flood risk areas?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications comply with Environment Agency advice, so we are making progress with this. I accept his point that it is very important, as we continue to work towards our target of 1.5 million new homes in this country—desperately needed because of the housing crisis—that we continue to push forward with the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines that homes should not be built in flood risk areas. The sequential test still applies to new-build homes and the planning applications for them, as does securing high-quality sustainable drainage systems to support flood risk management. It is impossible to push forward with this without sometimes using areas that might be at risk of flooding. The important thing is that the mitigation is put in place properly when that happens.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given that flood risk and housing demand are only going to increase, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to allow flooding and housing to coexist? Are they considering the urban planning model of sponge cities, using nature-based solutions such as permeable pavements, planted roofs and urban wetlands to absorb, store, purify and reuse rainwater to mitigate both flooding and drought?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I had heard about that very interesting concept. We need to make sure that all steps to mitigate flood risk are taken, even in areas that are not subject to traditional flood risk. The increase of surface floodwater is an issue and we need to make sure that, where possible, permeable surfaces are laid down. It is very helpful that both the building guidelines and the National Planning Policy Framework direct as much attention as possible to make sure that applications mitigate the flood risk when they come forward and that buildings are built with that mitigation built in.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s White Paper A New Vision for Water gives a case study on page 40 of how a housing development was stalled on a habitat site with protected species. The Government’s water delivery taskforce was able to unblock it, resulting in 4,000 houses being built. Unblocking challenges could result in additional flooding, endanger protected species and ultimately result in new home owners being refused access to Flood Re, which has only 15 years left to run. How will the Minister ensure that this does not happen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question that we cannot protect the biodiversity arrangements at the same time as dealing with flood risk. Defra established the water delivery taskforce to make sure that water companies delivered on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into this and, in partnership with water companies, investors and communities, we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the whole system. That will make it fit for decades, leading to clean rivers, stronger regulations and greater investment. We are focusing on both the provision of good water supplies as we build the homes that we need and protecting biodiversity. These things go hand in hand; they are not mutually exclusive.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not want to get into the water reform Bill too much—it is a terrible Bill and the Government ought to withdraw it—but on this issue of flood risk, the fact is that houses are still being built on places that risk flooding. Some of the solutions are much wider than just putting a few ditches around the housing project. We must think very big when considering floods, because we have to look uphill and downhill. At the moment, I feel that some of the measures are very limited in scope. Do the Government agree?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not agree with the noble Baroness. Some amazing work has been done by the development industry to tackle and mitigate the risk of flooding. I have been to visit sites with very attractive-looking sustainable drainage systems; they not only deal with the issue of surface water and floodwater but provide fantastic environmental features for those estates. That encourages people to get involved and—to speak to the previous questioner’s point—encourages biodiversity, as well as tackling the flooding issues. Developers are doing that. We need to make sure that we share the work of those providing the best practice in this area and that everybody is working to enhance that best practice.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time is right for a review of the Flood Re programme? As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it does not apply to buildings which were built after 1 January 2009; it also does not apply to blocks of flats that have more than three dwelling units within them or to buildings that have any elements of small or micro-commercial businesses within them. These are all things for which it would be very helpful to have the availability of the Flood Re insurance, which is a very good programme. Is it time now for this to be looked at very hard?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that Flood Re has provided cover for 346,000 household policies and 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, so I agree with the noble Earl that it has been a very valuable scheme. We know that all homes built since 2009 are excluded from Flood Re, as that would be inconsistent with current policy. With the planning policy, we are trying to make it clear that inappropriate development in flood plains should be avoided and, where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it should be made flood resistant, resilient and safe for the lifetime of the development.

Build Back Better is the UK home insurance sector initiative, which I am sure the noble Earl is aware of, and is designed to help home owners recover from flooding in a smarter way. It enables eligible policyholders to access £10,000 to install flood measures during repairs over and above the usual cost. We are looking at supporting those who have been at risk of flooding and, through the National Planning Policy Framework, making sure that we absolutely reduce that risk to a minimum.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, flood risk management is a complex issue that requires co-operation and collaboration between developers, local authorities, insurers and home owners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that institutional knowledge and specialist risk management expertise is not lost during local government reorganisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that my colleagues in local government, who address these issues every day through the planning system, as the noble Lord will be well aware, are more than alert to this issue. When the new authorities are set up, they will have more resilience in their planning functions because there will be fewer of them and they will be able to focus on planning issues using the capacity funding that the Government have put into planning. As importantly, there will be a strategic level enabling planning across a combined authority area, which will make sure that issues of flood risk are taken into account right from the strategic level to the local plan. We are developing our new National Planning Policy Framework and making sure that it supports local authorities to do just that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the sequential test. She will be aware that that was overturned recently in the case of Gladman in the High Court. Will her department respond to that case and ensure that the sequential test is met in every case?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That High Court judgment has been raised in recent debates on the English devolution Bill. I cannot comment on specific cases, but the case does not disapply the strong protections in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to development in areas of potential flood risk. The sequential test is a procedural step to assess relative degrees of risk and is used to steer development to areas of lower risk where possible. However, where development is necessary in such areas, the framework is clear that it should proceed only if made safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, which is the other danger. I reassure the noble Baroness that the sequential test remains firmly in place as part of the planning process.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions and comments on the Statement. Your Lordships have now heard in full the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, and the House has raised a number of thoughtful and serious points about process, legality and democratic principle, which I appreciate.

I wish now to draw together the key arguments and restate clearly why the Government acted as we did, in answer to the questions that I have been asked, and why we have now changed course. First, as noble Lords will know, this sits in a much wider programme of reform. The Government are determined to fix local government through a fairer funding settlement based on need, through devolving power out of Whitehall and into the hands of local leaders and through reorganisation designed to deliver stronger, more sustainable unitary authorities and better services for residents.

It was in that context that the original decision was taken, and the Government were guided by two clear principles. First, the postponement of elections should occur only in exceptional circumstances. I repeated a number of times in this House that it would be only in exceptional circumstances and only where there is compelling evidence-based justification. Secondly, as a Government committed to devolution, we should be guided by local leaders themselves. Following extensive engagement with councils in the areas concerned, a number from across the political spectrum expressed serious anxiety about their capacity to run elections while simultaneously undertaking structural change. They warned of duplication, uncertainty, additional cost and the risk of impeding the reorganisation process at a critical phase.

On the basis of those representations and on the legal advice then available, the Secretary of State concluded that statutory tests were met in 30 cases. An order was therefore brought forward using powers provided by Parliament that had been exercised by previous Governments in comparable reorganisation contexts. However, as is entirely proper, the legal position was kept under review and further legal advice was subsequently received. At that point, the responsible course was clear and the proposal was withdrawn.

After reconsideration, the conclusion was that elections in the affected areas should proceed as scheduled in May 2026. A further instrument has been laid to give effect to that decision. I recognise, as the noble Lords have said, and as our friends in the other place said, that this has been a significant change for councils, and it will of course mean some additional pressures for them in making sure they are ready for elections. That is precisely why the Government acted swiftly once the new advice was received so that clarity could be provided as early as possible. We are working very closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and sector bodies to ensure that elections are delivered safely and effectively.

Local authorities have a strong track record of administering polls within compressed timeframes—as I know only too well from my experience—including snap general elections and by-elections, and we are confident in their ability to do so again. At the same time, our focus remains firmly on supporting reorganisation itself. Last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in additional capacity funding—to answer the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—building on the £7.6 million previously provided to develop proposals. That is substantial support, and no previous Government have provided dedicated capacity funding for reorganisation on this scale. This funding is there to help councils manage both the transition and service delivery sustainably. We will continue working hand in hand with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to progress toward unitarisation. As has been made clear, subject to Parliament, for Surrey there will be elections to the new unitary councils as planned this year.

Noble Lords also raised the question of ministerial powers over the timing of local elections, and both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me a specific question about the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. As the Secretary of State set out in his Statement, our Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the statutory framework, and the Government are reflecting seriously on the amendments tabled and the concerns expressed by noble Lords. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, we will do that as quickly as possible. Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state; they shape whether communities feel they are thriving or falling behind. The public are entitled to expect better local services, and rightly so.

When we received the legal advice, the Government acted swiftly. I do not pretend that this has been easy for the councils concerned—I spoke to many of them—and nor do I dismiss the disappointment that has been expressed, but responsible government requires that when the legal position changes, we respond accordingly. Elections will go ahead in May 2026. Reorganisation will continue, and we will proceed in a way that upholds both democratic accountability and the long-term sustainability of local government. I hope I have picked up the noble Lord’s questions as I have gone through.

On the election pilots, as far as I know, only one council has pulled out of the pilot, but for a reason that has nothing to do with reorganisation and is a specific local issue. If that is not correct, I will respond to the noble Baroness in writing.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about last May’s election, there are legal powers to cancel elections. Each situation is taken on its merit. I do not have any detail, and I could not give legal detail because this year’s is privileged information, so I do not know what the difference is.

On prejudging the outcome in a Times article, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, that the Secretary of State, other Ministers and I received many representations from councils about the possibility of cancelling elections, so it may be that the Secretary of State was reflecting on that rather than prejudging the extensive consultation that we carried out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the powers. They come out of Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. In its present form, those powers have existed for more than 25 years. Custom and practice and advice have been consistent throughout, so what was this new legal advice to suggest that this blanket postponement, and particularly the double postponement, would have been possible? Why did the Secretary of State not pay some attention to the Electoral Commission and question this advice? It has taken a junior Minister only a little bit of time to look at the advice and come to the conclusion that most people in that office would have come to, which is that this was not right. Am I being unfair to the Government in agreeing with Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, when he said that the Government are

“reckless … to play fast and loose with the foundations of democracy”?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have the greatest respect for Jonathan Carr-West and have worked with him on many occasions, but he has not seen the legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as the right honourable Gentleman James Cleverly said at the other end—I could quote him if I had the quote in front of me—that the Government do not comment on or publish legal advice.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the concerns expressed to me by colleagues in local government has been about the cost of preparing submissions and scoping work for local government reorganisation. My noble friend talked about the £63 million of additional funding that will go to local government to support it going forward. Can she give reassurance to those in local government that the £63 million will meet the costs that they are going to incur? As I say, some of the concerns expressed to me have been that previous government tranches of money have not met all the costs incurred.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can reassure my noble friend that an unprecedented amount of funding has been provided to support the capacity that local councils will need to help them as they go through this transition process. It is important that we have also been working closely with those councils. I have done much of the engagement myself, and Minister McGovern has done an awful lot of engagement with councils as well. Our officials in the department have been hugely supportive to local government as they have gone through this process, so it is right that we provide some funding to support that as well. The £63 million is to undertake that reorganisation to support the implementation, and it will include those councils that have been impacted by the changes that were made on Monday.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to add to the embarrassment that the Government must be feeling about the U-turn on the election cancellations, but I am grateful that the Secretary of State is going to look at some of the amendments, including those in my name, that would extend the cancellation to PCCs and mayors. Now is the time to look at what the cost of LGR may be, not only to the individual but in terms of council tax. Those who said LGR would save money now say it will not. We know that there will be about a billion pounds-worth of pension strain costs from those retiring on efficiency grounds. We know, from arithmetic, that nobody will pay less council tax as a result of this, but 50% will pay more, and there will be more layers of local governance, each able to raise council tax without limit. What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of all this? When will the Minister honestly explain to the electorate that LGR is going to cost them more? They have been kept in the dark, but at least they will have an opportunity to express their views at the ballot box in May.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is a shame that the noble Lord has not had a chance to look at the proposals as I have. They set out very clearly the anticipated savings. More importantly, they provide a much more cohesive form of local government for those who will be on the receiving end of these services. Taking out layers of chief executive and finance director salaries all helps to push money back to the front line, where it is needed to deal with much-needed services such as filling in potholes, looking after vulnerable adults and children, and making sure that our environment is taken care of. All the things that local councils do so well will be done more effectively and the public will understand where to go to, instead of having two councils responsible for their area.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of MHCLG. Can my noble friend the Minister remind the House of the original purpose of local government reorganisation? It is surely not just for the sake of it but for a wider purpose. Does she think it is a coincidence that, with the exception of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, all other areas of England that have pioneered regional devolution arrangements have been in areas with only one tier of local government? Does she agree that two-tier areas can struggle to align strategic combined authority-wide ambitions with fragmented delivery arrangements, and often lack the bandwidth and staffing capabilities to deliver ambitious combined authority-wide programmes at pace and at scale? Furthermore, does she share my concern that a failure to address the inefficiencies of the two-tier system in this context creates unnecessary complexity and delays in delivering this Government’s ambitious devolution agenda?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend—of course I do—that driving forward the strategic ambitions of our country and our Government, to ensure not only that we see the economy grow in the way we all want and get the housebuilding that we need to deal with the housing crisis but that the key public services that are so needed by vulnerable adults and children are taken forward efficiently and effectively, required us not just to tinker at the edges but to do the most radical reorganisation of local government for at least half a century, which is what we are doing. This has been kicked into the long grass nearly all the time that I have been in local government. I think there have been some four attempts to do this and they always stopped short of doing what is needed, which is to create local government that will drive the economy of our local areas and support the public services that people deserve.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, Conservative county councillors in Norfolk have no fear of democracy, and in fact are very much looking forward to these elections in 74 days’ time. It is worth pointing out that the elections will be conducted by the district and borough councils. Certainly, the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is incredibly professional and competent at handling those elections; it will take this in its stride and deliver a professional service.

The Minister did not reply to the point put forward by my noble friend a moment ago. This legal case cost a lot of money. She said herself that front-line services are under a lot of pressure. It was egregious that this case ever took place. Can she tell the House what those legal costs were?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for recognising the way in which local government responds to things such as this—and I know that colleagues in electoral services and on the political side of local government will do what they need to do and be ready for these elections. As I said, they are more than used to responding to very short-notice elections, including snap general elections; they work very well in those circumstances. In my experience, councils’ electoral services departments are extraordinarily efficient and effective, so I welcome his comments in that regard.

The costs are now being assessed, although I cannot give the noble Lord a figure at the moment. I am afraid that that will have to wait.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association. As my noble friend will know, councils of all colours have worked together with communities to put forward proposals, knowing the opportunities and benefits that local government reorganisation will bring. Whatever the outcome of the elections in May, can my noble friend the Minister provide reassurance to those councils and communities on the timeline of the local government reorganisation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is no dimming of the Government’s ambition around devolution and local government reorganisation. We are pushing on with the agenda. I thank my noble friend for recognising how well councils have worked together. I have been in meetings with many groups of councils, and they have said to me that this has got people talking together. They may have had a falling out 20 years ago and they could not even remember what it was about, but having to sit around the table and work on these proposals has been a really positive experience right across local government. I welcome that and think that it bodes well for the future. Certainly, the Government’s intention is to carry on with both the local government reorganisation and the devolution process.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said that she recognised the value of the electoral returning officers. I absolutely agree with that, but the fact is that they are always looking at the next set of elections, so the fact that they stood down some elections would have caused a difficulty. The Minister said that the Government got legal advice before they proceeded to cancel the elections. If they did, what changed in that legal advice to make the change to reinstate them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is usual practice continually to review legal advice. The legal advice came forward and, as I have said before, there is a long-standing convention not to reveal the content of or publish legal advice, so I cannot enlighten the noble Baroness any further on that. When the legal advice was received, the Government took a very prompt decision to withdraw the cancellation of the elections, because we knew how important it was for local authorities to deal with this promptly.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Would my noble friend agree that, although the proposal to cancel the elections has been dropped, the Opposition have no basis to complain about such proposals because they have done this themselves? I bear personal witness to this, as I was a member of the Greater London Council—I am always grateful for the opportunity to remind people of that. I was due to stand for re-election, and the elections were cancelled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. So both parties do this, and on both occasions it was probably a reasonable thing to do, but to make the criticism is really a bit thick.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right. There is precedent for cancelling elections. We have seen it done because of reorganisation and for other reasons. However, we have the opportunity, during the process of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, to look at that, which we will continue to do.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, local government reform is essential and should have happened years ago. That is why I am delighted to hear the Minister say tonight that it is the Government’s intention to carry on with it. I hope that it is at the same speed that they have shown so far.

I am from Leicestershire. The settlement that was reached 50 years ago was monstrously unfair to a number of cities—my own, Leicester, but other cities too—which were not given special status and their boundaries were kept the same. It is almost impossible for those cities to provide the services that they are duty bound to provide on the present boundaries. I hope that it is still very much in the Government’s mind that some of those cities need their boundaries redrawn so that they are fair and do justice to their citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on any of the proposals that have come forward at this stage—I would get myself into very hot water indeed. However, we are looking closely at all the proposals. The priority programme has now completed its consultation, and Ministers are reviewing all the responses to it. The other proposals are out for consultation. No doubt we will receive some very robust feedback, as we have on the priority programme, but my noble friend is quite right. We have attempted partly to respond to the issues that he raises in the fair funding formula. We have completely changed the funding system for local government. Those areas that were least able to raise the revenue they needed to provide good services to their citizens were also penalised through the funding system. We have changed that, to be much more closely linked to the indices of multiple deprivation. I do not know whether he has had a chance to talk to Leicester City Council yet, but I hope that this has provided some additional revenue to enable all councils to deliver their services properly.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

The current Secretary of State was held in quite high regard across the whole of the sector before we started this. Let us not allow him to take the blame for this. It was not the department’s idea to cancel the elections but No. 10’s—and it was No. 10’s decision to reinstate the elections. Can I tempt the Minister to agree with me that perhaps the blame for this should lie with somebody sitting in No. 10 rather than with MHCLG?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I simply say in response that I hold the Secretary of State in the highest regard. I have known him for decades. We were deputy leaders together when the noble Lord was the chairman of the LGA and were deputy leaders of the Labour group at the same time. He is determined to carry on with this devolution programme and with local government reorganisation and has a passion for local government. I am delighted that he is now our Secretary of State in the department. I am sure that he will progress this with the passion that I know he feels for localising services and making sure that decisions are taken by people who have got skin in the game out there—like most of us I see around the Chamber who have been involved in local government. We want to make sure that the people who take the decisions are those closest to the communities they affect. I know that is the Secretary of State’s mission.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I am quite heartened that the questions from across your Lordships’ House have not descended into an attack on local authorities’ electoral registration officers and their ability to carry out these elections. Many of us in the House tonight have spent years working with those officials and have seen them turn around elections quickly, whether by-elections or snap general elections. The fact that that has not been called into question heartens me.

I want to take my noble friend the Minister back to the guiding principle that has got a bit lost but deserves to be pulled out, which is the devolution aspect of what His Majesty’s Government, through the Secretary of State and the ministerial teams, are looking to do. Can I tempt the Minister to talk a bit more about the principles of devolution and the move away from those centralised powers down to local levels and more local decisions affecting the daily lives of local communities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are strong guiding principles here that have been part of the core mission of this Government. Our belief is that, to drive the economic growth we want, decisions have to be taken at local level, where people understand the economies, the base of the workforce and skills, and the way that they can shape the economy in their local area.

With regard to the delivery of public services, back in 2015, I did a report with another member of my ministerial team and other people, including the leader of Manchester City Council and the then mayor of Hackney, which talked about making sure that we start tackling public services from the prevention point of view, which is much better done at local level than at national level, and that we deliver services properly. These key services—adult care, children’s services and, to some extent, community safety services—are delivered much better at local level. The result of all that is that we get economies and local services that are tailored to local need far more effectively and efficiently. That is our mission. That is what we want to do. Britain has been one of the most centralised countries in Europe for as long as I can remember, and it is time that we turned that around. That is the mission of this Government, and it will be good for the country and for the communities that we all serve.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this QSD. As many Lords have said, it is timely indeed, as we are pleased to introduce the Representation of the People Bill today; I look forward to many further discussions as that Bill works its way through our House.

I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for opening the debate, and other noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend always brings an interesting approach to this subject. Although I do not quite share his conspiracy theory approach to matters, I would say, as a veteran of many elections, that the power of the vote is still as strong as ever. We all need to inspire confidence that the vote is mightier than the pound; I hope that we will all strive for that.

The speeches we have heard today illustrate a shared desire to protect our democracy from those who seek to disrupt it. We all know that this is a clear and present danger, which our Government are resolutely determined to tackle. The Government committed in their manifesto to strengthening the rules around donations to political parties, including enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. The threat of foreign interference is evolving and is becoming increasingly hostile and sophisticated, while the current rules are no longer sufficient to address these risks.

The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to foreign interference, and we cannot afford to wait. That is why the reforms set out today in the Representation of the People Bill put prevention first, reducing pressure on law enforcement, protecting parties from exploitation and delivering greater transparency and stronger safeguards against malign foreign actors. These reforms implement a number of recommendations made by stakeholders, including the Ethics and Integrity Commission, formerly the Committee on Standards in Public Life; the Electoral Commission; and the National Crime Agency.

I turn to the specific measures set out in the Bill. Current electoral law sets out who may donate and the basic checks that campaigners must make, but these rules no longer reflect modern anti-money laundering standards. So, we are strengthening the system by introducing new “know your donor” checks for donations over £11,180. I know that is a random amount: I did raise that. Recipients will now have to carry out a risk assessment, checking for signs of foreign or unlawful funding, before deciding whether to accept or return a donation.

Key stakeholders have warned that the current eligibility criteria for companies to donate are far too weak and expose political parties and other recipients to the risk of accepting foreign donations and proceeds of crime. This means that shell companies—companies that are registered today, owned by anyone and funded from anywhere, without a single day of trade—could donate to our political parties. That is why we are introducing new stringent eligibility criteria for companies wishing to make political donations. Companies will have to show sufficient revenue to cover their donation, be headquartered in the UK and be majority-owned or controlled by UK electors or citizens in order to be eligible to make a donation.

Stakeholders are also concerned that unincorporated associations could be used to funnel illegitimate foreign funding into our political system. Unincorporated associations can currently give large sums with limited transparency. This leaves clear vulnerability to foreign or illegitimate money, so we are tightening the rules. We are reducing the thresholds for when unincorporated associations must register with the Electoral Commission and for when unincorporated associations must report gifts to the Electoral Commission. We are also requiring unincorporated associations intending to make significant donations to check the permissibility of the political gifts they receive to ensure that they come from permitted UK sources. We are also reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics.

Where illicit funds enter the system via impermissible donors, such as individuals not on the electoral register, they will be subject to full forfeiture, providing a clear deterrent and supporting compliance by political parties and campaigners. Beyond these measures, we will commence existing provisions in law, which will require anyone making contributions of more than £11,180 to declare any benefits linked to their donation. This will ensure that we can identify the true donor and prevent people acting as fronts for others. Forced declarations will be a criminal offence, supporting enforcement authorities to take action against illegal donations.

Robust regulation and enforcement of political finance rules are crucial for combating the threat of foreign interference. That is why we are addressing enforcement gaps by extending the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role and civil sanctioning powers. This will enable police resources to be directed towards the most serious criminal offences. We will also increase, via secondary legislation, the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine from £20,000 to £500,000 per offence, with safeguards to protect against disproportionate burdens on campaigners with fewer resources. This will create a more meaningful deterrent against serious breaches of the rules.

Finally, to ensure that we are leaving no stone unturned, we have launched an independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics, which will make recommendations to government by the end of March. The Rycroft review will focus on the effectiveness of the UK’s political finance laws, as well as the safeguards in place to protect our democracy from illicit money from abroad, including crypto assets. The Government will carefully consider all recommendations made in that report.

I want to respond to a few of the points made. If I do not get to them all, I will reply in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked about polls. Transparency requirements under electoral law exist for third-party campaign spending, including market research and canvassing. They are all in scope of the spending rules. The imprint rules also apply to those market research issues. On leadership elections, I am afraid they are a matter for political parties.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked about donations and registers of interest. Parliament sets the rules around registers of interest, so that is a matter of parliamentary rule-making. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for her points about voting for 16 year-olds. She hit on a crucial point. Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds means that we must make sure that they have trust in the system, and we are increasing civic education to provide that background to their voting.

On the question from my noble friend Lord Watson, I am sure the Rycroft review will be looking at international models to make sure we learn from them.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, Irish citizens remain permissible donors in Northern Ireland, and political parties there can also accept donations from Irish sources, such as Irish companies, that meet the prescribed conditions. That is consistent with the Good Friday agreement.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, the issue about China is a Home Office question. I will revert to colleagues in the Home Office and get back to him on that one.

In reply to my noble friend Lord Sahota, there is no intention from the Government to cap donations at the moment. The new Bill is all about transparency, so I hope I have covered some of those issues.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, political parties and other campaigners will remain able to raise sufficient funds to communicate their views to the electorate, while protecting our democracy against those who seek to covertly undermine it. We do not consider tax relief on political donations to be part of the solution, I am afraid.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I think I covered overseas interference in my speech. Overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process.

I hope that I covered most of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in my speech. I will check Hansard, though, and respond further if I missed anything.

In closing, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for raising such an important debate and Members across the Committee for some very key contributions. I am sure we will have more of those as the Bill makes its way through the House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until at least 2 pm, in the hope that we can get the clocks fixed.

Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Orders laid before the House on 18 December 2025 be approved.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.

Motions agreed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

The House of Lords has now raised these concerns repeatedly. At Second Reading and throughout Committee, we have been patient, but we cannot continue to pass legislation on trust alone, particularly where it reshapes local democracy. If the Government are serious about devolution, they should have no objection to placing basic safeguards in the Bill. If they are confident that these powers will be used responsibly, transparency and restraint should be welcomed, not resisted. This is a moment for clarity: either the Bill reflects consent, local identity and democratic sustainability, or it does not. I look forward to hearing assurances from the Minister on these important issues.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for addressing the local government reorganisation measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, opposes Clause 57 and Schedule 26 standing part of the Bill. Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can be sustainable for the future and deliver the high-quality services that all residents deserve. The Bill amends the existing legislation to enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise.

We are committed to working in partnership with local areas and are already doing so on this current round of reorganisation. All two-tier areas that were invited in February 2025 have now submitted proposals for reorganisation, which have either been consulted on or are now subject to consultation, because they acknowledge that the status quo is not feasible or sustainable. Therefore, this power would only ever be used in the future, where areas had failed to make progress following an invitation.

The new merging provisions enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas. With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed to ensure that these reforms work in harmony.

The ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority is a common-sense and necessary measure. Without it, there would be no streamlined route to ensure that the existing combined and combined county authorities remain intact once their constituent authorities implement reorganisation. The ability to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority could be used only in very limited situations. It ensures that, if a reorganisation proposal would render a strategic authority obsolete, the proposal can be implemented and the strategic authority abolished as necessary. Any such proposal requiring the use of the abolition power would need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as the Government’s reorganisation criteria set out. This ensures that these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Government’s approach to funding. This week we publish the local government finance settlement, which has restructured local government funding to ensure that the areas that need it get the most funding. We have put more than £5.6 billion of new grant funding over the next three years into local government. We know that unitarisation can unlock significant savings. Unitary councils reduce duplication, cut waste, improve services and give better value. Of course, exact savings from each proposal will vary from place to place, depending on the proposals implemented.

The noble Baroness also mentioned casework. I take her point and I know the bit about growing daffodils out in the garden—I still often get stopped when I am doing my garden and I am not even a councillor now. Casework support varies from council to council, but it is perfectly possible to provide support for casework at any level of local government. I know that many councils do this extremely well—I hope that those that are not so good will learn from the best.

I turn to Amendment 196EC, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I shall correct myself, because I did not thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, as I should have done at the beginning, so my apologies. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to introduce criteria that the Secretary of State must consider when taking a decision on the merger of existing unitary councils. The new merging provisions set out in this Bill enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.

I reassure my noble friend that having regard to the size, geography, public services and local identity of an area is already embedded in our approach and decision-making when it comes to reorganisation. This is demonstrated by the statutory guidance that we have issued to areas that have been invited to prepare proposals for local government reorganisation.

My noble friend mentioned the size of areas. I point out that the invitation letter to two-tier areas in February made it very clear that the aim for new councils to have a population of 500,000 or more is a guiding principle. Instead of presenting a top-down solution for each area, our starting point is to support and empower local leaders and respect their knowledge, expertise and insight. This approach is in line with the new partnership between government and local government. In discussions with individual councils, with parliamentarians and in interviews given throughout the process, the Government have further reinforced that position to aid the local discussions. I have seen a huge variation in the proposals that have come forward in terms of size. People have taken that as guidance and taken it very seriously. Yesterday, we had a debate on the new authority that has been set up, Cumbria, which has a population of much less than 500,000, because that was appropriate for that area.

Furthermore, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already requires that the Secretary of State may invite or direct a relevant principal authority to make a proposal for the merger of single tiers of local government only where it would be in

“the interests of effective and convenient local government”.

The 2007 Act also requires that affected local areas must be consulted before a proposal for local government reorganisation can be implemented. This gives local residents the opportunity to voice their opinions on the criteria outlined by the noble Lord in his amendment.

Next to my council is a council called North Hertfordshire, which includes four towns. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will know these towns very well—Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock and Royston. These places have not ceased to exist because their council is called North Herts. The noble Baroness mentioned Wiltshire, which I know she feels was greatly strengthened by the introduction of unitary government. Wiltshire has survived in spite of its unitary status and I am sure that Hertfordshire will equally survive long into the future, no matter what happens with local government.

My noble friend’s questions can all be answered by the criteria that local authorities have been asked to respond to as part of the invitation process, including issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance. Although I appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has tabled this amendment, it is the Government’s view that placing further legislative conditions on the merger of unitary councils would be duplicative and unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I know she has huge experience of local democracy and councils, but there is quite a lot of experience in this Room as well. If noble Lords from the Conservative Party are agreeing with the noble Lord over there, I think there might be a problem. I just hope the Minister can perhaps think about some of the things that we have said and that we are concerned about. The Government are doing quite a lot of good things, but they are very bad at telling us about them, and that is part of the problems that they face at the moment. I will not come back on all these things. My concerns are still very much there, so this might come back later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to continue what seems to be an emerging consensus and a Sheffield love-in. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was the leader in Sheffield when I was at Sheffield University and I will always be grateful for the 10p bus rides that I was able to take.

As we have discussed, these amendments concern the committee system. Let us be frank: this is a devolution Bill. I reiterate yet again that this side of the Committee and these Benches believe in democracy and in devolution. If you believe in those two things, this is about allowing and empowering local communities to decide what is best for them.

I was leader of Central Bedfordshire and operated under the strong-leader model, which worked well for Central Bedfordshire. I am sure it will work well in many other places but, if local communities believe that the committee system is best for them, they should be given that opportunity. Does the Minister believe in devolution and local democracy and will she allow local communities to decide the governance model that best meets their needs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I turn first to my noble friend’s intention to oppose the clause and Schedule 27 standing part of the Bill.

This clause and the related schedule will bring further consistency to local authority governance arrangements across England. As your Lordships may know, the Government still have a strong preference for executive models of governance. We believe, and I believe because I have operated in both, that the leader-and-cabinet model, already operated by over 80% of councils, provides a clearer and more easily understood governance structure and can support more efficient decision-making.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meeting-intensive, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving 78 out of 82 councillors. Co-ordination across individual committees is a persistent challenge. The same peer challenge for Cheshire East flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments, contributing towards challenges of service delivery and communication.

Several councils that have tried committees have later reverted to the leader-and-cabinet model, for example Brighton and Hove in 2024. This is wasteful of both time and resources. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge. Councils that return to the leader-and-cabinet model, such as Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, have judged it to be more transparent, agile and accountable.

At the same time, we recognise the genuinely held concerns of those councils that have adopted the committee system following a public referendum or a council resolution. That is important and I take seriously the words of noble Lords who have raised that. The Government’s amendments made in the other place to these provisions were intended to allow some councils that have recently adopted the committee system, following either a council resolution or a public referendum, to continue operating that governance model until the end of their moratorium period. At that point, the local authority will be required to undertake and publish a review of whether it should move to the leader-and-cabinet executive model or retain its committee system. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent governance model for local authorities across England and respecting local democratic mandates and voter expectations where councils are currently operating a committee system and are within their current moratorium periods. With these points in mind, I invite my noble friend to support these measures.

I turn to the government amendments in this group. As I have set out, the Government introduced an amendment in the other place to allow certain councils operating the committee system to continue to do so where they were within their statutory moratorium periods. The Government are now bringing forward additional amendments to clarify the circumstances in which a local authority’s committee system may be protected from the requirement to adopt the leader-and-cabinet executive model. This will mean that the protection period applies only where the council has previously adopted the committee system following either a council resolution or a public referendum and is within its statutory moratorium period at the point this provision is commenced.

The amendments clarify that the prior resolution to change governance must be made under Part 1A of the 2000 Act. This will ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England and respecting more recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations. It will also reduce disruption where councils are operating a committee system within their statutory moratorium period.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. I shall of course not press my amendment at this stage. I cannot promise the Liberal Democrats what I shall do when we reach Report, not least since—as I said in a meeting a couple of days ago—I am a critical friend working very hard on the friend bit rather than the critical bit, and I will continue to be so.

I have only one further remark to make; I think it will be well worth my noble friend taking this back to the Secretary of State. Sadly, from my point of view, from May, there will be a large number of local authorities that will have possibly five substantive representations of political parties. In those circumstances, the cabinet form of government will be extremely difficult. With just three big groups in Sheffield, the only way that the current leadership of the council has been able to make it work effectively is by sharing the committee system. I think we should bear that in mind as we move towards a very turbulent time in local government.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

198: Schedule 27, page 283, line 10, leave out “or remained”
Member’s explanatory statement
The Local Government Act 2000 does not provide for a local authority to pass a resolution to retain the Committee system and so this provision does not need to deal with such a resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support the principles behind this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which has attracted widespread interest from both within and without your Lordships’ House.

At its heart lies a simple question: how do we ensure that the public continue to have clear, independent and accessible routes to information about the decisions made by their local authorities? For a long time, local newspapers have played a vital role in this. Our local journalists are there not only to report news; they scrutinise local decision-making, as we have heard, and act as guardians of local democracy. They are often the only regular observers of the workings of local government. In many parts of the country, it is only local journalists who regularly attend council meetings, who probe and challenge, and who ensure that decisions are brought to the attention of residents.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, all of us here who have been in local government have been at the end of the pen of many journalists—sometimes in a positive way, but often in a negative way. Local newspapers have always been the starting point for many young journalists who have gone on to be better and more successful journalists. As a local council leader, it is always interesting to watch that progression. I have always been pleased to give as much support as possible to local journalists learning their trade.

The requirement for councils to place statutory notices in local newspapers has long been one of the practical mechanisms that enable this transparency and accountability. It ensures that important matters handled by local authorities reach their residents where they are most likely to see them. Crucially, they reach residents through an independent medium—not one controlled by the authority. That independence is a safeguard we should not discard lightly, even in part.

It is true that the local media landscape is changing. Many local news organisations now operate both in print and online or only online, and audiences increasingly access their news digitally. However, as we have heard, the answer to such change cannot simply be to remove this duty—altogether, in some instances—and, in extremis, to see people rely solely on council websites. Many residents seldom visit council websites, as we all know. Some find them difficult to navigate. They are not used to being widely used as a source of day-to-day information on their local authorities. If statutory notices are placed only there, this would be not modernisation but invisibility. There is evidently concern, as reflected in the broad support for this amendment, that the Government’s current proposal would weaken transparency rather than strengthen it.

I listened with interest to the compelling cases in this debate, and I cannot help but wonder whether there is another way. If this policy requires updating, modernising or broadening, why do we not consider doing precisely that? Rather than the Government removing the requirement completely, allowing publication

“in such manner as the local authority thinks appropriate”,

would they consider expanding its scope instead? It could be broadened to include reputable independent local news websites, trusted digital publishers and recognised social media channels, operated by established local news providers. I defer to those who know the industry better than I do, but would this not reflect the realities of contemporary media consumption while preserving the more core democratic principle that notices should be published through independent and accessible outlets?

Above all, we must avoid a future in which councils become the sole gatekeepers of information that should be publicly available, easily accessed and subject to external scrutiny. The partnerships between councils and local media remain essential to the health of our local democracy, and we consider that any move to weaken that would be a big mistake. For these reasons, I believe that the principle of the amendment deserves serious consideration and I hope the Government will reconsider their approach.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 202, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seeks to maintain the current requirement to publish governance changes—it is only governance changes—in local newspapers. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. There are clearly strongly held views around the Committee.

We have just had two powerful debates about empowering local councils and councillors. We seem to have changed our minds in this regard. The Bill does not prevent local authorities publishing a notice in a local newspaper, should they wish to. Instead, it empowers councils to decide the most appropriate and effective method of notifying their local communities of any changes to the governance model. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I appreciate all his points, but local government is not responsible for the problems of local newspapers; there are many issues affecting them. We all value them immensely, but it is not just local government that is causing those issues.

The Bill’s provision updates the current statutory requirement. It shifts the focus from—

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Baroness maybe somewhat misunderstood what I said. I actually asked her—this is part of the provision in the Bill—what she thought the local authority would think appropriate for the way the information is published. That is a matter for the Government rather than for local newspapers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is, and this part of the Bill suggests that it is for local government to decide the most effective way to communicate these governance changes to its residents.

The Bill gives councils the flexibility to publish notices of governance change in whatever manner they consider most appropriate for their local circumstances. That may still include local printed newspapers, where they continue to play an important role in our local communities, but it also enables councils to use other channels—such as digital and online newspapers, council websites, and any other local community platforms—to help set out the governance changes. Crucially, the provision does not prevent authorities continuing to use local newspapers if they consider that the best way to reach their residents; it simply allows them to exercise their judgment in choosing the most suitable communication method for their area.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in moving the amendment, took me back to my very first Select Committee appearance as a local government leader, on exactly this issue. Substantial costs are incurred. I am talking not just about governance arrangements but for the breadth of local government statutory notices. It was around £28 million in the last year we have figures for, and some estimates suggest that it may be a great deal higher than that, so a lot of cost is involved.

In practice, this issue of governance arrangements will affect very few councils. More than 80% of councils already operate the leader-and-cabinet model of governance; the majority of the remaining councils will undergo reorganisation and the new councils will automatically adopt the leader-and-cabinet model. This is a proportionate and practical reform for the small number that may need to change their governance arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

In any local democracy, you will get that happening. That is right: people should get together to lobby, to make sure that their local representatives understand what they want and what they do not want. However, when you have town and parish councils, they have the legitimacy because they have been through the electorate. Also, if what they are saying is not what the local community want to hear, the electorate can get rid of them at the ballot box.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Lansley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their amendments on neighbourhood governance.

Before I speak to the amendments, let me say that I was very sorry to hear that the noble Earl has given notice of his intention to retire from the House at the end of March. I hope to have an opportunity to thank him more formally, but I thank him now for his huge contributions to all four of the Bills in which I have been closely involved in your Lordships’ House; he has made a significant contribution, and I just want to use this opportunity to say that.

Before I respond to the individual amendments, I reiterate that the Government strongly value the role of town and parish councils in driving forward the priorities of their communities and delivering effective local services. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs, can champion the priorities of local people and can design the right services that work for their places. Interestingly, when we were discussing the SI on the new authorities in Cumbria and Cheshire yesterday, it was interesting to see that, in Cumbria—forgive me if I am quoting this figure wrong, as it is from memory—there are 296 parish councils. I know that it is quite a rural area, but I thought that a significant number; I believe that there were also more than 100 of them in Cheshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her kind remarks about me. It has been a pleasure to work with her and with predecessor Ministers from her department and their various Bill teams over a very large number of years. This is not the time for me to make a valedictory speech, or anything even approaching it, or for me otherwise to bore the Grand Committee. However, depending on the scheduling of the Bill’s next stages—and because I do not disappear until the end of March—there may be a bit of wiggle room for me to come back and have another go at some of these amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very pleased to hear that. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me earlier whether the Bill will go to Report, and I confirm that is the case. I hope that the noble Earl will still be here to participate on Report, and we look forward to his contributions. He has a great deal of knowledge and experience of the property sector and many other areas related to all of the issues we have debated on this and other Bills. I particularly valued his expertise on property safety and his knowledge of construction when debated the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I am very grateful to him.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with that. Do the Minister and the noble Earl realise that the last place in the UK named Lytton—spelled with a “y”—is in Stevenage?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is actually in Knebworth, north Hertfordshire, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my unease has not been lessened by the Minister’s answers, and I suspect that others will feel the same way.

The Minister says that they do not want to impose a single model. I thought that this Bill was about imposing a single model on the governance of England. It was certainly made clear by the Conservative Government —let us accept that this is a Conservative model that which the Labour Government are introducing—that, unless east Yorkshire and North Yorkshire accepted the mayoral model, they would not get the deal for which they were asking. There is a large question there.

When I heard the Minister say that the role that town and parish councils play in neighbourhood governance is recognised, I want to know who else is playing a role and how important the town and parish councils’ role might be. Will it be marginal or major? We do not know what the other bits of neighbourhood governance are intended to do. I am happy to hear that the Government want town and parish councils to continue to play an important and valuable role, but I think more of us want to ensure that they play a significant and leading role in local democracy. At the moment, Clause 60 does not provide us with that reassurance. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but this is something to which we will want to come back if and when we manage to reach Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We need to recognise where we are. If we want mayors to have public acceptance and credibility, they had better not be elected on less than a quarter of the vote. If we have a five-party system, the opinion polls—my nerdy noble friend here does his best to educate me about public opinion polls and I therefore follow them in some detail—show that if you look at second preferences for Reform, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters, they are very diverse, and one cannot guarantee that votes will easily transfer from one party to another definite party. Jack Straw was prepared to accept the supplementary vote in the belief that, in London elections, the Liberal Democrats were more likely on the whole to vote Labour as their second preference than the Conservatives, and therefore it was acceptable. The supplementary vote is half way to where we need to go but it is neither one nor the other.

I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the old argument that the English people would not understand something more complicated than first past the post is for the past. The Irish understand a more complicated voting system very well, as do the Scots. The idea that the English education system is so poor that our voters will not understand simply does not begin to stand up.

If mayors are going to be key elements in devolution, we need to face up to a system that will provide us with the assurance that mayors will be elected in such a way as to gain the acceptance and credibility they need to have their posts. The current first past the post system does not guarantee that nor does the supplementary vote system. The Government need to recognise that that is where we are.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by addressing the amendments in this group concerning voting systems.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposes Clause 61 and Schedule 28 standing part of the Bill. These provisions will reinstate the supplementary vote system for the elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. This was the voting system in place when these roles were first introduced. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance, which has been reflected in today’s debates.

Given the large population that each regional mayor represents—far exceeding that of Members of Parliament —and that they act individually rather than collectively as part of a council or parliament, the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors. We believe that the supplementary vote system, which is a preferential voting system, will achieve this and is appropriate for electing candidates to single-person executive positions, such as mayors. The supplementary vote helps to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose a first and second choice candidate. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, which ensures a broader mandate from the people they are representing.

Currently, mayors are elected using the first past the post system. We recognise that that system, while not perfect, has its merits: it is a well-understood system that provides a direct relationship between a Member of Parliament or a councillor and the local constituency or ward. Therefore, we believe that first past the post is appropriate for elections where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as in councils and parliaments, as the likelihood is that candidates representing a range of views and parties will be elected. However, this clearly does not apply when electing someone to a single-person executive position, as is the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners. Therefore, we believe that the supplementary vote is the right system for electing mayors, which is why the Bill reverts the voting system back to the supplementary vote.

Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, seeks to introduce the alternative vote system for the election of mayors. While I agree that mayors should be elected using a preferential voting system, the Government believe that the supplementary vote system is the right preferential voting system for electing mayors. The supplementary vote was the voting system implemented on the introduction of mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, which was in place until 2022, when the voting system changed to first past the post. We are reinstating the voting system that was originally used for these elections, which will be familiar to many voters. I note that, when the public were asked for their view on the alternative vote system, albeit in relation to UK parliamentary elections, they did not support the move to the alternative vote system. In the referendum held in 2011, 67.9% of voters rejected this proposal. The alternative vote system is not in use in any polls in the UK.

Amendments 214 and 215, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, would allow for the introduction of a proportional representation voting system for local authority elections. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local council elections in England. As I have already laid out, the first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives to a council and provides for a direct relationship between a councillor and their ward. Therefore, for local council elections, the Government believe that first past the post remains the most appropriate system.

I turn now to the amendments that concern the timings of elections. We will of course have a debate on this on 23 February, the first day back after the Recess—I hope we all come back refreshed. Before I speak to the specific amendments, I remind your Lordships that the Government have embarked on the most significant programme of council reorganisation in England in 50 years. We are determined to streamline local government for the remaining one-third of people who still live under the two-tier system. It is in this unprecedented context that the decisions to postpone certain council elections for one year have been taken.

Our view is that it is time for bold action on both local government reorganisation and devolution, but we recognise that reorganisation is resource intensive at all levels, political and administrative, within a council. We have listened to those councils that have told us that postponing their elections this May will release vital capacity to deliver reorganisation effectively. It will also avoid the cost and distraction of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished shortly.

I reiterate that the Government’s position is that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that is the sentence I have always used when I have talked about elections. The Secretary of State recently announced that the high bar we set for taking a decision to postpone has been reached in a number of councils. The legislation to implement these decisions was laid in Parliament on 5 February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Between 8 and 18 December, was there no consideration whatever of the possibility of delaying the elections? If that is the case, what changed between 8 and 18 December that resulted in the letters going to the 63 councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have already outlined to the noble Lord that the sentence I used, whenever we discussed this and whenever I was asked, was that elections would not be cancelled unless there were substantial reasons for doing so. Local authorities made those representations, which is why the decision was taken.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, when we ask these questions, the Minister always talks about the complexity of these changes, but what I do not quite understand is that, in 2009, the then Labour Government changed nine groups of authorities to unitaries without any of this sudden change to local elections. Only six are affected now, and the last lot will be 14, so I do not know why this reorganisation is causing complexity that others, done by a Labour Government, did not in the past.

I will address the contributions on my Amendment 216 and the related Amendments 211 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Hayward, who gave a strong explanation of why some amendments to the rules affecting local elections are so urgently required. There is clearly deep unease across the House—not just in this Committee—about the length and frequency of election delays arising from the Government’s local authority restructuring. The Government have set out their reasons for resisting this amendment, but my underlying concerns remain. Prolonged postponement of local elections, for any reason short of genuine emergency, risks weakening democracy and the bond between our local councillors and the communities they serve.

My amendment does not seek to obstruct reorganisation or to prevent the short practical delays that can sometimes be necessary; it proposes only a clear and reasonable boundary. Democratic mandates should not be extended for more than one year as a consequence of changes under this Bill. That reflects long-standing practice, the guidance of the Electoral Commission and the public’s expectation that those in elected office are answerable to the electorate at regular intervals.

As I have said, I have some concerns about the drafting of the related Amendments 211 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, not least because they cover only the 2000 Act, not the 2007 Act. However, I hope we might be able to get together and work constructively on this shared interest before Report. Whatever view one takes on the amendments themselves, I hope the Government will reflect seriously and carefully on the strength of feeling expressed today. We should protect the integrity and predictability of our local democratic processes with great care.

On a similar note, I listened with interest to the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Fuller on his Amendments 216A, 216B and 216C, which seek to deliver full parliamentary scrutiny of proposals to cancel local, mayoral, and police and crime commissioner elections. Any electoral change has significant practical consequences for voters, candidates, authorities and political parties. Although my amendment would go further, it makes sense that any change still occurring should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Proper consideration should provide transparency, accountability and a clear timetable, allowing everyone involved in the electoral process to plan with certainty. That would certainly be better than the mess we face now.

I now turn to the amendments addressing changes to our voting systems. I thank noble Lords who spoke in support of Clause 61 and Schedule 28 not standing part of the Bill. I have nothing to add to my opening remarks, which covered the reasons that I disagree with Amendments 213 and 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 215, which propose the introduction of AV or PR voting systems. I will not repeat those arguments.

Last but not least, I will speak to Amendment 216D in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Making sure that our local elections and their candidates more transparent and accessible to voters—by ensuring that every candidate provides a clear, convenient and free way for electors to contact them—can only be a good thing for democracy. As things currently work, it can often be quite difficult for residents to ask their local candidates questions or seek clarification on their views before casting their votes. By requiring returning officers to publish contact details, and by ensuring that candidates are given a designated address for correspondence, communications between candidates and the communities they hope to represent could be strengthened and facilitated. At the same time, candidates can be protected from some of the terrible things that we heard about from my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I am sure that we will return to this on Report.

New Homes Target

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent progress they have made towards delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.

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

My Lords, an estimated 309,600 net additional homes have been built in this Parliament, but we recognise the need to push further. We are driving progress through bold planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable housebuilding. Investment in construction skills, our £16 billion national housing bank, rapid transformation of the building safety regulator—under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Roe—and initiatives such as the new homes accelerator programme will remove barriers and ensure that we build the homes we need.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Up to 100,000 new homes could be built were the Government to scrap the old, outdated EU-era nutrient neutrality regulations. Will the Government bring in new regulations to protect the environment, and scrap these old ones which are helping to deny young people and families the homes they desperately need?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

New measures were introduced in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to make sure that we deal effectively with nutrient neutrality. We have had to do this without causing the impact on housebuilding that had been done under the previous Government. We have taken the steps needed. We have the nature restoration fund. Developers can work as part of this to make sure that they are able to deliver the homes and meet the needs of the environment at the same time.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, in order to deliver these homes, local authorities need to co-operate with the Government, particularly in preparing local plans, allocating land, speeding up planning decisions, working with developers and communities, and so on. Are local authorities co-operating with the Government to deliver these 1.5 million homes in this Parliament?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I stated, I remind my noble friend that we see our partnership with local authorities as critical to delivering the housing numbers we need. The Planning and Infrastructure Act that we passed last year will accelerate housebuilding while preserving important environmental protections, making sure that we get the consenting process sped up and a more strategic approach to nature recovery, and improving certainty in the decision-making and planning system. We have supported local authority planning capacity with the funding and training that are needed. We are working together with our partners in local authorities to make sure that we get this moving as quickly as possible.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that local authorities are vital to the production of homes. She is right, but how is it that the Labour-controlled Greater London Authority has produced only a third of what it had as a target? Do the Government understand that a large number of young people want to own their own homes? Where is the help-to-buy scheme? By all means, have a Labour help-to-buy scheme, different from the Conservative one. Surely, those two points would enable us to provide some decent housing for people who are desperate to have a home of their own.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have introduced a whole package of support, working with our colleagues in London to make sure that they are supported and helped to get building the homes they need.

In the previous Question, perhaps the noble Lord heard me say that I am working very closely with a whole partnership of people from across the sector on developing the support that young people need to get into home ownership, including on a new ISA that will help with this and making sure that the whole industry is focused on freeing up the system so that it is possible for young people to buy homes. It was good to hear, when I spoke to the sector last week, that both Lloyds and Santander have brought in very low-start mortgage packages. That was just last week. I am very pleased to see that, and I hope that will help some of our young people get out of high-cost renting and enable them to buy their own property.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the 1.5 million new homes target is only part of the big housing jigsaw. It is about quality as well as quantity and regeneration as well as new build. All this is meant to come together in the Government’s long-term national housing strategy. This was due out about a year ago. I ask the Minister: when we will see the national housing strategy?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience on the long-term housing strategy. We will be publishing that in the first quarter of this year.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, obviously, the noble Lord was not quick enough today.

Research by Crisis and the National Housing Federation found that we need to build 90,000 social homes a year to tackle the current homelessness situation. We know that councils are spending around £2.8 billion a year on temporary accommodation. I ask the Minister: will the Government commit to a specific target for social housing within their overall 1.5 million homes target, alongside a detailed pathway to deliver these homes? We all know that that end of the housing market is the real logjam in the housing crisis.

Picking up on what the noble Lord said with regard to London, will the Government commit to looking again at their disappointing decision to slash the proportion of social homes required for all new developments in London?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The target for the £39 billion spend that we have is that 60% of that will be social housing. The whole amount will be spent on social and affordable housing. That is the most money that has been invested in social and affordable housing for a very long time, and I am very proud of that record.

In relation to the noble Baroness’s question on London, having discussed this extensively with London councils, the important thing is to get housebuilding moving in London. London authorities will decide the percentage of social housing. We are working closely with them on that.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has outlined very clearly what a great opportunity this target is, for not only local jobs but local training schemes and use of local materials in building the houses. She mentioned local authorities, but what discussions are being held with developers and housebuilders to ensure that they commit to using local labour, putting on proper training schemes and using local materials whenever they can?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that as we go through this process of building more homes, we also create the jobs to go alongside that. We have been working very closely with the sector and particularly with the developer skills group to make sure that we invest in skills as we go along this path of building. It has been very supportive, to the extent of investing £140 million in skills alongside the skills funding that the Government have put in. It is very much committed to this. We welcome the Home Builders Federation statement in July 2024 looking to rapidly increase the pace at which homes are built, deliver the high-quality affordable homes that the country needs and provide the skilled jobs that we know we need to deliver that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, only a little over 300,000 additional homes have been delivered in the first 18 months of this Government. Given their target of 1.5 million homes, they will have to deliver at the rate of 342,000 homes a year. Previously, in response to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, the Minister said that they would achieve this by speeding up existing planning permissions. Given that housing starts continue to run at well below the average rate under the previous Conservative Government, can the Minister say when this will happen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It ill behoves the Government who caused the housing crisis to be pressing us on this. We have already taken very significant steps, which I have outlined, to move this forward. We updated the National Planning Policy Framework. It is early yet to see an impact from those changes. We expect to see the effects feeding through into a higher number of homes being granted permission later in the year. However, new figures show that already we are seeing some green shoots of recovery, with a 29% increase in housing starts compared with 2024. It will take time to turn the tide after decades of underinvestment and a failure to build the homes and infrastructure that we needed to keep up with demand. We expect housebuilding to ramp up, particularly in the later years of the Parliament, as our reforms take effect. We will continue on our mission to deliver those 1.5 million homes.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I return to the question of social housing. Since 1990, the UK’s population has grown by around 20%—an additional 12 million people. In that same period, our stock of social housing has not grown but contracted by nearly 10%. We now have fewer than 400,000 units of social housing than in 1990. Precisely how many additional units of social housing do the Government expect to have by 2030?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. That £39 billion social and affordable housing programme I spoke about will combine the best elements of previous programmes with new design elements to make sure that we maximise the delivery that we want to see, enabling providers to build the types of homes that the country needs. The ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes with at least 60% social rent. We have also provided long-term income stability for social housing providers with a 10-year rent settlement, which will help to give them the stability and confidence they need to invest even further in funding for social housing. It is a comprehensive policy package. We want a simpler, more transparent system and are driving forward. We know that social housing is important.