Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing a code of practice under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.

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

It is me again, I am afraid. The Government are committed to raising standards in the private parking sector. Last summer, my department consulted on proposals to raise standards across the private parking industry, ahead of implementing the new code and accompanying compliance framework for parking operators. The consultation attracted over 4,500 responses—which was no surprise to me; I know people have a great interest in this subject—a significant volume, and it is right that these are considered very carefully before the code is finalised. I add that the Government intend to lay the code in the House in autumn 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It certainly will not be illegally parked if I am doing it—I can promise the noble Lord that. In February 2022, the previous Government introduced a private parking code of practice, which reduced the level of private parking charges and banned debt recovery fees. However, as the noble Lord will know, the parking industry subsequently challenged the charge caps on the grounds that the economic impact on the sector had not been sufficiently assessed and that caps were not supported by robust evidence. In the light of that challenge, the previous Government took the decision to withdraw the code in order to review the level of charges and the ban on additional fees. That review has been thorough: there was a call for evidence, and an impact assessment, an options assessment and a full public consultation, which I mentioned earlier, were published. It has been necessary to minimise the risk of further legal challenge and, crucially, to ensure that the impact of any future charge caps is understood and achieves the intended objectives. I recognise that the noble Lord’s patience is being tested and the process has taken time. However, we are committed to raising standards across the private parking sector and will lay the code in autumn 2026.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, according to the RAC, private parking companies have issued a staggering 76 million parking tickets in the seven years since the Parking (Code of Practice) Act became law. In addition to this long-awaited code, what update can the Minister provide on work to introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to protect motorists and ensure transparency across the system?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

A parking regulator was considered as an option in the options assessment published last year. However, it was dismissed as disproportionate. Establishing a regulator would have involved significant cost, complexity and even further delay, duplicating functions that can be delivered more efficiently through the 2019 Act and existing sanctions, including access to DVLA data.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I put it to my noble friend the Minister that wheel clamping took some 20 years from the Scottish courts declaring it illegal in Scotland, against lots of obstructionism within officialdom in the Department for Transport and other departments, to finally being banned in England. We must know now what we want to do. Motorists are still being ripped off, companies are still behaving badly, and the appeals system often does not work. Should we not just take action and get on with it? It might even be rather popular.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would be popular with me, but we need to make sure, once we put something in place, that it is legally robust and understands the impacts that the code will have—that is really important. We consulted on the appeals process last year to understand the concerns that motorists have with it—I have also heard many concerns from around the House when we have discussed this before—and we are working to address them. Is it very important that motorists have confidence in the appeals process and trust that they will get the right outcome as quickly as possible. For motorists, this means ensuring that appeal decisions are fair and, importantly, that those decisions are made independently from the private parking industry.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, on many new housing estates, the roads have not been adopted by local highways authorities, despite residents paying council tax. What are the Government doing to ensure that they are built to adoptable standards and then adopted? That would allow local authority enforcement of parking offences.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is slightly tangential to the Question. I know that this is a real frustration both for those living on new estates and for the local authorities that are sometimes charged with picking up the bill for the insufficient quality of roads. Steps will be taken in the forthcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill to address many of the issues with these so-called freehold estates. I am sure that we will have a very useful discussion on that when the Bill comes before the House.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister has heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, had to say. I think that his argument has prevailed. As was just demonstrated, parking covers a very wide landscape, so may I draw the Minister’s attention to the difficulty one has in parking electric bikes in London? They are now geolocated, so you park it outside a station, but the app will not let you close. Can the Government please sit down with the mayor and the London boroughs to create a win-win—for people who hate these bikes being parked randomly on the street and for those of us who depend on them, who would just like to see more parking places for them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the frustrations that people feel, but if you are parking the bike where you are supposed to park it, you should be able to log out of the system. It is absolutely unacceptable for bikes to be left in some of the places that I see them being left, and it causes a great obstruction, particularly to our residents with less mobility. If there is a bike in the middle of a pavement it is very hard to manoeuvre around it, particularly if you are in a wheelchair. We are looking at all these issues. New powers are being granted to local authorities as part of the Bill we will be debating later this afternoon, so I hope that will help the situation.

Renters’ Rights Act: Definition of Court Readiness

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they define “court readiness” in the context of the answer by the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Matthew Pennycook MP, on 14 January 2025 (HC Deb col 258) during debate on the Renters’ Rights Bill.

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

My Lords, “court readiness” means ensuring that courts and tribunals can operate effectively and maintain swift access to justice under the new tenancy system. We are supporting the justice system with funding to ensure that courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload these reforms will generate.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place, the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said that

“court readiness is essential to the successful operation of the new system”

and that he was working

“to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is ready”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/25; col. 258.]

The Minister also gave this House that assurance during the passage of the Bill. Yet the time for a landlord to regain possession through the courts has increased dramatically across the country since 2024, particularly in London, increasing from 7.5 months to 15 months, and that is before bailiff delays. Given that the Government have failed to ensure that the courts are ready for this Act, will they now delay implementation until they are?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It certainly would not help tenants to delay implementation of the Act. Tenants are waiting for this, and have been for a very long time indeed. We are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on a number of fronts, including digitisation of the system, ensuring that more staff are prepared and making sure that we are ready for this. We are working closely with the judiciary and the ministry to ensure that the First-tier Tribunal has the capacity to deal with applications.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Sadly, there is not just the current delay of up to 15 months in the court granting a repossession; there is then an additional delay of up to seven or eight month waiting for a bailiff to carry out the eviction. What plans do the Government have to improve the bailiff service? A further point is the bankruptcy service’s increased granting of a breathing space to enable the tenant to put his affairs in order, though there is no consultation with the landlord on this. This can result in a further two-month delay in obtaining possession, along with the time necessary to appoint a bailiff. Is this the level playing field promised by the Government?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not think we should exaggerate the situation as it currently stands. The Ministry of Justice quarterly possession statistics show that median timeliness for claim to order is 7.3 weeks and that the median average time from landlord claim to repossession is 27 weeks. However, not all landlords will experience the whole court process. Of the landlord possession claims issued in 2024, only 28% progressed to the stage where bailiff enforcement was necessary. Bailiffs are responsible for a range of sensitive work. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is working to make sure that the timeliness of bailiff enforcement is improved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s Question, the Master of the Rolls has warned that ending Section 21

“will undoubtedly create more contested possession cases than we have had hitherto”.

As we have heard, the average delay last year, according to the MoJ’s figures, was eight months. Ministers have repeatedly said that court readiness is a prerequisite for the success of the system. The courts are not ready. They will not be ready in six weeks’ time, when Section 21 will no longer be operative. What is the Minister going to do?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not know how many times I am going to repeat this, but I will carry on doing so. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to prepare county courts for implementation of the tenancy reforms. These are very important reforms for landlords and tenants; landlords do not want to see the actions of bad landlords helped and tenants want to make sure that they are secure in their tenancies. Existing possession processes will be updated to reflect the reforms in the Act and we will ensure that sufficient capacity is in place for the courts to handle new cases. There is an increase in capacity, including an additional 115 court staff, in anticipation of the increased demand for hearings under the Section 8 claim process. Staff managing possession claims are receiving detailed training, supported by refreshed training materials and process guidance. Working practices have been reviewed and best practice shared in readiness for 1 May, and the Judicial Office is taking forward judicial training on the new legislation.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned, the First-tier Tribunal clearly has a critical role to play here. Ministers have continually said that they will act if it is “overwhelmed by increased claims”, yet I was surprised to find that the MoJ does not even collect the data needed to assess its case loads. How can the Government credibly promise intervention without the basic monitoring information required to trigger some action? When will they begin collecting and publishing monthly data on rent appeals so that Parliament can assess mounting pressure? If the tribunal becomes overwhelmed, will Ministers commit to using the backdating safeguard immediately?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Data is collected and published—otherwise I would not have the figures for the current situation. MoJ statistics, as I said, tell us both the median time from landlord claim to repossession and how many possession claims progress to bailiff stage. Data is available. On the noble Baroness’s other point, the Government decided to put in place a proportionate safeguard if the tribunal system is on course to be overwhelmed, as we discussed during the passage of the Bill. That involves the creation of a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal in respect of new rent amounts.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, in response to a question during Oral Questions on 11 February about the risks of the First-tier Tribunal becoming overwhelmed by rent increase appeals brought by tenants who have nothing to lose, the Minister stated that

“there is a case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations”,—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. 216.]

yet an amendment to that effect tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, to the Bill was rejected by the Government on 1 July last year. What alternative body or mechanism is now being considered after all and how will it meaningfully be done without the force of legislation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her contribution on the Bill. To ensure long-term sustainability, we have concluded that there is a case for the use of a non-judicial alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. We are continuing to work with partners across government to develop this rent determination function as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, this House has often said, and Ministers agree, that justice delayed is justice denied. Has it occurred to the Minister or her colleagues in government that the more rules they make and the more laws they pass, the more pressure they put on the judicial system, which is already overloaded? Ministers have expressed concern about delays at all levels of our judicial system. Perhaps the answer would be to stop making so many rules.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government are acting as they should according to their manifesto and putting the legislation in place. On top of that, we have had to correct the 14 years of decline of effective action in the justice system. We have had a lot of work to do and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are taking that action urgently.

Given the need to provide families living in the private rented sector with greater certainty and stability, it is not appropriate to delay implementation while assessments of court readiness are carried out. An assessment of the possession process would provide no new insight or benefit to interested parties, and quarterly data on the operation of the court possession process for rented properties is already published by the Ministry of Justice and will continue to be. My department has allocated increased funding for the court service to enable it to deal with the increase in workload, and we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure they are able to cope.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, some of the worst cases I had as an MP were to do with housing. We had children who had to move home every six months, absolutely wrecking their life chances. They were unable to stay in the same schools or with the same friends unless they travelled for hours on buses, going from stop to stop. Can my noble friend think of a single reason why we would delay the implementation of this Act?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right. Her experience as an MP was similar to mine as a councillor. I had client after client come to me to discuss the horrendous impacts of homelessness. But we are implementing this Act not just for tenants but for landlords. As I said, good landlords deserve support, and they do not like to see poor landlords not having action taken against them when they are not acting in the interests of tenants. This Act actually benefits everybody in the private rented sector.

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.

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

The most exciting ones always come at the end.

As many noble Lords will know, the Government are embarking on a much-needed funding reform for English councils to ensure that resources are aligned with need across the sector, with the first multi-year settlement in a decade delivering that reform. The business rates retention system is a major part of the overall local government finance system under which English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect, as well as a portion of any growth in that income. Resetting the system is a key element of the wider reforms, ensuring that funding is better aligned with need while preserving the incentive for authorities to continue to drive local growth.

In parallel with these reforms, the Government are also implementing substantial changes to business rates tax policy, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is also an essential task. As a result, the Government must make technical updates to the business rates retention system to ensure that, as far as is practicable, local government funding is not impacted by these changes, which are outside the control of local councils.

The instrument before the Committee today will update the business rates retention system to factor in local government finance reform and to accommodate changes to the tax. It amends two key sets of regulations on which the rates retention system is run. The levy and safety net regulations establish the safety net through which authorities are protected from large drops in business rates income; they fund that protection by applying a levy to business rates growth. The rates retention regulations set out the fundamentals of how the system operates, including how business rates income is calculated and shared between central government, billing authorities and major precepting authorities. The amendments are technical but clear in purpose; I will explain them now.

The safety net and levy determine the balance of risk and reward in the business rates retention system. To ensure that this balance is appropriate through the multi-year settlement, the Government announced changes at the settlement; this instrument puts them in place. First, the level of safety net protection is being increased to 100% of baseline funding level or need, provided through rates income for 2026-27. This is something that local government has welcomed and which noble Lords will, I am sure, agree is sensible. Secondly, the levy on business rates growth will now operate on a marginal basis, with different rates applying as growth increases up to a maximum of 45%. This balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections.

Moving on, in response to the reset and wider tax policy changes, we are making changes to ensure that grant compensation paid to councils in lieu of business rates is treated in the same way as the rates themselves, streamlining local government accounting.

Next, the instrument updates key formulae and figures that are used to run the rates retention system in order to reflect changes and updated values from the funding reforms delivered through this year’s settlement. This includes figures used to calculate different measures of local authority income for the year.

Finally, we are making a series of minor amendments that are aimed at reducing complexity across the system wherever possible, which noble Lords will, I am sure, value. These include disapplying provisions that are no longer required, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining a number of small funding mechanisms.

These amending regulations make technical changes to the business rates retention system, putting into effect what is required due to funding reform and changes to business rates tax policy. If approved, they will ensure that councils receive the business rates income the system is designed to deliver. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council.

This is a very technical measure and a bit of a mixed bag. The reset of the business rates retention system is long overdue and welcome. For too long, the distribution of resources has been based on figures from when the system was introduced in 2013, so recalculating each authority’s assessed need and business rate tax base to redistribute funding on a needs basis is welcome. Given that aim, it is surprising that the Government have not produced an impact assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum says within it that most authorities will find that the system works for them, but some will not, so an impact assessment would be very welcome to understand the winners and losers, and to what extent they are winning or losing. Can the Minister provide some basic impact assessment, not for all authorities but for those that will benefit most and least so that we can see how this will work in practice?

The safety net established in this SI is to be supported because, while any fundamental changes in the business rates system take place, it will enable local authorities to have stability in their known income. That is positive, but as far as I could see it is not explained how authorities already in a pooled system will be impacted, such as those in West Yorkshire. All the data provided is based not on a pool of authorities but on individual ones, so it would be helpful to understand how that works. The proposal for Section 31 grants is welcome, because it will also help remove the impact of volatility in the system.

The downside is, I guess, the move away from the whole purpose of the business rates retention system, when introduced 10 or 12 years ago, as an incentive for growth. The introduction of marginal tax rates—which is what they are—on growth that exceeds the limits could be viewed as a tax on success. That is somewhat at odds with the Government’s fundamental position that growth is everything. It does not seem to apply in this case. How far do they think that these marginal tax rates of 30% and 45% will encourage or discourage investment and growth in particular areas?

This is a mixed bag. The reset is necessary for fairness and a safety net is good for stability, but having worked figures would have been really helpful so that we could understand the consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

At a time when we see unemployment increasing and growth flatlining, it is concerning that the Government’s approach appears to shift that balance decisively towards redistribution and against growth. The risk is that, in doing so, they weaken those very incentives that drive local economic activity and, hence, the Government’s objective of growth. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that this balance has been properly thought through and give assurance to councils across the country that want to do the right thing that they will be rewarded for doing so. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. It is absolutely important to get the balance right between incentivising growth and ensuring that areas needing it benefit.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I took the decision to go into a pooling arrangement. I will cite my area as an example of the difficulty. These are figures from a few years back, because I am not involved with it now, clearly. Our collection of business rates was around £44 million, and we got about £2 million back. We need to make sure that we continue to incentivise the growth we want to see. I will cover in a bit more detail some of the points that noble Lords raised.

On the impact assessment that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, the changes made by the instrument will put in place reforms delivered via the local government finance settlement. More information on the impacts of the charges is included as part of that settlement. The instrument will put in place the technical figures and formulas relating to that. I add that because these are technical regulation amendments, policy officials in the department have undertaken extensive engagement to prepare for their implementation, including consultations and targeted technical engagement with sector representatives and specialists, to make sure the proposed amendments achieve the correct policy intent. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s points on impact assessment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his welcome for multi-year settlements. He and I both argued long and hard for that over the years, and I am very pleased that we have been able to deliver that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about local authorities being affected by the Government changing how they are compensated for business rates relief. Now that we are compensating for reliefs via Section 31 grants, based on data collected from the authorities themselves, they will receive pound-for-pound reimbursement. They will be compensated by the usual annual data collection process, based on their returns, and this mirrors the way compensation for reliefs via Section 31 grants currently operates. Previously, authorities were funded for most reliefs through a reduction to their tariff or an increase in their top-up. Given that these amounts remained fixed in real terms over time, they were expected to absorb some of the costs associated with certain reliefs. We think that this will actually be of benefit to local authorities.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised questions about the pooling method used. Transitional arrangements are in place to take local authorities, including those in pools, from current arrangements to their new arrangements, and this includes a measurement of the income they started from, including any income from pooling. Following consultation, we are making a change to better reflect income from business rates pooling, which is included in local authority transitional funding baselines.

The Government’s objective across this process has always been to make the best possible estimate of current local authority income. The revised method will still ensure that pooling gains are allocated across the locally pooled area. Within each pool, 50% of levy savings will be allocated between tariff authorities and 50% will be allocated between top-up authorities. The complexity and variety of pooling arrangements, which the Government are not directly involved in, mean that a central assumption is used to estimate pooling gains for this specific purpose. To help councils adjust for the change, the Government will provide a one-off adjustment support grant in 2026-27 to authorities that would otherwise see their core spending power reduce in 2026-27. The pooling assumptions for 2027-28 and 2028-29 will be subject to consultation at the next settlement. I have already started talking to local authorities about this.

I think all Peers who have spoken referred to the potential for growth disincentive. The business rates retention system was designed to be reset periodically to update the way it redistributes locally retained business rates between local authorities, which is a core aspect of the system. The reset will move business rates income, which is retained locally by local authorities, to where it is needed most, based on an updated assessment of need. Recalculating available business rates alongside a new assessment of funding need will ensure that business rates income is reallocated to meet changes in relative need, restoring the business rates retention system to its intended purpose of providing a responsive funding stream for local government while also rewarding authorities for business rates growth. Business rates growth can be realised. A proportionate levy will be applied to growth to ensure that income protections can be offered to local authorities. Of course, business rates growth generated within designated areas such as freeports, enterprise zones and investment zones will be exempt, in line with the current policy.

In setting levy rates, the Government are balancing the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. This will always be a balance. I think all noble Lords agreed that the reset was necessary. The approach we are taking will better support growth across the sector, with a lower percentage levy charge for early business rates growth in comparison with the current scheme, and the highest margin at a lower rate than the current 50% levy that many authorities are currently subject to.

To conclude, the technical amendments made by this instrument are necessary to ensure that the business rates retention system operates as intended for the coming year. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting it.

Motion agreed.

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 52nd 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, these regulations were laid on 11 February 2026. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that has been issued for these regulations. It corrects the name of the appropriate administering authority for pension purposes from East Sussex to West Sussex. This change was requested by, and agreed with, the constituent councils. When referring to the Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority, I will use the term “strategic authority” hereafter unless there is a reason to be specific.

Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders being best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. The English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of that White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following an expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Sussex and Brighton. This statutory instrument will establish their strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best.

The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils in Sussex and Brighton on the instrument. The constituent councils are West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.

The instrument will, if Parliament approves, be made under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which the instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 for a four-year term.

The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor when acting in place of the mayor.

The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, the Sussex and Brighton strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are specifically reserved for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it confers, focused around local transport and economic development, are designed to support the work of the strategic authority before the Bill is in force and enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.

MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events and distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post. They were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and on 17 July confirmed to Parliament that the statutory tests to establish a strategic authority had been met.

Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding. This will include devolved funding for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.

To conclude, this instrument represents clear progress in our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make this a reality in Sussex and Brighton. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, one in a series of statutory instruments creating county combined authorities that we have discussed over several months.

I start with what the Minister said about the purpose of this statutory instrument: that the Government wish to “widen and deepen devolution”. We Liberal Democrats support devolution and have long advocated for it. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in its report on this SI that of the more than 6,000 responses received from the public,

“71% disagreed that it would support … local communities”.

The SLSC asked, given that local opposition—the overwhelming majority of those 6,000 responses not in favour—how the Government will ensure that the mayor has a “firm democratic mandate” and that local residents are able to “engage” with the system. That seems to be fundamental for any devolution proposal—that it takes people with them. Clearly, from the response to the consultation, that is not the case. I hope that the Minister has some responses to that committee’s report.

The Government have given a formal response to the committee’s report, which included a commitment to future strengthening of scrutiny. As the Minister will know, every time we discuss this, I criticise the scrutiny arrangements in mayoral authorities as being totally inadequate for the range and depth of functions that the mayor will have. One of the easy ways to improve scrutiny would be by ensuring that pre-decision scrutiny is the norm. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any hope that this will be the case.

I have a couple of other points to make. The financing of the mayoral model—if I have read it right—is to be from the constituent councils until the mayoral elections. If that is the case, can the Minister quantify the financial call on the constituent local councils until that time?

The main concern I have is that the Government are proceeding with mayoral devolution alongside very significant local government reorganisation. Two major reorganisations in local government are taking place in that area, which will inevitably cause increased expenditure in the first instance. Establishing the different and new authorities will inevitably be a call on the constituent authorities’ finances. It will not all be funded by grants—it never is—and that will inevitably mean a call on financing of basic public services. Does the Minister agree with that?

Finally, the Government and the previous Government are very keen on the mayoral model, but at no point have we had an assessment or a review of its achievements and its failures. Looking across the metro mayors that have been established, there have been some notable successes. The bus transport system in Greater Manchester has been a success, but there are other parts of the country—looking towards the north-east of the country—where it has not been such an overwhelming success and great question marks have been raised about the way that the mayor and the authority have fulfilled their statutory requirements. It is important that the Government do a review and an assessment of the various mayoral models that have been instituted across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. We on these Benches support the principle of devolution. As the Minister outlined, these regulations will establish a new combined county authority for Brighton, Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex under the framework set up in the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. However, there are some issues that merit closer scrutiny.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has already raised the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s comment on the consultation underpinning these proposals, which revealed significant public concern, particularly around the implementation of a mayoral model. A clear majority of respondents did not believe that such a structure would reflect local identities or deliver meaningful benefits. That raises an important question about how devolution is being delivered. If it is to succeed, it must carry public confidence. Does the Minister agree?

Secondly—I would welcome further clarification from the Minister here—there are questions about timing, funding and democratic accountability. The Government have been clear that they intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in devolution priority programme areas as quickly as possible. Indeed, we are told that the legislation for Sussex and Brighton is already being progressed and that institutions will be set up with the consent of constituent councils. However, as my noble friend Lord Porter pointed out, at the same time the Government have confirmed that the inaugural mayoral elections in these areas have been delayed until May 2028. That is much later than originally planned and is accompanied with a delay to the full powers, such as strategic planning, CPO and, importantly, full mayoral funding, which will be only 40% of that originally promised in the interim. Parties had already selected their candidates and were preparing for an election, so why is the mayoral election being delayed? Why can the full funding not be implemented now? It was on that basis that the councils involved embarked on the devolution programme, but the Government are not fulfilling their end of the programme.

The justification offered for this delay is that it allows time for local government reorganisation and the establishment of robust institutions. That is a weak excuse. Having experienced devolution first hand, I know that previous programmes have been delivered to a tighter, clearer timetable without the need for constant postponement of elections or, more recently, their reinstatement. It creates an unusual and uncomfortable position. We are being asked to approve the creation of a new strategic authority, the transfer of powers to it and the establishment of an institutional framework without a directly elected mayor in place for another two years. In effect, structures of devolution are being put in place while the democratic leadership is deferred until later. Can the Minister clarify the interim governance arrangements and, in particular, who is ultimately accountable to the public during this interim period for the exercise of these new powers? We appreciate that this instrument does not in itself determine the timing of elections, but it is inseparable from that broader context, and it is entirely reasonable for this Committee to probe how these arrangements will operate in practice.

To be clear, we are supportive of the creation of the Sussex and Brighton combined county authority in principle, but we are aware that devolution must be locally supported and democratically grounded from the outset. Also, the terms of the deal with the residents of Sussex should not be changed half way through the process. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on how accountability will be maintained in the period before May 2028 and whether any consideration has been given to shortening that timetable. I also commend my noble friend Lord Porter on his important question regarding pensions and look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and their broad support for the Sussex and Brighton authority, which I think is broadly welcomed in the local area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the 6,000 responses. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over that proposed geography. Unsurprisingly, respondents provided a range of views, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some concerns. The Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State on the relevant statutory tests, as set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The Secretary of State’s decision was that those tests were met. It is not surprising that knowing how exactly this will work might have been a concern for some people, but I have looked at the evidence that came back and there was a pretty equal balance between the concerns and the things that people thought were a plus.

The noble Baroness mentioned scrutiny arrangements. I am not sure whether she was here the other day when we debated this on the English devolution Bill. The Government are bringing forward arrangements in that Bill to introduce local scrutiny committees with powers to scrutinise what the mayor is doing. Her noble friend Lord Shipley has raised this with me on a number of occasions, as he was concerned that those bodies should have powers to undertake pre-scrutiny. They will have those powers. This will be a powerful body to make sure that the mayor’s work gets scrutinised properly.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised LGR and asked why the mayoral arrangements are not being put in place until the foundation strategic authorities have been set up. The Government’s carefully considered decision is that we need resilient and sustainable authorities in place, and then the mayors will be elected. That is how we are taking that forward.

On the noble Baroness’s point about the review of mayoral arrangements, there are a huge number of advantages to them. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive economic growth. They have standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems, directly exercise devolved powers and attract inward investment. They also have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable directly to their citizens and have the profile to stand up for them on the national stage. They are able to both partner with and challenge central government where needed. That partnering on the national stage is critical. We now have the mayoral council to enable the regions represented by mayors to sit around the table and represent them to national government, which is really powerful. We are seeing that voice being amplified for local people in many areas that already have mayors, including Manchester, which the noble Baroness mentioned, London and the West Midlands, as well as other areas that are still developing but nevertheless are exercising their mayoral role powerfully.

The noble Baroness also asked whether councils and taxpayers will fund the CCA. The Government will support with the costs associated with the new authority through capacity funding, and the authority will also receive its investment fund as well as devolved funding for specific functions such as transport and adult skills. Beyond the support provided by the Government, the budgets of strategic authorities and how any costs are funded will be a local decision. The extent to which the constituent councils need to contribute at all to the running of the authority will therefore be decided locally.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for his comment about this being a price worth paying to get power out of Westminster. That has long been my view, and we have had many discussions about it over the years. First, on the pensions pot, we are still making decisions on how the LGR will be taken forward, but that has not yet been announced. The Government are considering those questions and will respond in due course, so the foundation strategic authorities will hold the ring on pension provision for now, until the mayors come into post.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked why we cannot have mayoral authorities now. I think I have explained that we want to make sure that these foundation strategic authorities are on a firm footing before we bring in the mayoral arrangement. He spoke about democratic arrangements. Once they come into post, the mayors will be directly elected across the whole area. Nevertheless, representatives on the foundation strategic authorities have their own democratic mandate, because they will be nominated from the councils concerned.

On the funding that the strategic authorities will receive, we will support with the costs associated with the new authorities. Sussex and Brighton have received £1.5 million this year in capacity funding to help towards establishment, and will receive a further £7.5 million over the next three years to help with core running costs. They will also receive the 30-year mayoral investment fund once the mayor is in post, as I have said. That will be £38 million a year, £1.14 billion over the 30 years. They will receive a portion of this in the two years prior to the mayor being elected to support the early delivery of growth priorities, and will also receive other devolved funding such as for transport and adult skills.

It is essential that the benefits of devolution are not delayed, and that is why, in the interim period between the establishment of the mayoral strategic authority and the inaugural mayoral elections, we will provide the authorities with a proportion of their investment funds, so that they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver some benefits ahead of the mayor taking office. The strategic authority will have a number of functions available in the interim period to enable and encourage investment in the area, subject to Royal Assent to the Bill. These include: the general power of competence, with the duty to develop a local growth plan and the power to borrow to an agreed cap; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure, enabling it to make strategic interventions and support local growth ambitions; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning, joining up the transport network across the region and helping people get to work, education and leisure activities.

In conclusion, this instrument delivers the commitment made with Sussex and Brighton to establish a combined county authority. I hope the Committee will welcome the regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

When we have requested a timetable for devolution elsewhere, the Minister has said that elections in May 2028 would be held not only in the six priority areas but in a number of other authorities, as part of this devolution. I am slightly confused as, if there is a need for the six priority areas to have this period of time, having already started the process towards May 2028, how will those that have not even started the process be able to do it by then? By inference, if the others can do it more quickly, why can these not do it more quickly, so that we could have those elections earlier? My noble friend Lord Porter suggested possibly May 2027.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The time periods are quite compressed, as the next tranche of 14 areas will be decided before the Summer Recess. The decision-making is quite close together and it is up to us to make sure that we get these SIs through, so that the foundation strategic authorities are in place before the mayoral elections all take place in 2028.

Motion agreed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

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

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

Motion agreed.

High Streets and Towns: Regeneration

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Birmingham City Council and Unite: Refuse Workers’ Pay

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bird (CB)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

UK Domestic Visitor Levy

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that this system is for English mayors.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

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

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

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

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

“a disturbing pattern of violence and intimidation”.

The BMT found that perpetrators were now acting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, may I take the Minister back to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

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

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


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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

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

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


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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[The Archbishop of York]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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