Home Building Target

Lord Bishop of Hereford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am keen to encourage as much investment in the delivery of social and affordable homes as we can. When I did a workshop on this in the City, there was a great appetite for patient capital investment in social housing. I hope we will be able to encourage that. We have reviewed the Help to Buy system, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, indicated. We are working through whether that is the right way to go. There were some issues with the previous Help to Buy scheme. We continue to explore ways to deliver more housing. Certainly, I would encourage investment in this.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, many villages are increasingly unable to retain young families, agricultural workers and other key members of the rural workforce because of a shortage of affordable homes. As the Government pursue their housebuilding target, how will they ensure that rural communities remain sustainable local economies, rather than becoming places local people are priced out of?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are a number of issues that we need to address. One is the rural homes exception, which we have thought about. Local authorities need to make sure that they have enough rural housing in their local plans. We need to make sure that we have rural homes exception policies, so that local people can determine what housing is built where. There is also the issue of making sure the services are there to support rural housing. All these issues are important, and we must bring those together as we make sure there is sufficient housing in rural areas.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Bishop of Hereford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I join a number of noble Lords who have raised the issue of deepfakes in electoral campaigning. I am pleased to be supported in this by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here today. It is regrettable that the Bill does not address the growing challenge to our democracy posed by deepfakes. Democracy depends not only upon the integrity of our electoral processes but upon the integrity of the information environment in which those processes operate, as the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, powerfully reminded us. Voters must be able to know when political content has been generated or materially altered by artificial intelligence. Without that assurance, it becomes harder for citizens to distinguish truth from fabrication, and easier for bad actors to manipulate democratic debate.

Deepfakes pose a distinct challenge to our democracy because they erode the trust on which democratic life depends. They diminish confidence in what voters see and hear, weakening our shared basis for public deliberative discourse. Ofcom research from 2024 found that 57% of respondents were concerned about the impact of deepfakes during the general election; almost half reported that they did not know if they had seen one in the previous week, and a quarter reported that they had.

The Christian and Jewish scriptures forbid the bearing of false witness against one’s neighbour, and we have already seen this played out within our own politics. In 2025, a deepfake falsely depicting George Freeman MP defecting to Reform UK circulated widely online yet reportedly did not meet the threshold for any criminal offence. Noble Members of this House have also been subject to deepfake imagery calling their character into question in a most disgraceful way. It is imperative that the law prohibits the creation or distribution of content that falsely purports to be a candidate or to speak on their behalf with the intention of deceiving voters, while of course at the same time the law must continue to safeguard satire, parody and legitimate political expression.

All AI-generated content should therefore carry clear imprints indicating that it is synthetic media. However, we should go further. AI-generated political content should be ineligible for monetisation, and platforms should be required to provide regular reports to Ofcom detailing monetised political content and enforcement actions taken against offenders. We should also take seriously the recommendation of the Communications and Digital Committee in 2025 to establish a levy on UK profits from online platforms to provide sustainable funding for media literacy initiatives.

As I close, I wish to add my thanks to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lichfield for his contributions both today and in his time in this House. He has a gift for offering understated but remarkably shrewd insights to our deliberations here, and has ministered faithfully in this place through his pastoral relationship with staff across the House. He will be greatly missed, and not least for his example of taking significantly less than the speech limit in this debate. It is fitting that my right reverend friend has ended his time in the Chamber as he began, advocating for the importance of strong British democracy.

The omission of any consideration of deepfakes in this Bill is a missed opportunity to safeguard and strengthen this democracy further.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Hereford Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this is a group of interesting and different amendments. Nobody could fail to be moved by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, speaks to us, or to understand and feel his passion. He should not doubt for a minute that we share that; I think we all do.

My concern about Amendment 89 is that it would involve empty dwelling management orders. There is a real irony about those orders, as they are a power that councils rarely use. In fact, councils regard them as much more complex and difficult than CPOs—compulsory purchase orders—and have almost abandoned using them altogether. There were, in fact, no EDMOs used at all between 2023 and 2024, and only 200 in total since they were introduced in 2006.

I absolutely understand the intention of what has been said, but I am going to be cheeky and use this opportunity with the Minister to jump on one of my hobby horses, which is empty homes. This is really about the constraints and difficulties with compulsory purchase orders. It was said that councils should use their powers, but the trouble is that there are real barriers to councils using those powers. To start with, on money, councils lack dedicated funding to renovate properties, which is exacerbated by the costs of compensation to the owner and legal fees, so there are real money issues there.

It is absolutely accepted that the CPO process is overwhelmingly bureaucratic, complex and slow; it also requires government approval. If we are talking about the devolution of things, perhaps that is a power that councils could just get on with. On the six months, you want to say, “Of course that’s right”, but from my experience tracing the owners can, in reality, take far longer than six months. It is really frustrating watching officers try to progress these sorts of things. It is very challenging when there are so many absentee owners now. Some of the most difficult issues are about untangling complicated probate ownership.

Another big issue is the capacity in councils to do this work, when there is an ongoing concern that councils are constantly being asked to do more with less, particularly with regard to such issues and enforcement. But I understand why this amendment has been brought and the Government should look at removing some of those barriers to CPOs, which are well known and well evidenced. Councils are not using them for those reasons and some of those could be changed.

I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that I will say nice things about Amendment 91. He is feeling a bit bruised today. Of course, it is absolutely right. Where we disagree on this is that I have always believed that brownfield is at the top of the planning hierarchy—ever since John Prescott’s days. It is very clear that we should be developing on brownfield sites. The amendment says that there should be a stronger emphasis. The reason for this, I know from sensible discussions with the Conservative Front Bench, is that they deal regularly with councils that do not give planning permission for brownfield sites.

That is a very real concern. Developers will always develop green spaces over brownfield, so there is a case for talking about incentives to use brownfield sites, to get those more into action. But I guess it is also a challenge for the Minister’s inspectorate. If councils are regularly turning down suitable housing sites and not giving permission, presumably a developer will appeal and inspectors will do their job. So I totally agree that it is always preferable to use brownfield.

My authority is one where 98% is brownfield. We do not really have any green sites apart from scratty little bits of land, which we very quickly put social housing on if we can get ownership of them. I absolutely get where the noble Lord is coming from; I just believe that brownfield is at the top of the hierarchy and that councils that are not playing ball, not playing by the rules, should be brought to account regardless of what party they are run by.

I have to say publicly to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I find her amendments wonderfully quirky. She is really good at thinking outside the box. I am busy thinking, “Okay, this one actually sounds quite simple, coming from the noble Baroness, but I bet there are loads of really complicated reasons why it can’t happen”. What I will say is that she put it very simply: why can they not just give it for free? In our council we give the land for free. The only way we get social housing built is by giving the land for free. I guess it is about the principle of that, and I wholeheartedly endorse the principle. Public land is a public asset and should be used for the public good. It might amuse the noble Baroness to know that we have some very quirky policies on land use within our party. Land clearly is an issue for building and development. I will rest my words there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I support Amendment 89 and acknowledge the remarkable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to tackling homelessness over many years.

That challenge is particularly acute in rural communities. We know that rural housing is less affordable. Action with Communities in Rural England reports that the average home costs nearly nine times the average local earnings, compared with around seven and a half times in urban areas. Unsurprisingly, these pressures are reflected in rising levels of homelessness. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has found that homelessness in rural areas has increased year on year, with a 73% increase since 2018.

In such circumstances, many people find themselves unable to live in the communities where they work, have family connections and contribute to local life. When people can no longer afford to live near their work, communities lose not only vital skills and services but the continuity of relationships, local knowledge and a sense of shared responsibility. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community’s Coming Home report identified stability as one of the necessary building blocks of housing that supports people to flourish. At a time when homelessness is rising and affordable housing remains out of reach for many, the question, as many noble Lords have already mentioned, is not simply what more we can build but how well we are using what we already have.