Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities.

The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three.

I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership.

The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the NAO concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain.

The HCLG report was more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. It found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable and many shared owners never reach full ownership. It questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.

Then we have the ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, jumping from 324 cases in 2020 to 1,564 complaints more recently. That sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling.

The ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restore defects such as cladding or fire safety issues after they are raised. On the sales process, he found incorrect charges at the point of moving in, miscommunication regarding staircasing—buying larger shares of the property—and general delays from solicitors.

The ombudsman summed up the problems by saying that there is a “mismatch” between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord. He concluded that the Government should address the

“fundamental inequities in the way in which shared ownership is designed”—

a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

Bringing all that together may explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, and the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate—frequently below 30%. Any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council, Shared Ownership Resources, which has produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and has first-hand evidence of existing pinch points. I very much hope that the Government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the talent and the landlord.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young-of Cookham, and also the sense behind Amendments 105 and 106. There is an asymmetry between the risk and the reward involved in shared ownership—all the costs but only half the uplift, if there is one. The risks include very large unexpected costs, which my noble friend raised and I do not intend to repeat. There is 100% of the costs, but only half the capital.

This has been sold to people who one might say, without patronising, are less financially sophisticated, as a lower cost way of getting their foot on the ladder. But the facts bear out the assertion that mortgage costs on the whole would be less than the rent they are paying on the half. It is not necessarily low cost at all; one might go far as to suggest that there has been a degree of mis-selling here.

So, I support Amendment 105, which calls for a review. We cannot carry on as we are. My experience in my own council work when I was the leader showed that the popularity of this tenure has gone down and down. There is now very low take-up. It is possibly a tenure whose time has passed. But the review could reinvigorate it. There is a case for low-cost housing for people to establish and build capital in their society. With this review, which I support entirely, there is the opportunity to try to get it back on track.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, because the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young of Cookham, have done such a brilliant job of talking about shared ownership, I will scrap most of my speech. We on these Benches have brought up the vexed subject of shared ownership many times, and I know that the Minister understands and absolutely appreciates that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has been a stalwart campaigner for reform. That deserves to be recognised.

If shared ownership is a pathway to home ownership, it is a very rocky one. It is definitely a home owner’s dream that turned into their worst nightmare. I could wax lyrical about automated 1% staircasing, proportional maintenance and a 15% valuation cushion, but I will not. But I am interested in what the Minister has to say, because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I do not believe that this is something that has passed; in high-cost areas, it is essential. Therefore, we would really like to hear something about reform or at least a vision of how it might be reformed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

89: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Protections for adapted social housing(1) This section applies where—(a) a dwelling owned by the local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing has been substantially adapted for occupation by a person with a disability or support need, or(b) a Disabled Facilities Grant has been used to fund substantial adaptations to that dwelling.(2) Before such a dwelling is allocated through the general housing allocation process, the landlord must take reasonable steps to offer the dwelling to a person whose needs would substantially benefit from those adaptations.(3) In this section, “substantially adapted” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations made by statutory instruments.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require social landlords to protect the pool of adapted housing by giving preference to applicants who could benefit from existing adaptations before allocating adapted homes through the general housing allocation process.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am very disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new affordable homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of homes, particularly adapted homes. We are an ageing nation, we are getting fatter and nowadays many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. As a council leader, I spend about £1.5 million a year adapting homes for this ageing and impaired population. I remember that, when devising our local plan, there was a need for 3,500 adapted homes and supported living units; it was about 10% of the total housing need. It is an important issue, but not one you would gather from this Bill. At Second Reading, I explained how councils might install an adaptation so that a resident with an impairment could live comfortably. I explained that it might be a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, in my council, we spent £75,000 on a complete extension that was required to enable that family to live decently.

In preparation for this debate, and in pursuance of that simple truth, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He tells me that about half the improvements relate to wet rooms. That is important, because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it keeps our hospital wards clean. Half the wet room adaptations are combined with wider doors so that someone in a wheelchair can shower hygienically. Together, cleaning and better access represent half the improvements for disabled facilities, grants and aids and adaptations.

Other examples might be a kitchen with low-level worktops—again, suitable for wheelchair use. Typically, it takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation: directionally two to three months for the assessment and the report by the occupational therapist, then a couple of months for the specification contracting and then the construction itself. In my experience, our district council delivered about 150 such projects a year at an average cost of about £10,000 each. I would say that one of my best interventions as a councillor was to ensure that a widow who lived in Mill Road in Seething was able to keep herself clean, by expediting the process of creating a wet room in her social home.

I feel that I have laboured the point, but I tell that story with pride because the simple truth is that we just do not have enough of these adapted homes, and that is why the state invests in them. MHCLG distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities, and some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs top up that allocation still further. I ensured that we reinvested all the profits from our trading activities to top up that money. So, in total, it adds up to about £1 billion a year. That is a large chunk of change, ensuring that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and on with, maintaining personal pride and hygiene.

Here is the problem that my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. A new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money, it reduces the pool of adapted homes, and it is bad for everyone, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice: once to put it in and once to take it out. I recall one example where we had built a brand new accessible home with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for a wheelchair-bound resident. As it happened, the first tenant was really tall, and by and by he tired of bending down to move the pots and pans around the hob, so the council was obliged by law to rip out that kitchen and put in a normal one—oh dear. That is absurd. It should have been let to a wheelchair user in the first place. So I ask the Minister directly: where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of and investments in adapted homes for the ageing population? Why can we not offer rights of first refusal to those who need help to keep themselves clean down there?

I have heard it said, “Well, this is an allocations issue and we’re not going there in this limited Bill”. I profoundly disagree with that. That is why I asked for this debate to be de-grouped so it could have the importance it deserves without being clouded by other issues. My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock. It is about protecting a £1 billion investment— a significant sum that should not be lightly discarded— and it is about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. So I do not see this as an allocations issue, in the sense that preference should be given to an individual veteran or a certain type of local person. This is about protecting the pool of adapted homes, not least because we are all getting older. It is about ensuring that the wider cohort who carry an impairment have sufficient protected stock for them to have a go at, where they get preference, to make the best of their lives and to make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that, what is it for? Casually dismissing this as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection.

We must grab this sufficiency issue now. We are in Committee. I want to probe the matter more deeply between now and Report. Unless we make some progress, I anticipate that this is an issue on which I will seek to divide the House on Report, on the grounds that the Bill aims to protect the social stock for those in need, and my amendment seeks to achieve precisely that.

I have nearly said enough but I want to give Kevin Philcox, my expert on the ground, who has been around a long time in this space, the final word. He told me that, among the dedicated housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way that I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country—it is number one on the wish list. That is quite a statement.

The opportunity to protect that £1 billion a year investment and look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society is before us here and now. If we fail to take it, there is no one else to do it in our place. As it is, there are no powers to protect those adaptations or to give those in need first refusal, but there should be. I beg to move.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the important subject of adapted social housing. As we have argued throughout this day of Committee, we must improve how we manage the existing stock of social housing by making better use of what we have and what is being built. It strikes us as entirely sensible that, where possible and appropriate, homes that have been adapted are then given to applicants who would also benefit from those adaptations. That would save social housing providers money and ensure that we made the best use of resources and housing stock. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any details that she might be able to give us on how it might be implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have explained what local authorities are already doing, and I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments—I will consider them carefully. Perhaps we could have a meeting between now and Report. All I would say is that I do not think things are quite as clear or clear-cut as she makes them out to be, not least because the problem can arise when someone has been allocated housing and has not necessarily made a full disclosure of their needs, and then, once they are in, they can move things out. I think there is a requirement.

I accept the point about statutory guidance, and I will, I hope, talk to the Minister or officials between now and Report, and consider my position. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

90: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Social purpose of registered providers of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the social purpose of registered providers of social housing.(2) The guidance must include—(a) promoting tenant wellbeing;(b) effective state management; (c) the prevention and reduction of antisocial behaviour;(d) community engagement;(e) the provision and maintenance of safe and sustainable neighbourhoods;(f) the balance between development activity and social responsibilities of registered providers.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the guidance before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the social purpose of registered providers of social housing and the wider responsibilities expected of them beyond housing development.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

As part of my ward work last month, I was surprised that a home in Brooke, in my ward where I live, under the Victory Housing banner, is actually owned by part of a much larger RSL headquartered in Gloucestershire. I mentioned it at Second Reading, and since then it has reached out to me to explain that it actually has a local team to manage these properties. That is reassuring, but the truth remains that the shots are called from miles away. It is a close-to-home example of the way in which the RSL landscape has consolidated, as small RSLs have bought up others and then in turn been taken over still further in the name of economies of scale.

I can understand why this has happened, but scale has not been good for tenants. Tenant reps have been excised from the landscape. There is a lack of local accountability, with national RSLs populating their boards with the great and good from out of town, the consequences being that a focus on local matters such as anti-social behaviour has been relegated to the subs’ bench—and I am conscious that the football starts in a minute.

At Second Reading, I suggested that the Bill could be stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of law-abiding residents, but it is not. That is one of the reasons that have prompted me to introduce Amendment 90 to mandate that and other desirable traits so that the social purpose of social providers is enshrined in law.

I explained how there has been a consolidation of actors in this space, but one of the reasons for liberalising certain financial powers in the Bill—which I do not oppose—is that it will drive financial engineering to new heights. It is the intended consequence of the Bill, but the liberalisation must come with strings attached. It should not be necessary, but it now has become so, to state what the social purpose of RSLs is, not least because there is £35 billion burning a hole in the Government’s pocket. Our job, it seems to me, is to ensure that there is conditionality attached to that largesse if RSLs are to be favoured with cheap money and government underwriting in a way that Berkeley, Norfolk Homes or Redrow—others are available—are not.

In too many cases, RSLs just do not grip the anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of neighbours. I know, because I have seen it myself, that others look away when the criminality is committed. We have the nonsense of community gardens left ungrown and untidy in the name of “No Mow May”, which lasts all year. It is lazy and slovenly, and impacts families miles away from the out-of-towners who sit on these boards.

It is telling that in a briefing on the Bill by the National Housing Federation, which explained that it runs more than 2.5 million homes, supporting 6 million people living in 62% of all the social homes in England, there was not a single mention of social purpose, save to say that the federation was driven by it without explaining what it means. Front and centre it certainly was not.

I know why this has happened. Candidly, among RSLs in particular, there has been far too great a focus on development. That has led to the loss of social purpose. The truth is that as RSLs have become overleveraged, they have been caught out by increases in build, finance and land costs, and there is no financial space for the social purpose—an omission the Bill should correct.

We are in Committee, so I have had a stab at defining what the social purpose could be. It is duplicated in Amendment 110. For those organisations that want to take the Government’s shilling in a way that is not available to other private developers, we need to look at the strings attached. My amendment would enshrine six key principles—I will not list them, in the interests of time, but they are there in the amendment—and regulations to codify them, along with success factors, would follow.

Too many RSLs have taken the wrong path. They have strayed from their original purpose. They have lost sight of the social purpose. Instead, they have been hooked on speculation and property development, on the back of cheap government finance, so we need to bring them back on track. If you take the money, my amendment would provide the hair on the deal. It is not too much to ask. If they want to take the cash in a way that is not available to private operators, they need to take their social responsibilities seriously—and if they cannot, they can go to Barclays, NatWest or Lloyds, or any other bank, just like the others. I beg to move.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I am going to speak very briefly—there are matters of life and death about to start in 10 minutes, and I am not going to stand in the way of that—but I am surprised by these amendments. They have been tabled by Conservative Peers going for centralisation and more regulation. We want better people running housing associations; we want good chairs, good chief executives and effective boards. I have to ask: do you want social entrepreneurial spirit, creative drive and a commitment to efficiency in customer services to be suffocated by overregulation, interference and process? We need a balance. I do not believe these probing amendments aim to provide a balance.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I am not persuaded that this approach is necessary. Since 2024, the regulator has implemented a proactive consumer regulation regime, including routine inspections of large landlords and the introduction of consumer gradings. Mandating tenant-triggered inspections risks cutting across this approach, potentially diverting regulatory resource away from higher-risk providers or issues and undermining the regulator’s ability to act independently. Tenants have clear and established routes to escalate concerns, from the internal complaints procedure to the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman can then refer a complaint to the regulator where they suspect an issue at the level of the landlord. Given these reasons, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to the guidance published on 9 June. I was not aware of it, and I will look at it closely. However, the title was all about how you deliver more houses. My amendment is not about the number of houses; it is about the social behaviours, because they are not working at the moment. By following the money, we see that, without strings, too many RSLs are focusing too much on development and not enough on doing the right thing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, enumerated a number of things. I could not write them down fast enough, but customer focus, innovation and other things were all there. However, left alone, these things are not happening.

I want a light touch, but, ultimately, I want to establish the principle of the deal: if the RSLs want cheap government money to expand their estates, there need to be strings attached, and those strings go with a rededication of RSLs to the social purpose, rather than focusing on financial engineering, because that is not in tenants’ best interests. On the ground, we are seeing that, when tenants do have genuine concerns, they are not being addressed promptly. The well-being of the estates is not at the forefront of the mind, and that is not good for anybody. So, if you want the money, you can have the hair on the deal; otherwise, go to Barclays. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 90 withdrawn.

The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, whom we know has unparalleled expertise of not just the regulator but the service, in defence of safety and security in London. I declare that I am a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, but I joined after this report was published. Nevertheless, I manage a residential block of flats in Norwich.

Self-evidently, a building should be sufficiently safe for not just residents and occupiers but visitors, tenants and everybody else. We have all seen the consequences when things go wrong. When I was a member of the fire service pension scheme, we had a meeting on the morning of the Grenfell fire in the headquarters of the London Fire Brigade. None of us really knew the gravity of what was unfurling before us; those horrors came later. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has given us the chronology, so I will not detain the Committee with it.

I have no wish to criticise the regulator or anybody who works within it. They have had to get going under the glare of publicity. There was the move from the HSE to Marsham Street; the regulations had to be revised; delays were inevitable and staffing changed. Let us not rehearse all the difficulties. Our challenge is to look forward and get these issues fixed in a proportionate manner so that we can get Britain building again.

Back in about 2019, I sat in the office of the then Secretary of State when the Building Safety Act 2022 was being mooted. He made a powerful observation that stuck with me: some felt that the Act, if implemented, could in some way prevent fire. That misdirection by some was a delusion, because fires will happen. The first purpose of the Building Safety Act should be to enable people to get out quickly. Clearly, there are ways to prevent fire, slow its spread, compartmentalise and raise the alarm in the event of a conflagration. Nobody wants to see a building burn, but too often the regulations that have flowed from the Act have placed too great a focus on the purist approach to preserving a building’s fabric rather than saving lives. We must restate the balance between protecting the building and getting people out more quickly.

The regulations have spawned a huge amount of work. Approaches have inevitably created a bureaucratic monster, especially for older buildings. I think it is fair to say that, historically, there have been unrealistic assessments of risk—blind to cost and burdened by process delays—which have stymied desirable works while making homes worthless in the meantime. Counterintuitively, in some cases they have reduced safety, with refurbishments abandoned, increased risks to residents and the open-ended costs of waking watches and unsellable homes. Success was never meant to be like this.

Obviously we need to focus on the highest-risk buildings—those that are hardest to get out of—but this bureaucratic mission creep has blighted otherwise safe buildings. The fault is not necessarily with the regulator, the builders, the landlords or whoever is directly involved with a premises. Other actors have contributed to the misdirection that has blighted buildings and stalled lives. The mission creep has led to many cases of 11-metre buildings, for example, which are much safer and easier to get out of—and in which, if fires occur, they are much easier to fight—being needlessly tainted. A practical example of this misdirection sees uninformed conveyancers, egged on by mortgage providers, estate agents, valuation surveyors and insurers, demanding unnecessary EWS1 inspections at a specimen cost of £25,000 each, because inevitably intrusive investigations—with scaffolding and making good—will be required. Legally unnecessary, these EWS1s then need to be repeated every five years. It is pointless and counterproductive, and diverts from the risks of addressing the needs of the really high-rise, high-risk buildings.

I am not making the case to ignore unsafe buildings, but excessive delays over specification and costs are keeping people in unimproved buildings that could be made safe for longer, so that they cannot move; it takes too long to buy a home and sales fall through. Housebuilding itself has collapsed in London and, because what happens in London—where there is a disproportionate number of high-rise buildings—follows elsewhere, we are just gumming up the national market. That is why it is important to get this right and to get a grip, not least because we will see perverse consequences if we make it all too difficult for freeholders to do the right thing, especially if the regulatory costs exceed the costs of doing the work. They will just collapse their firms, leaving the leaseholders—those least likely and able to afford it—holding the baby.

Molior reports that new starts in London developments have fallen from a peak of 33,774 in 2015 to just 5,547 in the first quarter of 2026. Getting this wrong in a city that houses 10 million people is never going to grow the economy at the rate we need to.

How do we improve? I am grateful to Berkeley Homes for telling me that, within the regulator, we need to streamline the move from gateway 2 to gateway 3 as an application moves from idea to reality, and we need case officers to be passported through on the same application. Sometimes—we have heard the reasons why—case officers change, with their different views, interpretations or prejudices, which adds to delays, risks and costs. It would be helpful if we fixed the reinvention of the wheel, where lessons learned from one application cannot be passported to another similar development of a common design.

We should celebrate innovation, but we must turn against the notion that anything new is intrinsically high risk and is tipped into the lottery of the bucket of most complex cases. Such Ludditism will never get roofs over our heads. We need to recognise that the building levy, which is £90 per square metre in Fulham, is killing building for little purpose save to sustain the bureaucracy. It is not entirely clear how, in the case of Fulham, which is a high-value area, that figure was calculated in the first place. Elsewhere, the surveyors, mortgage providers, conveyancers and the rest need to stop demanding legally unnecessary tickets with impossible burdens of proof that are collapsing sales and trapping people in their own homes.

It would be churlish if we did not recognise the enormous strides that have been taken with the move from the Health and Safety Executive to Marsham Street, but we need to recognise that we have to get better—from the 22 weeks we have heard about down to the 12-week deadline, and so forth. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Roe, explained that, in order to increase confidence, which is really important, regular data releases are needed to show progress. It is important to show that trajectory; it will get developers off the pot and starting building, which will in turn get the economy moving. Something as simple as that is so welcome.

My main point is to restate the purpose of the regulator and the regulations, which is to ensure that, if a fire happens, we get people out quickly. Creating a counsel of perfection, where every single minor detail is fettled to the nth degree regardless of cost, is not helping either the system for new builds or, more particularly, older buildings that are crying out for refurbishment. Unless we get this balance right, especially in our capital city, we will not build new homes and people will not be able to get on with their lives.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have previous experience in the delivery of social housing. During the 2010s, when I was leader of South Norfolk Council, we consistently delivered 1% of England’s entire affordable housing every year. My council built more homes to rent than the rest of Norfolk put together. Every home lost to the right to buy was replaced and then some. After my nearly 20 years as council leader, the number of affordable houses in south Norfolk had gone up from 4,188 to more than 7,000.

I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, that the amount of social housing is not a finite resource; it can be built. We had an ambitious plan that could be delivered through development proceeds from a position of negotiating strength. The Planning and Infrastructure Act and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act have weakened that power but, when I was leader of the council, I held all the cards. Now those cards are held by developers, on undeliverable housing targets under the five-year land supply, so the Government have made their task harder. The irony is that this Bill has never been needed more, since the private rented sector was decimated by the Renters’ Rights Act, which turbocharged rents to new highs. Who knew?

That said, I welcome the measure for a 35-year lockout for new homes on right to buy. The probability that brand new homes could be acquired under right to buy has chilled new investment and spawned no end of avoidance structures from within local authorities, which is diverting.

In some respects, it is shame that the right to buy will be diluted. It should be stated clearly and loudly that the ability to buy your own home has been one of the most empowering success stories of the last 40 years. Done right—as I did, as leader of the council— a social home that is bought houses two families: the family who bought the house and another one in the new house which replaces it.

This plays to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron: I have concerns that the Bill will prevent receipts in one authority being applied to a neighbouring one, even if they are in the same housing market area. When my neighbour Norwich City Council could not build houses or spend the receipts, it lent the money to us and we built some affordable houses within a mile of the city boundary. My reading of the Bill is that this desirable behaviour would be banned, and that is crazy.

This leads me to the subject of locality. I understand that the Bill is limited in scope, but protecting the stock cannot be just a national numbers game. Housing is more local than that, but that is not envisaged in the Bill, as I read it. There are general freedoms for social providers to recycle funds, not within a specific area but across their entire estate. As part of my ward work, I was surprised last month when a home in Brooke, in the ward where I live, was under the management of Victory Homes but being managed from Gloucester. The freedom to move receipts within the RSL without challenge, from Norfolk to Gloucester, does not help local people at all. Unless we protect the stock in local markets, a large provider may focus on where it is cheaper, not where it is needed. The RSLs are different from the councils.

I was grateful to the Minister for the drop-in before the Recess, when she explained that it is very difficult to define territories. From one ex-council leader to another, she must know that that is incorrect. We both developed local plans based on housing market areas. They are defined; they exist. It is just not the case that area management is not part of the Bill. The principle of locality is established and there are welcome carve-outs for national parks. I just wish that it would go further on national landscapes. In Committee, I will seek to probe how receipts can be recycled locally by default before being snaffled by the centre.

None of this would be necessary had social housing providers not become so large. Scale has not been good for the tenants. It has led to a lack of local accountability. National RSLs populating their boards with the great and the good, acting as pound shop developers on the government dime, has seen tenant reps excised from the landscape. The consequence is that the focus on local matters, such as anti-social behaviour, has been dropped, as I know from my own ward casework. This Bill could have been stronger on anti-social behaviour to demonstrate that the Government are on the side of the law-abiding resident, but it is not.

Candidly, far too great a focus on development has led to a loss by these RSLs of the social purpose of providing social homes. RSLs cannot even sell houses they developed initially for the private market to be used for social use, and that is wrong. Instead, one of the effects of the liberalisation of certain financial powers in this Bill may be to drive financial engineering to new heights. The truth is that as RSLs have become overleveraged, they have been caught out by the increase in build costs, finance and land costs. Quite simply, there is no space for the social purpose of these organisations. That is an omission this Bill should correct but does not.

I am disappointed that the Bill purports to protect the supply of new homes but fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. I spent about £3 million a year adapting homes for an ageing population. In some cases, it might have been a grab rail or a ramp. In one case, a £75,000 extension was required. When, as so often happens, the tenant passes away and the home is re-advertised, no credit can be given for those adaptations. The new tenant can ask for them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy. It is a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes. It is bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who has to pay twice, once to put the adaptation in and again to take it out. Where are the provisions in the Bill to protect the supply of adapted homes for the ageing population? I have heard it said that this is an allocations issue and we are not going there. I say: why not?

As I warm to my allocations theme, where are the protections for veterans? Where is the assertion that those with local needs should be prioritised? Where is the preference for the indigenous population? Where are protections for local needs, for affordable housing in our villages—small developments in places such as Bergh Apton that local people campaigned for, not against? Where are the stronger fiscal incentives for people to downsize from the family home as they age? This Bill is deficient in that it does not even look at the totality of the supply and certainly fails on the demand side. Partial supply without looking at the demand is no solution at all. The Bill is incomplete. It looks only at the home, not really at the people who live in it. It does half the job, and in Committee we will attempt to make it whole.

Donations to Political Parties

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am sure that Mr Rycrotft, in his extensive review of the electoral system, took that into account. Having been a member of a political party for a long time, I know that the auditing process is an important part of the system. We all want to make sure that that works properly for political parties, as it should do in all parts of public life.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, suggested that those seeking to influence policy through donations are guilty of some sort of corruption. Does the Minister agree that that is an incorrect characterisation and that the law should apply equally, not just to private individuals and businesses but to unions?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I want briefly to speak in favour of my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about how the committee system does not necessarily work.

I want to share the Sheffield experience with the noble Baroness. In Sheffield, when we had a strong leader model, the leader picked her cabinet, and we ended up with 10 people deciding for the entire city. There were 84 councillors and 10 people chosen by the leader. There was one occasion—I think my noble friend Lord Scriven will remember this—where, in one ward, all three councillors were part of the cabinet and large swathes of the city had no say. What we ended up with—I hope noble Lords go and Google this—was the Sheffield tree fiasco, where even the noble Lord, Lord Gove, who is not in his place, came up and could not see what was going on. That was a result of the groupthink that existed within that strong leader model.

Let me tell your Lordships what the situation is at the moment in Sheffield. There is no party in overall control. You would think that would be chaos, but it is not. It is made up of nine councillors drawn from all political parties representing different parts of the city, who all sit on a particular committee. There is a leader of the council—at the moment, he is a Labour councillor. All the committee chairs sit on what we call a strategy and resources committee. Therefore, all councillors have a say. We do not have the ludicrous situation where the scrutiny boards, as previously under a strong leader model, are picked by the same leader who is in charge of the cabinet. It was a ruling group which had all the cabinet positions and the scrutiny positions. That is why we ended up with bad decision-making.

It is why I say: let local people decide. If this Bill is about community empowerment, let them decide. People in Bristol and Sheffield have decided to go for a different model. I referred to Birmingham on a previous occasion and how it had a strong leader model but was not able to make the difficult decisions that Sheffield most recently has, despite no party being in overall control and moving to a committee system. We have not been in the financial crisis that the likes of Birmingham have been in.

What I am saying is that different models can work, but let us trust local residents. Let central government loosen a bit of control and let local people decide. Given what is written on the tin of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, why are we not empowering communities? At the moment, it feels disempowering. Therefore, I hope the Minister will address the issue of the Sheffield experience.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion F1 and particularly Clauses 37 and 91. Large parts of England—about 20% or one-fifth—will be unparished when the Government have finished vandalising our councils with LGR—the historic county boroughs, cathedral cities such as Norwich and Oxford, coastal communities such as Great Yarmouth, Hastings or Eastbourne, and new towns such as Stevenage, where the noble Baroness served with distinction as leader for many years. I note my noble friend Lady Maclean is not in her place, so I will save her from saying that the town of Redditch, which she represented with distinction, is wholly unparished—save for little Feckenham in the south-west of that new town.

When Labour is done, these places will not have a properly constituted, legally incorporated and democratically legitimised local council to mow the park, heat the baths and run the carnival, complete with a proper mayor, wearing red robes and a tricorn hat, with ribbon-cutting, convening powers. Through Clause 60, what the Government have in mind for these unparished areas is a system where out-of-town patsies are parachuted in to play politics in toothless talking shops with no resources, because there is nothing left in the precept once social care has feasted on it.

I read with astonishment this morning what the Minister wrote to us in proposing Amendment 37A, which will allow town and parish councillors to attend those meetings. Does she not see the problem here? In those places, there are not going to be any town or parish councillors—that is the point. By what alchemy will she conjure up councillors from thin air to attend these meetings? It is just magical thinking. That is why Amendment 37A is worthless: you cannot send people who do not exist.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on local government reorganisation. Before I comment on the amendments, I wonder if the House would indulge me for one moment so that I may pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham, who died during recess.

Jeremy Beecham’s passion for local government, his wisdom, kindness, fierce intelligence and sharp wit, as well as over 55 years of service to his community in Newcastle, with 17 years as leader of Newcastle City Council, made him a powerful and committed ambassador and advocate of local government, including when he came into your Lordships’ House. My thoughts are with his family, the people of Newcastle—to whom he committed a lifetime of service—and our local government community, where his legacy will be enduring and powerful. There was a wonderful levaya yesterday in Newcastle which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I attended, along with other Members of this House. I hope that Jeremy will rest in peace. May his memory be a blessing.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is very clear—stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to benefit from strong unitary—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Is the Minister winding? A number of us wish to get in as part of the debate. I would hate to cut her off, but I think there are some contributions to be made.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It was my understanding that we had moved on to winding speeches.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I did not realise that we had moved on to winding speeches. I wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister said about the late Lord Beecham and add my condolences.

With the leave of the House, I would like to comment briefly on Amendment 187, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson. I support the intentions of their amendments, which seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to direct mergers of single tiers of local government to cases where all the local authorities concerned have given their consent. I strongly agree with that. Of their amendments, I prefer the two which are more far-reaching, Amendments 188 and 194, because the provision for local authorities to merge exists already. Clause 57 and Schedule 26 are there only to implement the power of the Secretary of State to enforce such mergers, without the consent of the authorities involved.

The addition proposed by Schedule 26 of the Bill to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 concerns a

“district or county council for an area for which there is currently a single tier of local government”.

I understand that a county council can be a single tier, but I cannot understand how a district council can be a single tier. I would observe that the Bill is concerned with mergers of principal authorities. Can the Minister tell your Lordships if it also provides for the dismemberment or breakdown of principal authorities into smaller units, such as is happening under the current local government reorganisation? This is seeing many counties being divided up into smaller unitary authorities, which will certainly result in a massive increase in costs, which will have to be borne by hard-pressed council tax payers.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in the strongest possible support of the amendments tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. I would like to make two introductory remarks.

First, I was the leader of a council for 20 years and had a ringside seat for LGR in my own area and as part of my chairmanship of the District Councils’ Network. I saw at first hand that, far from saving money, LGR has precipitated the bankruptcy of Somerset and in Yorkshire created a so-called local council spanning the whole width of England at that point, bar 9 miles, encompassing Skipton, Selby and Scarborough.

Secondly, I note that a lot has changed since we were in Committee. The Government have published their LGR proposals for Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire. The lofty ideals of strategic leadership, better value for money and economies of scale, together with the published criteria, which the public took at face value and responded to, have been dashed on the rocks of partisan gerrymandering. I do not know why I am surprised that the party that sought to rig the local government elections would seek to pervert the process as it has, but we can see what has happened here. The Labour authorities that connived with the Government to cancel the election on the flimsiest grounds—so weak the Government would not take their chances in the court—have been rewarded with small unitary councils designed to fail. The goalposts have been moved. That is why Amendments 189 and 191 in particular are so important. They would stop the abuse of process whereby the public, who play by one set of rules, are stymied by Ministers playing by another.

Let us compare what Ministers advertised in the current round of LGR against what has been delivered. It was said that LGR proposals should, in all but the most extenuating circumstances, respect and be based on existing councils as building blocks—themselves grounded in the historic county boroughs, Poor Law unions and ecclesiastical hundreds. There were good reasons for this. The Government are in a hurry, and easy building blocks make aggregation simpler, better value and quicker.

While there always might have been extenuating circumstances, perhaps to bring the awkward extremities of a national park within the ambit of a single unitary, we have been served by a gerrymander, where cities have been given the choicest parts of their neighbours, ignoring travel to work areas, breaking communities of interest and making the process more expensive, longer and disruptive at precisely the moment councils are meant to be delivering growth, not shuffling the deck chairs.

In the case of Norfolk, we see the announcement of a conversion of seven districts into three unitaries. It will not just merge seven into three, which will be hard enough as it is; in this proposal, which breaks up the existing councils as building blocks, we will see 14 disaggregations and weldings together in a cut and shut job that would shame Arthur Daley. Of course, the consequences of all that are only just becoming clearer: breaking long-term contracts for refuse collection, orphaning leisure centres and disrupting the local plan. There are unknowable permutations around allocating staff, who will need to think which of the 14 functional parts of our county, each of which delivers 136 council activities, they will need to stitch together contractually, financially and legally, and in terms of software and staffing, in just a few months without even being clear about the parishing in the former county boroughs. It is designed to fail.

People were told to propose new councils based around a population of at least half a million. We were told that was the economic optimum that combines scale with efficiency. I know we cannot be precious. Counties are not exactly in 500,000 increments. I would not have been surprised to see a 10% or 15% variation around that 500,000 figure—in other words, perhaps anywhere between 425,000 and 575,000. But we have been served a set of councils, many of which will see a population beginning with a “2” by as late as 2040— Condemned by design and scale to that special council death zone with populations similar to the existing unitary cohort that is in trouble in are places such as Swindon, Slough and Stoke. If that is what the Government had in mind, they should have been up front and open at the outset. It would have stopped the nods and winks to the counties that are clearly doomed but whose consent was required to endorse the mayoral elections.

The Government have acted dishonestly in their dealing on this. They have said one thing and done another. They have abused their position and spoken with forked tongue. They told us it would strengthen democracy. I led South Norfolk Council for nearly 20 years. Norwich is to be inflated like a balloon, but not by so much that Labour’s client vote will be diluted. A few wealthy parishes will be peeled off here and there to pay off the city’s historic debts without regard to the rump authority left behind. Labour’s unthinking approach has been that the rest of the countryside can go hang.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Forgive me for interrupting. The noble Lord is giving us a lot of very interesting information, but we are on Report and I just wonder how much more he has to give us.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The answer is not very much. I am getting to the nub of the point.

The Government have said one thing and done another. That is an important legal point, because in 2007 when they tried to use these same provisions that they now seek to rely on under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Mr Justice Ouseley, in his judgment in January 2010, found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had changed the decision-making approach in an unfair and unlawful manner. He said:

“the Secretary of State set out repeatedly the basis upon which he would refuse proposals, and without any warning adopted a wholly different approach, and reached decisions which, on the original approach, he would not have reached. … On the face of it, the decisions taken by the Secretary of State … made a mockery of the consultation process”.

This amendment would stop the jiggery-pokery and the changing and moving of the goalposts during the process that we have seen today. Furthermore, a previous part of that botched process in 2010 was quashed by Mr Justice Cranston, a former Labour MP, because the tabulation of costs and benefits alongside a full plain English explanation of what it would mean to the man on the street, which included a full statement of the total forecast cost to the council tax payer had not been done—and of course it has not been done. Our counties, subject to LGR in this round, are being pushed into a financial leap in the dark—brought to you by the same people who told the nation that business rates would not be put up for pubs.

I hope that my learned friends run the rule, following the 2010 judgments by Justice Ousley and Justice Cranston as a guide, but it is now clear that the Government never intended to follow the rules and have not even bothered to run the numbers anyway, resulting in a no man’s land of councils being too small to be big or too big to be small. We were promised better than this. I strongly support the amendments because we have seen gerrymandering in this process. That is not good enough, and these amendments would prevent it happening in future. I hope councils do not waste too much time on this until my learned friends have completed their deliberations, because they sorely need to.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there were an awful lot of questions there for the Minister to answer. It would be better for the House if she responds to them, in particular to the nub of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

I hope the Minister will not mind if I pay tribute to the late Lord Beecham. He was a councillor in Newcastle for 55 years, 17 of which were as leader of the council. He was the first chair of the Local Government Association. I spent a number of years as leader of the opposition to Jeremy when he was leader of the council, and we enjoyed sparring, as indeed we continued to do after 2010 across the Floor of this Chamber. He was a new broom in the late 1970s in the era after T Dan Smith. He was young. He created the social services department. He fought an unrelenting battle against poverty, creating a welfare rights service in Newcastle, but he also understood the importance of growth in the city. We discovered yesterday—I did not know—that he convinced the Chancellor that there should be bus passes for older and younger people; I am particularly pleased about that.

I know that Jeremy’s family have appreciated the large number of tributes that have been paid to him nationally, locally and in the media. There is a book about what he did in those 55 years—there is a copy in the Library and, I think, in the Government Whips’ Office—to which I was privileged to contribute chapter 2. It is an interesting work on the history of local government over the past 40 years. I add my tribute to Jeremy’s huge contribution to Newcastle and to the country as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments neatly follows the previous group as it concerns further empowerment to be strengthened for the most local tier of our democracy. Amendment 195 in my name would ensure that Governments had a responsibility to maximise geographical coverage of town and parish councils, and would require an annual report to Parliament on the progress made in expanding that democratic footprint.

The creation of large unitary authorities by the Government, as we have just heard, resulted in making local government more remote and, crucially, more focused on the narrow remit of being the service delivery arm of national government—for instance, the delivery of adult and children’s social care, which constitutes three-quarters of a budget of a unitary council. The focus on key service delivery is at the expense of understanding the differences within large council areas and the attention to very local detail that only a parish or town council can provide.

My own experience as a councillor in a metropolitan authority that serves 450,000 people supports that view, hence the importance of encouraging and supporting the creation of an effective local voice for a village, a small town or even a suburb of a large town. A failure to do so will result in people being disfranchised and more remote from decision-making at a large local level. They will feel that their voice does not count, and that is a danger for our democratic institutions.

Those of us who care about local democracy care that people’s voices are heard. Amendment 196 follows that, because it would create a statutory duty to consult. Where parish and town councils have been created or exist, under this amendment the local authorities would have to consult relevant town or parish councils on matters that directly affect them, such as planning applications, parks and open spaces and other very local services and amenities.

Amendment 196 says that a local authority must—I stress the word “must”—have regard to the representations from those councils before a final decision is reached. Consultation has become rather a dirty word in local areas. Anybody who is a councillor, as I am, will know that consultation is regarded as a way in which a tick can be put against the box indicating that local people have had a say, and then it is disregarded. This amendment would make it statutory. People would have to listen and take note of representations.

In supporting these amendments we would ensure that the promise of community empowerment in the Bill is a reality. So I look forward to the Minister’s response, so that we can give our smallest democratic units the standing they deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 216 and 318 in this group, which relate to parish and town councils. Amendment 216 makes provision for unparished electors in the unsatisfactory neighbourhood governance arrangements contemplated by Clause 60 to petition to incorporate into properly constituted and sovereign precept-raising parish councils. Separately, my Amendment 318 applies to the largest town councils, most of which have been wholly or in part district billing authorities before, but which henceforth will be unconstrained in their ability to raise council tax.

I turn first to Amendment 216. In Committee the penny dropped for the first time that those parts of England that were former county boroughs—20% of the land mass, so much greater by population—such as Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Great Yarmouth, or new towns like Stevenage, which is home to the Minister, would be for the most part unparished, and thus second-class citizens in the new arrangements. That is recognised by Amendment 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, which I endorse entirely. I have no problem with it. But I think we need to go further and move beyond the simple promotion of parish councils to the right for unparished areas to become parishes if the measures in Clause 60 are found to be unsatisfactory.

The Government tell us that community or neighbourhood governance will be provided by councillors from the parent unitary authority in unparished areas. Those of us who have been around for a while have heard that duck quack before. We know that these structures are just talking shops, with no resources, capacity or status. This is what we discovered in Committee. People literally from out of town will try to sweep up the crumbs left over, once social care has feasted on the precept, to find what money is left to sweep the pavements, cut the grass, breathe life into the theatre and heat the swimming baths. But with social care consuming two-thirds of the precept, what resources will those toothless talking shops have? These are the things that the larger parishes do, with the consent of their parishioners to raise a precept.

I make no apologies for talking about Norfolk. There are 900 parishes there, and some 10,000 nationally. But when Labour gets its way, 20% of England will be disfranchised and have no parish at all—no money or say, for the most part, in how England is run. That includes the whole of Ipswich, for example, or Oxford. The so-called strategic authorities and the mayor are not going to be interested in the carnival floats, the local antique street market, the food festival or those local culture groups that town and parish councils spawn. The civic life of town mayors will evaporate altogether, with their soft convening and ribbon-cutting powers. No, they will go the way of the local pub, the park café and the high streets, in the vandalisation of high-street Britain.

Do not talk to us about Pride in Place when they disband that whole panoply of civic life, with the sheriff and the burgesses, that illuminates our nation’s story. No, under the dismal and undemocratic Clause 60, the unitary and its councillors will hold all the cards—the budget, the representation and the staff—to hold everyone else over a barrel, because there is no parish council. Of course, they will have no incentive to cede powers either, and all the incentive, on the other hand, to hoard powers and pet projects.

My amendment offers hope to these places: to reject the way in which the Bill creates sock-puppet sinecures for out-of-town councillors from miles away. Where an appointed community council is established, those residents can petition to incorporate—creating the empowerment that the Bill purports to foster and encourage—to create a town or parish council with proper elections, a proper budget and a precept that local people can vote on and endorse, so as not to rely on cast-offs after the social care monster, LGR costs, the recast debts and pension fund liabilities have eaten the rest. I want to help people make their part of England better: more local, more responsive and more accountable. My amendments give hope for democracy for these places, including the cathedral cities, coastal communities and new towns—places such as Stevenage and, for the other part, Gorleston, from where I take my territorial designation, within the historic county borough of Great Yarmouth.

I will listen closely to the rest of the debate and may signal my intention to divide the House on this. The requirement and the ability for local people to force incorporation of their neighbourhood arrangements is important.

Moving on to council tax for our largest town councils, I will be brief. Many of the former principal authorities and districts may become parishes under the new arrangements—or perhaps not, if my Amendment 216 is carried. By charging council tax where they have been districts, they have been able to benefit from formula grant, redistributed business rates and whatever the local government finance system has delivered. But there is a real risk that the parishes will be suckered into taking many of the expensive cast-offs from the home authority in a deliberate cost-shunt. Parks, playgrounds, theatres, moorings, cemeteries and all manner of public buildings will be flipped on to these parishes. They will need to find space in their precept to pay for them, but they will be on their own because they will have no central support and will be living hand to mouth.

My noble friend Lady Scott hates me using this example, but the facts speak for themselves. Council tax under Salisbury City Council is up 44% in just four years and its band D is £383. In my own district, South Norfolk, where I am a councillor, we collect the bins, clean the streets, house the homeless and have built a new generation of housing for just 180 quid—less than half of the parish. The problem with the Bill is that it lumps tiny little Howe, a hamlet of 50 souls in my own ward, in with the village of Hempnall, where next week we will welcome a new vicar, the Reverend Austin Uzoigwe—gosh, I should have practised this—and which has perhaps 1,000 people, together with Horsham, a district of 146,000. In law, all places of 50 to 150,000 will be equivalent. That is crazy, because there is no equivalence between Howe and Horsham, but the people of Horsham need to be spared what has been visited on the residents of Salisbury.

My amendment would create a new sub-class of third-tier authority where there is a population of 50,000 or where the precept exceeds £1 million, so that they fall under the same budgetary constraints as the larger principal authorities. I do not want your Lordships to think that this is anti-town or anti-parish. In fact, it is quite the reverse. The wholesale reconditioning of local government is already going to cost a bomb and create those perverse incentives to pass off the expensive stuff to the parishes. My amendments would strengthen parishes’ hand in the negotiations, as part of LGR, so that they will be able to push back and say no. If they think they cannot afford these gift horses, having looked them in the mouth, they would not have to take them on.

I am seeking to strengthen local democracy and accountability by putting the largest parishes on a proper financial footing, so that they can do the work they do at a price residents can afford. This is not a dig at parishes; they do a lot of valuable work at the level closest to the people. With this amendment, I have their back, as it would stop those councils with the broadest shoulders imposing liabilities and cast-offs on those with the most limited means.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I looked last night at Labour’s 2024 manifesto and would like to quote, extremely briefly, a few phrases from it. It said:

“Labour is committed to strengthening our democracy”.


It attacked the Conservatives for failing to encourage

“full participation in our democracy”

and said that Labour was committed to encouraging such participation in our democracy and to increasing

“the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy”.

If we do not have local councils and local elections, we have no way of increasing participation, of gaining a real sense of active citizenship or of encouraging the sort of people many of us are now going around to talk to in schools, who will have the vote for the first time. This is why local councils, throughout the country, are extremely important in maintaining and strengthening the sense that every citizen in this country can take some part in public life.

--- Later in debate ---

I return to my main point of comparing the Government’s plans with those in my Amendment 219: under the Government’s plans there are still too many ways in which it would be too easy for a Government to delay too many elections for too long. I hope noble Lords will support the stronger, clearer protections for our democracy in Amendment 219.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, of course, I support all the points on elections made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, but they focus on council elections and LGR, ignoring the simple truth that local mayors, as in my Amendment 225, and police and crime commissioners, in my Amendment 224, are also part of that local government landscape. My amendments would bring the mayors and PCCs into scope of the wider changes that the Government have been dragged to Parliament to repent.

Democracy is important. We know that; we sit in the mother of Parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those who represent them, in pursuance of better lives and all those other things that the state should provide. That consent lasts until the next election, but I concede—this is where I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, on his Amendment 219—that there may be some quite exceptional circumstances, perhaps because of war, where a delay, subject to parliamentary consent, of course, would be justified. In those circumstances, my amendment would ensure that the powers existed on the statute book for a two-step super-affirmative process, where permission must be sought and received from both Houses and then only an affirmative resolution would be laid before the House. In the circumstance of war, for example, there would be some much more important things to sort out than passing a Bill to cancel local government elections.

I do not go entirely against what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, but, to echo the words of my noble friend Lady Scott from the Front Bench, I think it is unworkable. My amendments would remedy those matters but, in any event, my resolutions would be to cancel the elections no less than three months before the date of publication for that election, simply so that parties and individuals could have enough time to prepare the manifestos, select candidates, raise funds and address all those practical points. My amendments would ensure that preparation could take place effectively, allowing voters to mark their choice clearly on the ballot, with lots of notice—not just for the councils, but for the mayors and PCCs—without hog-tying Parliament to pass primary legislation when super-affirmative secondary legislation can achieve the same outcome more quickly, more cheaply and in the right way.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I want to say one thing in response to this group and will try not to repeat anything that anybody has said. I am very puzzled by the Conservative Party’s stance on our first past the post electoral system. I think it has passed its use-by date. It is hopelessly out of date and inappropriate for candidates to be elected, as will happen a great deal in the local elections coming up, with less than 30% of the vote. Candidates who get elected and are then trusted to spend public money should have the confidence of a much larger number of people at the poll. To count on a system which is simply about the person who comes top in that ballot, when that could be on between 25% and 30% of the poll, seems totally out of date these days given the multi-party system that we now have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. I recognise my noble friend Lady O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and many others from those Covid conversations, including the Minister.

Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Who could not remember Jackie from Cheshire, who had no authority, but she still managed to press the “off” button for the chap who was needling her? Some councillors—not in my own authority, I hasten to add—fell asleep in Covid. I saw some clips on YouTube where others had gone to the toilet or left to shower or where children bumbled in, but for all those mishaps, by and large, it worked pretty well. So, yes, it can work.

In Committee, I found it difficult to support all the various remote working amendments. They were widely drawn and somewhat nebulous, but I am very taken with my noble friend’s Amendment 244 because it constrains it to certain circumstances that encourage participation and engagement, that limit it to those cases with disability, bad weather and other emergencies, which could happen—foot and mouth, war. I am also persuaded by the amendment because we need to recognise that in local government there are different types of meeting, each with different consequences and purposes. Yes, there is the full council meeting where everyone gets together, and it is important that everyone has their vote. There are executive meetings, like cabinet meetings, and there are scrutiny meetings which are not executive but sit on the other side of the scrutiny/executive divide. Then there are policy formation committees which are not for decision-making, are part of scrutiny but do not often vote. So we have the distinction between what is decision or non-decision-making. And then there is quasi-judicial planning and licensing. In-person attendance is really important for those; the decisions taken in those meetings carry the weight of law. This amendment allows for all that texture to be captured and limited so we have the best of both worlds. As I say, I favour it.

Also, we need to recognise that local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly the need to travel more, particularly in the large authorities such as North Yorkshire, home to my noble friend. There are more combined authority meetings. Upon the passage of this Bill, there will be an even greater need for people on a much wider canvas to come together more frequently over long distances. One has to account for, and allow for, remote meetings in some of those circumstances. In my own authority, we have trading companies where councils, which may not necessarily be neighbours, club together at arm’s length. They are not the council, but they are owned by the council. We have to take that into consideration too.

On that last point, we cannot just leave this to the councils alone. In the case of a trading company, with these regulations, what would happen if one council in the partnership permitted remote meetings and the others did not? How on earth would that work? Having the sort of regulations contemplated by my noble friend is therefore really important.

This is a big improvement on the proposals that came forward for Committee. They are now capable of going forward. I support them, especially with the affirmative safeguards proposed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing forward this amendment, and to all noble Lords—well, my noble friend Lord Fuller—who have contributed to the debate.

We recognise the intention behind this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, I look at many faces in 3D here, having seen them in 2D on a screen during Covid. Flexibility is important in exceptional circumstances, and when those exceptional circumstances arose, we had the powers for remote meetings. But we are not persuaded that it is the right approach in more normal circumstances. Local authority meetings are the cornerstone of local democracy. They are not simply an administrative exercise; they are forums for debate, scrutiny and accountability, conducted in public and rooted in the communities they serve. There is real value in councillors being physically present, in engaging directly with one another, officers and members of the public.

We are also mindful that existing arrangements already allow for a degree of flexibility in truly exceptional circumstances. Moving more routinely to remote or hybrid meetings risks diminishing the quality of debate, weakening transparency and weakening accountability and public engagement. For those reasons, while we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had three—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

May I say something before the Front Benches? I hesitate to follow my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, but I support Amendment 248 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. We heard in the debate that this has all come at the last minute but, by my reckoning, this is the fourth time I have sat through this debate. If I were to go back in Hansard, it might actually be the sixth, as I have not looked at whether it was mentioned at the Second Reading of both the Planning and Infrastructure Act and the Bill before us.

I have listened very carefully. The Supreme Court, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, has told us to sort it out. There clearly have to be safeguards and we have quite a shopping list of those in this amendment. In the age of social media, there is no chance of pulling the wool over people’s eyes or trying to hide an advert in small print at the bottom of page 78 of the local newspaper.

The wider issue is that we cannot orphan land or blight places in perpetuity. It would be perverse to do that just for want of being able to find an advert in a 100 year-old copy of a newspaper, in a publication that does not exist anymore. That is the prejudice before us. Sometimes you have to look forward and offer a remedy—which is not only in the public interest but in the interest of natural justice too.

This is not just about Wimbledon—that has been sorted—but we have heard in this debate that the shadow exists elsewhere. The matter is not resolved and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, told us to get it sorted. If we do not, nobody can. It seems to me that the proposals before us are fair, transparent and have a very strong public interest test. Now is the time and opportunity—a chance for certainty on all sides, including the protagonists in this issue. Now is the moment.

We have heard so much about how difficult it is to get stuff done in this country. We have a Government in a hurry and sites that are stalled, with people hanging about and waiting. Now is the time to stop the procrastination. Let us get on with it and make a decision. Let us pick up the baton laid in front of us by the Supreme Court and get behind Amendment 248. It is time that we got it done.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I shall start again. We have an amendment signed by three noble Lords who have, in their usual lawyerly way, made a powerful case for one side of the argument. Here I am, however, to speak up for the community in a debate on a Bill labelled in part the “community empowerment” Bill. I have two fundamental issues of concern with this amendment. The first is an issue of parliamentary process and the second a matter of principle.

As to the first—the issue of parliamentary process—one of the difficulties I have with this amendment is that it has not been, and if it is passed this evening, will never be, put before the elected Chamber of Parliament. The amendment has been introduced on Report in this House, and we are the second House to consider this Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Good morning, my Lords, and indeed it is good morning. I support Amendment 318C, which has just been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thurlow. I should start by declaring that I have a son who works for a commercial property company.

My noble friend Lord Thurlow made a series of powerful points about the effects of this amendment, and I agree with him that a one-size-fits-all approach to rent review clauses is not appropriate, given the very wide range of properties rented by businesses, from perhaps a single office or lock-up garage rented by an SME to thousands of square feet of custom-designed and built warehousing rented by a global corporate.

The Government’s intention of assisting SMEs by preventing upwards-only rent reviews is consistent with protecting tenants from exploitative landlords, and I have, and I am sure most noble Lords have, no difficulty at all with that. However, negotiations between large corporates and commercial property companies are conducted between well advised and experienced professionals. Such tenants are large, powerful and of high value, and commercial property companies make great efforts to attract them and agree terms across a variety of issues, of which rent reviews are but one. These often complex negotiations between large organisations are conducted by staff with, I suggest, a good deal more detailed training, knowledge and experience of the subject than, with the greatest of respect, most parliamentarians. Neither party needs any help or interference from Parliament about the specifics of rent review terms they negotiate to include or exclude as part of their discussions.

This all seems very far away from government business, much less any manifesto commitment, and more like a hastily considered afterthought to the Bill for the residential sector that was before this House some months ago. As my noble friend Lord Thurlow has set out, for large businesses it will introduce instability, destroy value, damage the confidence of lenders, shareholders and investors alike and harm the much mentioned growth agenda.

That brings me back to where I started: dealing with the difference between an SME and a large business and how we determine the cut-off point between them. Will the Minister consider revising this aspect of the Bill so that a prospective tenant that is a publicly listed company will have the ability to opt out and retain it as a negotiating point, rather than have this aspect of their negotiations predetermined by the Government? These are not SMEs brow-beaten by a grasping landlord but large and powerful entities quite capable of navigating the give and take in negotiating leases that meet their needs. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this suggestion as a practical way to improve this amendment and mitigate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I will be brief. I support the valedictory amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I also associate myself with what may be valedictory comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It is going to be a shame to lose their surveying expertise and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has contributed so valuably over the last year in all manner of property-related matters covering the built environment which underpins our economy and social infrastructure.

Clause 85 and the related Schedule 34 provide for an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it is going to have so many unintended consequences that will chill new investment in all manner of privately funded capital projects. I note that this provision was not in the manifesto nor trailed prior to the publication of the Bill. It has simply been fly-tipped at the end of this Bill, where it sticks out like a sore thumb in a jarring juxtaposition with the Bill’s other provisions.

I support Amendment 318C and its intention to protect small and medium-sized enterprises, but there is a serious risk of further damaging overseas investor confidence in the UK. If we are to attract private investment in large-scale developments, which may include data centres, city office blocks, mixed-use developments with residential property above them, the City of London and huge warehouse fulfilment centres, some sort of revenue growth is required over the life of the asset, without which investments will be placed elsewhere in other countries and other jurisdictions.

Setting small and medium-sized enterprises to one side for the moment, the large-scale tenants of these buildings are, so to speak, grown-up adults. I am not sure that Amazon needs additional protections from the law when contracting for a distribution warehouse. It is for the market and the law of contract to determine that precise equilibrium between those who take the risk of putting up the building and those who take the risk of occupying it. It is certainly not for government in a market economy to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach. This will chill not just future building but also the existing carrying value of those property assets which are owned by pension funds and whose rents support our senior citizens in retirement. Once again, it is the poorest in society who will be adversely affected by this misguided and misdirected sixth-form debating society approach to our economy.

I am grateful to the former Ernst & Young ITEM Club chief economist Martin Beck, who tells me that a blanket ban, as contemplated by this Bill, will cause an £11 billion downgrade of pension fund assets, meaning £2 billion less construction investment per year in the UK—and overall, when everything is taken into account, a £4.2 billion a year hit to our national economy. We need large-scale investments to grow the economy and to provide work for groundworkers, brickies, roofers, painters, decorators and our pensioners.

Schedule 34 represents yet another act of self-inflicted harm to our economy and our way of life, reducing our international investor confidence in the stability of UK plc with our rule of contract and well-established property rights, chasing away inward investment by a Government who say they are keen on growth but act in every respect to damage it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential in nature, relating to Parts 4, 5 and 6, and we do not intend to challenge them in any way.

I am pleased that I have this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well, although he has not actually said that this is his valedictory speech. When I was a Minister on the other side of the House, both noble Lords were supportive at times but challenging at other times. We had quite a lot of fun doing Bills such as what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and I sincerely thank them both for the knowledge of the industry that they brought to the House. That has been excellent and has helped me a great deal to understand the industry much better. They are going to be really missed. I thank them very much for everything that they did to help me in government—and they have helped me a bit in opposition, as well.

The amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, raises important questions about the scope of provisions relating to upward-only rent reviews and their application, particularly to SMEs. All I can say at this time of night is that I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response on this one because there are questions to be answered.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

129: Clause 42, page 43, line 20, leave out "develop" and insert "promote"
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments from Lord Fuller in Clause 42, seeks to make clear the separation of duties between Mayor and Local Government Pension Scheme to avoid any potential conflicts of interest between the mayor and pension scheme.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I will speak briefly to this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with me on the narrow point. These three amendments, which are mostly the same, are supportive of what the Government are trying to achieve.

In Clause 42, there is a requirement for mayors to co-operate with the LGPS to finance infrastructure. I have no problem with that—in fact, it is to be welcomed. My amendments are based on the simple truth that if they are to grow the economy, mayors need to have a complete understanding of how money is raised, deals are put together and bright ideas are turned into investible opportunities.

In essence, mayors need to understand the difference between funding and financing. Funding is writing the cheque; financing is putting that deal together. Of course, they are completely different disciplines. My amendments simply substitute “develop” with “promote”. This recognises that it is the role of mayors to produce investible opportunities but not necessarily that of the LGPS to buy them. This is not purely semantics; it is a simple word change that stops accusations of a degree of connivance or collusion between the mayor and funds, which could lead to conflicts of interest.

This group ensures that there is a proper separation of duties between the mayor and the funds. The word “promote” helps everybody be clear: it is the mayor’s job to punt the opportunity, but the scheme is not necessarily mandated to accept it. Promotion makes it clear that the mayor needs to work harder to be clearer about what the market and investors require, to turn that idea into a proposition. In so doing, the important point is that this encourages the wider uptake of good opportunities, not just by the home fund but by the wider pool of investments in the LGPS and beyond.

There would be fewer accusations of connivance, a greater clarity of roles, greater professionalism and understanding of how financing works, and a better separation of duties, which would allow other pools to jump on the bandwagon of good ideas, rather than just being a closed shop. Words matter. This substitution would strengthen the clause and make actual investments more likely. Two minutes—I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which all address an important and practical issue: the clear separation of duties between the mayor and the Local Government Pension Scheme. At its heart, this is about avoiding conflicts of interest, as we have heard.

Under the Bill, mayors will rightly have a central role in promoting investment opportunities in their regions, championing growth, attracting capital and supporting local economic development. That is an essential part of the devolution agenda. However, we must be equally clear about who is making investment decisions and on whose behalf. Pension funds exist to serve their members and local taxpayers. Their primary duty is fiduciary: to act in the best financial interests of those beneficiaries.

There is a distinction here that matters. The mayors may promote opportunities, but they should not be in a position to directly or indirectly influence the allocation of pension fund assets. In simple terms, one body promotes the opportunity and another independently decides whether to write the cheque. As has been noted, there are important differences between funding and financing and between providing the capital and structuring the deal. Both require clarity of responsibility and robust governance.

Co-operation between mayors and pension schemes is not only desirable, it is inevitable, but the co-operation must not drift into anything that could be perceived as pressure or direction. We must guard against any blurring of lines. What begins as collaboration must not become, even inadvertently, connivance. These amendments are therefore modest but necessary. They seek to put beyond doubt the separation of roles to protect the integrity of pension decision-making and to give reassurance to local taxpayers and scheme members alike. For those reasons, I support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I think I laid out that relationships should be close but not cosy between the mayor and the funds. I accept the reciprocity between this Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill, which we debated earlier. I accept the Minister’s assurance and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 129 withdrawn.

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

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

If I may speak before my Front Bench, of course we welcome the introduction of multi-year settlements. Local authorities have been crying out for that for many years, and I can see that this is part of the path that we are going down.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, identified the importance of incentives—incentives for councils to do the right thing and go the extra mile. Sometimes those incentives help the council, as a promoter or joint enterprise with those people who wish to invest in an area, to make the case to local residents who may not necessarily welcome development. In my nearly 20 years as a council leader, I used the new homes bonus, as well as business rates retention, as powerful examples to otherwise semi-hostile or reluctant residents for us to make those investments.

Back in those days—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about 10 years ago and it must have been all of that—there were really powerful and compelling reasons for our authority, which was a high-growth authority, to pal up with all our neighbours, not all of which were quite so pro-growth as we were. By giving away some of our growth, the pot over the entirety of Norfolk was greater; there was that compelling case for co-operation. But I can tell the Committee that, over subsequent years, particularly more recently—I should stress that I am no longer the council leader doing these negotiations, but they are fresh in my mind—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I was mid-flow. I was making the case that, in the early days of business rates retention and pooling, there was an exceptionally compelling case to co-operate. Even if we gave away a little of our own growth as a local authority—I was the leader—the pot was large enough that we did not lose out. However, ever since, the incentive to grow through business rates retention and, in particular, pooling has become weaker and less compelling. It has been harder to demonstrate the benefits of growth to a sceptical population.

The trouble is that, through this instrument, it is not just that the train tracks have narrowed and the bid offer spread has become more constrained; a series of disincentives have made it significantly less attractive. I understand why there has to be a reset, but the cliff edge of the reset means that those councils that have worked hard to do the right thing are seeing that growth be snatched away. That is a pretty powerful disincentive to do the right thing.

Increasing redistribution means that, however well you do above the baseline, more and more gets taken away. That is a further disincentive. Now, there is an additional factor that weighs against the co-operation that makes everybody better off: the tweaks. It is more than a tweak, in fact; it is a tilting of the playing field against those who are growing hard and in favour of the indices of multiple deprivation.

I do not deny that some areas are poorer than others but, when you take into account each of these detractors from the incentive to grow, you find out that there are rewards for sitting back and not pushing the envelope. Those councils that can just sit back and wait for the others to do well are the undeserved beneficiaries. This is not to say that there should not be any redistribution—I am not making that case at all—but through this instrument and, in fairness, others over the past three or four years, we are getting to a situation where, if nobody is really incentivised to do the right thing, why should anybody do the right thing? Why should any council leader go out on a limb, as I did, to sell the benefits of growth and explain to residents and businesses, “If you come with me on this one, you’ll pay less council tax, the economy will be stronger, there’ll be more jobs”, and so on?

There is no taste in nothing. Diluting the incentives to do the right thing even more, as this instrument does, means that we will all end up in a rather tasteless situation that achieves neither what the Government crave nor what this nation deserves.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, first, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I agree with the two previous speakers that it is positive that there is a three-year settlement.

This instrument forms part of a wider set of reforms to the business rates retention system ahead of the 2026 reset. It makes a number of technical changes to how the system operates in practice, particularly in relation to the levy on growth, the safety net and the treatment of compensation for reliefs and multiplier changes. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Fuller have said, these regulations will have an impact on growth and incentives.

We recognise the Government’s stated intentions both to realign local government funding with need and to ensure that the system continues to function smoothly as wider reforms are introduced, but those objectives cannot come at the expense of undermining incentives for local economic growth and for high-performing councils. It is the Government’s stated intention to promote growth; I query how this instrument fits with that intention.

These regulations replace the existing levy cap with a system of marginal rates on growth. In many cases, the effect will be that local authorities retain less of the proceeds of the very development they are being asked to support. That raises a fundamental question: if councils see a diminishing or even negative financial return from growth, why would they take on the costs and complexities that often come with approving new development? As my noble friend Lord Fuller said, new development is not free; you may need to invest in infrastructure or provide incentives for someone to come to your area. There are also social costs in the wider sense, such as busier roads, the loss of green fields, busier doctors, a lack of GP surgeries and so on. What is the incentive for local councils and councillors to promote growth if there is no financial recompense that they can use to invest in their communities?

Local authorities are not passive actors in this system. They make those difficult decisions concerning planning, infrastructure and local services. If the link between growth and local benefit is weakened, the Government risk tilting the system away from enterprise and towards dependency on redistribution. I ask the Minister directly: what assessment has been made of the impact of these changes on councils’ willingness to bring forward new development? Can the Minister set out more clearly which types of authorities stand to lose out under these changes? What assessment has been made of the impact on local financial planning and rates collection as a result? This largely mirrors what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised around the idea of an impact assessment.

Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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