Refugees: Community Sponsorship

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has so eloquently laid out the position of those groups in which she has some direct interest.

I must declare my interest as being supported by the RAMP organisation, and I must thank the right reverend Prelate for being ahead of the curve again in being able to bring forward debate on an issue that is very potent in the current scene. I must also declare my interest—with a small “i”, not a capital “I”—as the general rapporteur on European migration and asylum policy for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I will be reporting on this debate as it is an important part of the structure we face across the whole of our continent.

For generations, Britain’s proudest chapters have been written not when we turned our backs on the world but when we stepped forward to offer sanctuary to those fleeing terror, persecution and war. We saw that spirit when our towns and villages welcomed displaced families from Ukraine, as we heard so eloquently, and in the response to the fall of Afghanistan. I remember the crisis of the Ugandan Asians many decades ago, when we sought and brought to this country those who were being displaced so horribly. We have seen it across the hundreds of quiet, compassionate community sponsorship groups that have opened their homes and hearts across our country.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the best of British values is found in our local communities. That is why we welcome the principle behind the Government’s new community sponsorship scheme. Establishing new safe and legal routes is a necessary step in the right direction. Allowing communities, faith groups, universities and local organisations to step forward to directly sponsor named individuals, to support students and to welcome displaced workers is a proven and powerful concept. When local communities have direct ownership, integration flourishes. Refugees do not arrive as numbers on a Home Office spreadsheet; they arrive into an existing network of neighbours, mentors and friends who help them find work, master our language and truly belong.

We on these Benches reject outright the cynical, ungenerous claims from those on the political right. Those who demand that no safe routes be created until every boat has stopped miss the fundamental reality. People take to dangerous dinghies precisely because safe and legal routes do not exist. We do not smash the vile business model of criminal smuggling gangs by building higher walls; we smash it by opening controlled, orderly doors that render the smugglers obsolete.

Although we support this scheme in principle, we must be brutally honest about its practical realities. Compassion without ambition is mere sentiment. As it stands, this policy suffers from glaring shortcomings that risk setting it up to fail. First and foremost is the question of scale, which was mentioned earlier. The Government talk of this scheme breaking the cycle of irregular channel crossings, but look at the figures to which the Home Office has now quietly admitted. Total arrivals across the reopened UK resettlement scheme—that includes all three new sponsorship routes—will start in the hundreds before slowly growing into the low thousands. Reports suggest an ambition of just over 10,000 altogether by the end of this decade. Schemes need to be known about and understood, and people need to be provided with sufficient information for the schemes to make a difference and for the people to make a choice.

To present a scheme that admits a few hundred people as a serious deterrent to the tens of thousands not just crossing the channel but entering by other means is, frankly, a tokenistic drop in the ocean. The Refugee Council and civil society have made it clear that, if we are serious about safe routes, we must aim for real ambition by restoring settlement to at least the pre-pandemic level of 5,000 people a year, not trickling out places in the low hundreds.

Secondly, the Government are engaged in passing the buck to local communities from local authorities. Ministers say that they want to relieve local authorities and end the reliance on expensive asylum hotels. We agree with closing the hotels, but the Government’s answer is to offload core statutory responsibilities on to volunteers, charities and churches. Under the scheme, sponsors are required to secure independent accommodation for at least two years and to raise substantial private capital.

In the middle of the worst housing crisis in modern memory, how on earth does the Home Secretary expect local charities to outbid the market to find two-year tenancies without statutory backing? Under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the state provided monthly thank-you payments to assist host households, yet under this new scheme Ministers have completely failed to guarantee whether similar financial support will exist. If the state treats volunteer good will as an unpaid substitute for proper governance, burnout will follow and the intake will grind to a halt.

Thirdly, I am afraid that we cannot ignore the punitive rollback of refugee rights baked into this agenda. For years, community sponsorship granted refugees immediate indefinite leave to remain, giving them the certainty needed to rebuild their lives and contribute. Now, the Government have reduced that to a precarious five-year route to permanent settlement, while slashing domestic asylum protections into 30-month temporary visas and threatening 20-year delays on settlement.

Fourthly, there is a serious danger that, by shifting the bulk of resettlement to named, study and employer routes, we risk abandoning the most vulnerable. Resettlement must never become a corporate recruitment fair or an elite academic exercise. We cannot ignore the disabled, the elderly or those who lack language skills and overseas connections—those whom the UNHCR identifies as facing immediate peril.

We want this sponsorship scheme to work. We want British communities empowered to open their arms. But a genuine safe route cannot be treated as an afterthought or a cheap PR shield to justify harsher enforcement. If the Government genuinely want to offer sanctuary, they must meet the four tests and the four queries that we set out earlier. As our immigration moves towards net zero with those coming in and those leaving, we need to be absolutely certain that we are giving people the compassionate best we can. We as a country are at our best when we are open, generous and fair. Let us not build a scheme of token numbers and shifting burdens; let us build a system that is controlled, compassionate and truly fit for purpose.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Grand Committee

In summary, these regulations are necessary to give full effect to the trailer registration information-sharing provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. They provide clarity and consistency so that police forces can use trailer registration information in support of their operational duties, and so that the police and the Home Office can disclose that information onward for those same policing purposes, subject to the appropriate safeguards. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that description of what appears to be a fairly technical set of regulations—one that closes a loophole in the operation of the system for trailer registration data. It is clear that this instrument will close that loophole so that data can be shared for the full range of operational policing activities. On that basis, we are pleased to support these regulations.

However, I have three questions to pose to the Minister; they relate to what he said about how these measures will be operational. I presume that, when we talk about them becoming operational, there will be operational guidance, instruction or advice—whatever is given to police forces and those who are responsible for the issues about which we are talking.

My first question is: how will access and onward disclosure be controlled and audited, so that we know what information is being passed and flowing one way or the other? My second question relates to the broad final category—the one the Minister stated just now—of any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law. Clearly, I would describe that as a broad context, and it is a broad context. How will such a context be applied in practice if it becomes all-encompassing: is it designed so that there should be no areas that are out of bounds, as it were, in what it applies to? That of course is of particular importance as far as common law is concerned.

Finally, what assurance can we in Parliament have about implementation, given that the detailed operational guidance will not be published and there is no statutory review clause? If we wish to continue to understand in general terms how these regulations are being implemented now and what will happen, how will Parliament be able to deal with that matter? On that basis, I and the Liberal Democrats are prepared to support the regulations.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for setting out the background and context of these regulations. The Opposition support the regulations, the principles behind them and the rationale for them. The only comment I will make briefly today is a procedural rather than a substantive one, given that the regulations are uncontroversial and fit into an existing framework, and the power exists in the Act to create them.

The procedural point I will make is purely to observe that it is quite a cumbersome process to use secondary legislation here for outlining specified purposes when the purposes could have been placed in the Act itself as primary legislation. As the Minister himself said, these are well-established policing functions and it seems cumbersome to spend a year consulting to produce a list that I think anyone could have come up with relatively briefly. I raise these points purely to make an observation about what appears to be a serious problem about current legislative practice and leaving too much to secondary legislation.

With those observations, there is nothing negative in these regulations and these Benches support the underlying sections of both the primary legislation and the regulations themselves.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Grand Committee

I have one more question to put to the Minister. I note that the Home Office, speaking to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, said that it expected that between 400 and 600 cases per year would be eligible for this process. This compares to about 128,000 people receiving initial asylum decisions in March 2026. What savings do the Government expect? It is hard to see for what reasons, other than cost savings, this is being implemented. What savings do the Government expect to be made from this change? Are they not concerned that there will be further costs—both human and financial—down the line if bad decisions are made?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest that, like others, I am helped and supported by the RAMP organisation. I thank those who have already spoken. A huge number of remarks and questions have been addressed to the new Minister; in that context, I welcome him. He may not be as happy as he would like in this particular role because this topic of course causes great controversy within our House. An enormous number of issues need to be raised and dealt with, and we expect to find answers from the Home Office which are sometimes lacking.

Having previously spent three years as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am able to recognise an excoriating report when I see one, and this is clearly such a report. It is not often that the committee goes to such lengths to make such important points when it does not get answers from the department concerned. The challenge is that the committee itself will address its concerns back to the Home Office and will get answers from it. If it does not get the answers, that will be mentioned in the report and when it does not find that the answers are sufficient it will mention that, too. This report does that and Members on all sides have said clearly that there are questions to be raised and questions that need to be answered as a result.

I am glad about the changed name. When you merge things, you are perhaps supposed to do the merging in turn, but it was clearly an unsuitable title and I am glad that it has been changed, even though it now presents perhaps the same critique and problems that the original title suggested anyway. One of the challenges we face in addressing this issue in this changed piece of guidance and legislation is whether it is a minor change or a major change. I draw on my musical experience here. Things that are minor are usually sad and things that are major are things that we can judge in a more content manner. Clearly, this is not something which can be treated as being of a minor nature.

Paragraph 10 of the report notes that these words were deleted:

“Where the personal interview is omitted, the applicant and dependents shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit further information”.


The deletion of that sentence suggests that applicants may not be able to suspend the decision-making process to seek expert advice. The major change here is an operational one, bringing together two systems to try to shorten the process for a small number of cases, so we are assured.

What we do in this country and the way we address people’s individual needs for protection are judged against that background. People are not part of cohorts and not to be treated as part of some system that systemically makes things easier; every case deserves to be looked at on its merits. The individuality of assessments is not just present in this country but across the whole of Europe, though sometimes we have to pull those changes up and look at them in a critical way as well.

When you put together two systems, remove such a sentence and make this operational change, which is of some significance because you are reducing the opportunity of individual assessment, it is right that people around this Room ask: where is the legal aid provision? Where is the advice? Where is the training for those who will support people who are genuinely suffering from trauma and other mental health problems that come with the journeys that they have been on?

People faced with life-or-death decisions leave in a traumatic state. That state does not improve just because they have arrived here. They are nervous and their understanding of what will happen to them needs to be addressed. That is why a personalised assessment is so important. The problem with what we have before us is that there was no consultation, not even with the Government’s own consultative body. That was brought in just with the intent of speeding up the process. There was no impact assessment, because the Government maintain that it a minor change rather than a major one. I maintain that the operational aspects are entirely different from what they were before. For people going through this system, the nature of the operation is now entirely different—before there would be a process by which people’s cases would be individually understood.

Finally, as the report says, and as we have asked for, when the Government make changes to the rules of this sort, they should produce the draft guidance alongside the changes. Then we can judge whether the rules are being adjusted for a purpose that is actually accurate, rather than one of simplicity, which is what I think the original intention was. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that, in future, when changes are made to the Immigration Rules, which are of a major nature or can be interpreted as being such, the Home Office will do all three things: a consultation exercise, an impact assessment and guidance, which may be in draft but certainly would help us to make decisions about these matters.

I would like to talk about the trouble with shortcuts. If you take a shortcut and get a back lane instead of going down the main road, sometimes that can lead to barbed wire where the roads are closed at the end or where it is a bit dangerous to proceed. Shortcuts should be taken only if you know where the end is and whether the route is clear or not. That is particularly relevant here. This is a shortcut which has not yet determined whether the right end product is there and available.

The problem with changes that allegedly relate to a particular group of people is that, without a definition, we are left blank as to whether these people will be worse off than they were before and whether the cohort decision will blanket their approval or disapproval because of situations that are not of their making. A lot of strong messages have been sent to the Home Office, both in this debate and in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. I hope that the Minister has listened to and heard them, and that he will act on all those matters.

I want to raise one final matter on the changes to the Immigration Rules. It concerns a case with which I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, dealt. I have now succeeded in getting the approval of the two people concerned, in order to take this matter forward, but I raise a related question around the Immigration Rules on people with religious occupations.

The case I referred to is that of two nuns from Lesotho who were seeking to come to stay with an order in Humberside. They were being looked after by the same order to which they belonged, of course, and they were going to come and spend time with it. I do not reckon that that was a religious occupation; I reckon that they were building religious certainty and confidence, and were being helped. However, they failed at the border not because they did not have the appropriate visas but because of money: they could not determine how much money they would need to look after themselves in the United Kingdom. The answer, of course, is that holy orders and religious communities, including this particular religious community, have communal funds—that is, worldwide funds, not funds that are communal in the area they are in. So being “treated”—in inverted commas—to a break and a stay with another community of nuns in Merseyside was denied to them because they did not have the money in their pocket.

These two nuns come from Lesotho, which is, as anyone who has been there will know, one of the poorest countries in Africa. I declare my interest as the honorary consul for the Kingdom of Lesotho in Wales. So it is a matter of some importance to me that, when we deal with issues that are related to the Immigration Rules, we see people for what they are: individual people. They need to have their cases looked after properly, and we need to ensure that we do that.

In conclusion, we need—I suspect that everybody in this Room wants this—a fair system in a world where people’s decisions to come to this country for protection are matters of life and death for them. We need to ensure that they are protected properly. I hope that the Minister will take all of these points on board and make sure that the Home Office behaves, as this document says, in the appropriate manner for what I regard as a major change.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first proper opportunity I have had to welcome the Minister to his new role. I very much look forward to working with him in future. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for this opportunity to debate the changes to the Immigration Rules, and I am equally grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration.

As always, although I respect the concerns that have been expressed, I believe that it is important that we keep sight of the central issue. These changes do not alter the substantive legal tests for refugee status, humanitarian protection or human rights protection—rather, they are a procedural reform designed to make the asylum system operate more efficiently in a small and tightly defined category of cases.

The key change relates to what the Home Office describes as the “merged registration process”. Instead of requiring both a screening interview and a later, more substantive interview, certain claims considered suitable for accelerated handling will be dealt with through a single interview process. The objective is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and allow scarce case-working resources to be focused on more complex claims.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted the concerns raised by external organisations that this represents a significant change to asylum procedures and may reduce fairness for applicants. Yet the Home Office has been equally clear that claimants will continue to have the opportunity to explain the basis of their claim, provide evidence, seek legal advice and submit further representations before decisions are taken. It said that where indicators of vulnerability, trafficking, safeguarding concerns or indeed complexity emerge

“the case will be removed from the Merged Registration process and routed into the standard asylum process”.

Minister for Intergovernmental Relations

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Wales said that he had to “bite his tongue” when asked about matters relating to the devolved Government in Wales. Subsequently, he went on to criticise some of the health policies of the Welsh Government. On the need for mutual respect between the various Governments of this country, could the Minister tell the House the correct approach that Ministers should take to these devolved matters? Does it always involve biting tongues?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, clearly, there needs to be constructive engagement on devolved matters, and I believe that there is. In fact, the commitment to Wales is really quite considerable: there has been £352 billion of support for the whole of the UK, and, in Wales, this included protecting more than 460,000 jobs through the furlough scheme. We continue to recognise the need to work closely with all our devolved Administrations.

Homeowners: Cladding-related Costs

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We have continued with the progress of the existing fund, which is now at over £5 billion. As I have said, nearly 700 buildings have had their funding approved for the remediation of other forms of unsafe cladding, similar to the type seen on Grenfell Tower. Obviously, further details around the financing scheme will be announced in due course.

[Lord German (LD)]

On 24 May, I asked the Minister about the funding gap in remediating external wall cladding. The Government estimate that £15 billion will be required to fully remediate. The Government are putting in £5.1 billion and there is £2 billion from developers. That leaves a gap of £7.9 billion. In reply, he said,

“We need to watch this very carefully.”—[Official Report, 24/5/21; col. 807.]


Having cast his watchful eye over this matter, will he say whether these figures have altered, and how the gap will be filled?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, those are not official figures. There are a lot of estimates, and there is a great range in those estimates. We are carrying out some detailed research so that we can properly understand the incidents, particularly in lower-rise and medium-rise buildings, where remediation would be required. Then we will be in a position to know the burden that will potentially fall either on the taxpayer or on leaseholders.

Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this crisis has built up over many decades and that the Government have a duty to step forward and help to a degree, but we must recognise that government funding does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure that their buildings are safe. They should protect leaseholders where they can.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have said that they need £15 billion for the remediation of wall cladding. As the Minister rightly said, the Government are putting in £5 billion, but the levy they are seeking to raise from developers will provide only £2 billion over 10 years. It is capped at that sort of figure. When and how will the gap be filled?

Wales: Replacement Funding

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord German]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the money replacing funding previously provided by the European Union in Wales will be administered.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

The UK shared prosperity fund will help to level up and create opportunity across the United Kingdom in places most in need and for people who face labour market barriers. The UK-wide investment framework will be published later this year. In addition, to help local areas prepare over 2021 and 2022 for the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund, we will provide £220 million of additional UK funding to support our communities to pilot programmes and new approaches.

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

The Minister told the House last year that Wales would receive at least the same sums of money that it had previously received from the EU—that is, money that was administered by the Welsh Government to meet priorities they set in devolved areas. Can the Minister tell us what portion of this £400 million-plus annual funding will be administered by the Welsh Government? Will the UK Government make a portion biddable across the UK? Can the Minister reassure the House that they will not use these funds to cut across devolved areas of competence without the approval of the Welsh Government?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the UK Government have a responsibility to support the economic health of people, businesses and communities across the entirety of our United Kingdom. The Government have committed that the devolved Administrations will be represented on the governance structure for the UK shared prosperity fund.

Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I also welcome these regulations and the narrow spectrum that they contain, but I want to address the wider issues that business rates inflict on business in this country, particularly with regard to the needs of revival following the pandemic. While these regulations provide a system for incentivising growth and encourage local government to take steps to promote business growth, they will not serve every cash-strapped council in the short term. The effects of the pandemic and lockdown have shown how challenging our present business rate system is and how fragile a tax it is.

One of the first incentives that the Government provided to business during the pandemic was a business rate holiday, and rightly so. Given the extent of the lockdown, this is acting as a real drag-anchor on our town centres, which are now facing a much smaller retail offering moving forward. Fixed business rate taxes act as a discouragement to newcomer shops and enterprises. Our town centres will need a rethink if they are to survive as hubs for our communities.

Equally, the universality of business rates and their inherent weaknesses will undoubtedly lead to slower town centre recovery in the poorer parts of the country. Boarded-up shops will be more of a feature if large steps are not taken now to revitalise our town centres. The retail and community offer in our centres must be given the right incentives if they are to re-establish these as places to which people want to go. Our business rates system is simply not fit for purpose for this to happen.

The crisis facing our high streets and the burden business rates place on companies compound the problems that we have with this tax. Business rates, by taxing the value of a business’s machinery and premises, are a tax on investment itself. The result is a higher bill for the ambitious entrepreneur who decides to expand factory space or add solar panels to the roof and a lower bill for the speculative landowner who chooses to leave their commercial plot derelict or unused. The replacement of business rates with a new tax based solely on land value and paid by landowners, would remove the existing disincentive to invest. It would also spare millions of small businesses which rent their premises the unhelpful administrative burden of business rates.

Business rates have become an unacceptable drag on our economy. This system is a tax on productive investment at a time of chronically weak productivity growth and a burden on a high street struggling to adapt to the rise of online retail and the impact of the pandemic. Because of the highly unequal way in which land values currently exist, a land tax of this sort would significantly reduce business taxes in the poorest parts of the country, helping bring about the regional rebalancing that is so badly needed. By taxing only land, and not the productive capital above it, it would remove a major disincentive to investment, boosting productivity and accelerating the UK’s recovery.

The business rates retention policy in these regulations, of sharing between central and local government—and solely within local government in this case—and providing local councils with extra cash to promote growth, could work equally well under a land value taxation scheme. Any growth in revenue could still accrue to the local authority alone. Therefore, although I agree that these regulations can serve us well as a policy in a period when growth is possible and likely, I encourage the Government to consider a new system altogether which would stimulate growth and encourage endeavour rather than just taxing it.

Leaseholders: Properties with Cladding

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not aware of a specific issue with right to buy, as we saw in the 1980s. If my Twitter account is anything to go by, it is not related. This is about all leaseholders, particularly those in high-rises, as opposed to those who have just exercised the right to buy. It is in all settings, both public housing and private housing.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rent a flat in a block of unsafe flats in London, and I am surrounded by leaseholders who suffer greatly as a result of the turmoil and fear of the consequences. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for a comprehensive financial solution to these matters, not one that tinkers around the edges? Will he tell the House what consideration he has given to the proposal he received last week from lawyers and financial advisers on behalf of leaseholders for a special purpose vehicle that would provide the £12 billion shortfall that the Government say they are unable to meet from public funds?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to report that I spent a considerable amount of time being briefed by Dean Buckner, who is at the heart of those proposals, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and the APPG on Leasehold and Commonhold Reform. I can also say that Michael Wade has been asked by my right honourable friend to look into this matter. There was a huge amount of similarity in thinking on how to move forward. In fact, we learned a lot from the discussions. At the moment, I cannot say exactly what will be put forward. That matter is obviously above my pay grade, but we are getting there.

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord German]

That this House regrets that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 (SI 2020/755), the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 (SI 2020/756), the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/757), the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/859), and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/895) laid before the House on 21 July were made as delegated legislation because it would have been more appropriate to have brought forward such substantial and wide-ranging changes to the planning system in primary legislation.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have two interconnected reasons for tabling this debate today: first, to examine the significance of the measures in these regulations, and, secondly, to scrutinise the parliamentary procedures used to introduce them. I look forward to the debate and particularly to the two maiden speeches that we will hear today.

The pieces of legislation that we are debating today were introduced using the weakest form of parliamentary scrutiny available—the negative procedure—and yet these measures, now laws, have a significant impact on planning policy in England. If they are indeed significant, and I maintain that they are, they have avoided the proper scrutiny that Parliament is supposed to provide to ensure they provide the best outcomes possible. The role of Parliament is to assess, amend and correct the laws of our land, and to ensure that the impact of any changes is fully understood. The negative procedure that brought these measures into law means that unless a Member prays against them within 40 days of their being laid, they will automatically enter into law. However, it is primarily a procedure meant for routine and non-controversial matters—the least form of scrutiny for the least controversial matters.

The policy issues in these orders have the effect of reducing the level of scrutiny that local people and their local councils have on a range of planning applications. This in turn raises concerns about the ability of local authorities to deal adequately with the needs of their local communities. The policy changes include making it easier to demolish vacant buildings to create new homes, with reduced scrutiny of the quality of new housing, and changing the use of certain properties—for example, changing the use of a building from an office to a restaurant, including a fast food restaurant—without the need for full planning permission.

These new laws also permit the building of additional storeys on houses and flats, with very limited ability for the local council to intervene. Of particular concern is that these additional storey regulations came in two batches, the second of which is before us today. Amazingly, the regulations on the charges to be applied for making these additional storey planning applications came to the House by the affirmative procedure, thereby guaranteeing a debate in the House, whereas the policy changes themselves on additional storeys on properties were brought in by the negative procedure. Therefore, the only way of getting a debate on these and the other planning changes, and the only way of having it discussed by the House, was to put down a take-note or regret Motion, of the kind we are using today.

I recognise that the ability of the Government to use these parliamentary procedures stems from the primary legislation on planning currently in place. However, it is also clear to me that that primary legislation did not envisage such large-scale changes to be dealt with in this way. Moreover, the Government are proposing new primary legislation in this area and have issued their White Paper, Planning for the Future. Given the Government’s intentions in the White Paper, it would have been the appropriate mechanism for introducing the widespread changes provided by these regulations. The Government state that the reason for their new planning Bill is:

“Thanks to our planning system, we have nowhere near enough homes in the right places.”


If that is the Government’s objective in these regulations then why not debate them properly in the course of this upcoming new primary legislation?

I draw the attention of the House to two facts worthy of consideration. First, planning permissions are already given for enough homes to meet the Government’s target of 300,000 a year. Secondly, there are about 1 million unbuilt homes for which planning permission has already been granted.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, expressed big concerns about the restriction that these regulations place on the expression of local concerns that could be considered by councils. Additionally, the committee felt that the ability of local councils to shape the character of their high streets would be curtailed, in particular their ability to control the number of fast food restaurants in their areas.

The committee’s report to your Lordships’ House says that these new orders and regulations

“make substantial and wide-ranging changes to planning legislation”

and warrant much deeper scrutiny and analysis. If these changes had been made under primary legislation, such detailed scrutiny would have occurred. Better law depends on the detailed scrutiny and broader consultation which Parliament provides. Planning decisions are a delicate balance between different pressures on the use of our land. These measures move the needle away from local decision-makers and could damage the framework of our local communities. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the committee’s report:

“The more that secondary legislation is used for significant matters of policy, the more the balance of power is tipped towards the executive and away from parliament. For parliament to serve our citizens properly, it needs to have effective means of debating, scrutinising and deciding upon proposals such as these.”


The Motion today provides an opportunity to debate these matters. It would have been far better for this House, and us all, if the Government had engaged properly with Parliament to enable us to carry out our role effectively. I look forward to the upcoming maiden speeches by two new Members of the House, and to the Government explaining why they have taken this route and acknowledging the significance of these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister, but first, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Lancaster, on their excellent maiden speeches today. They have both demonstrated the contribution they will be able to make to this House—the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on financial and tax matters and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, on defence matters. I must say I am really looking forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, to fireworks and rebellion; put those together and I think that might be something I would encourage him to take part in in your Lordships’ House. While I may have contrary views to both noble Lords, they have shown they will be able to add a great deal to the richness of our debates and considerations.

I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today. What has been amply demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others is that these regulations have great significance to the way we conduct planning activity. My noble friend Lord Greaves, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Jones and Lady Uddin, and other noble Lords have shown how the needs of local communities, as well as broader needs, are not reflected in the measures.

Brownfield sites and design quality have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and he was critical of the tiered system of legislation to come. I look forward to his contributions in that debate when we have it—because there will be debate. A significant part of the reason for this debate today is that we have not been offered that opportunity before.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others raised significant concerns about the extension in the use of permitted development rights and also that these procedures do not lead to well-designed additional affordable homes, a point raised and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who also joined in the criticism but emphasised the financial model that drives new homes and called for review and evaluation. My noble friend Greaves pointed out the lack of consultation on these measures—another process issue, which is one of the reasons I brought this Motion in the first place.

As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, 90% of planning permissions for housing being approved and a million homes that have been given planning permission and not yet built demonstrates to me that it is not the planning system that is at fault but the system of delivering homes. I hope the Minister will reflect further on this as we consider the primary legislation of the planning Bill, which is soon to come.

I was hopeful that the constitutional element of this debate would be answered by the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, given his previous service to local government. The head legislation, the primary legislation, which gives authority over these regulations is 30 years old, and clearly, as planning and community needs have altered, updating is important. The fundamental question remains: why were these regulations not rolled into the primary legislation the Government are proposing?

I note there has not been wild enthusiasm from contributors to the debate for the detail of these proposals, but scrutiny, evaluation and debate would have informed and improved these plans. Although I am grateful for the response from the Minister, he has not answered that fundamental issue. However, as we will have many opportunities to debate these matters further, I do not intend to press my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.