The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. It is a delight to follow so many excellent speakers, such as not only the noble Lord, Lord Roe, but the noble Lord, Lord John, given his experience of Southwark. I also give my thanks to the committee and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their excellent work and this very helpful and useful report before us.
This is a subject of real importance; it goes to the heart of two of the most pressing challenges that we face: ensuring that buildings are safe for those who live in them and ensuring that we can actually build the buildings that we need for our communities and people. There was a very interesting comment from the noble Lord, Lord Roe, that one of his big concerns is not just the safety of buildings but having safe buildings available for fire staff in London.
The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator was one of the most significant reforms introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022, by the previous Conservative Government, in response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. That Act was necessary and it was a serious attempt to restore confidence in the system of building control to strengthen accountability across the construction sector and to ensure that the failures that led to Grenfell could never be repeated.
We should be clear about why reform was needed: the Grenfell Tower fire, now almost nine years ago, led to the loss of 72 lives. Beneath that was the exposure of profound, long-standing failures in regulation, oversight and professional competence, as others have mentioned. That subsequent inquiry identified that the regulatory system had not kept pace with risk, a culture in parts of the industry where fire safety was not given sufficient weight and deeply concerning misconduct by some manufacturers of construction products.
In that context, the direction of travel set by the Building Safety Act was right: stronger regulation of higher-risk buildings, clearer responsibilities and a more robust system of oversight were all necessary reforms. However, as the committee’s report makes clear, the effectiveness of the system now depends on its operation in practice. It is one thing to design a regulatory framework; it is an entirely different thing to make sure that it operates well in practice. As the committee suggests, in its early operation, the Building Safety Regulator faced a number of challenges in its performance. I am delighted to hear in the update from the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, that its performance is improving substantially and that a number of the recommendations that are in the report are, in effect, being taken forward and acted upon, but there is more to do. I will concentrate on some of that, but I recognise that the regulator is part of the way along that journey.
Importantly, there have been delays in decision-making, uncertainty among applicants about what information is required at different stages, inconsistent communication, and a shortage of suitably qualified inspectors and fire safety professionals. Building safety is a shared responsibility: a regulator cannot succeed without a competent and responsive industry and, equally, the industry cannot succeed without a regulator that is clear, proportionate and efficient in its decision-making. I am pleased that other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of culture and of working with the industry and not being entirely separate.
As leader of Central Bedfordshire, I saw directly the challenges of delivering housing, regeneration and infrastructure within an increasingly complex regulatory environment. Local authorities sit at the intersection of these systems. We work with the developers, housing associations, utilities and regulators. What matters most in practice is not simply the existence of regulation but that it is clear, predictable and capable of being navigated without unnecessary delay. Where that clarity exists, delivery can proceed at pace. Where it does not, even well-intentioned policy can become a barrier to progress.
If we are to build the homes this country needs, we cannot look at building safety regulation in isolation. We must consider how it interacts with practical realities. How can we ensure those high standards ensure the use of safe materials but deliver decisions in a timely and predictable way? I do not think many noble Lords mentioned risk in terms of development. If you ask developers, the things that they are interested in are speed, certainty of decision-making and risk. This is a particular issue in places such as London, where you have huge upfront costs—buying the land, the development process and so forth. If you are building a large block of flats, you cannot sell them until you have completed the whole building. For those of us in rural areas, if you have 10 acres and are building detached houses, you can build them a house at a time and your upfront costs are so much less. Ensuring that you have a safe process is absolutely the first thing, but how can we also give people certainty that they will get through the process and know what the requirements are? That is how we will be able to get more buildings done.
The figures in the report illustrate the scale of the issues. The target is 12 weeks. In May this year, it was 35 weeks. I am really impressed that it is now 22 weeks, which is an improvement. We acknowledge that, but there is more progress to be done in the process. Delays inevitably have consequences, not just for new buildings but in existing buildings where remediation needs to happen. It means leaseholders remain in buildings with unresolved safety issues for longer than they need to. Remediation schemes are extended. Development pipelines are slowed and councils, particularly those engaged in regeneration, face uncertainty that can affect viability, funding and sequencing.
The committee is also right to highlight skills. It seems that everything in the development world revolves around a shortage of skills—whether of planners, plasterers, brickies or electricians. This is a critical area of safety, and I am really pleased that the Building Safety Regulator has been able to get more people with the skills they need. The one question I will ask is about an experience we have had with planners. When there is a downturn for developers—clearly, they are not bringing forward as many projects as they have in the past; their demand has gone down—we find that there are more people available on the regulator and planning side. I would like an assurance from the Minister that we recognise the need for a skills pipeline but are not overoptimistic, as we could be in a situation where, because of a slowdown in the number of developers bringing forward projects, the demand on their side is reduced and availability for the regulator is increased. I think that is something we need to look at.
One particularly important recommendation that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, brought forward was around the well-judged balance in determining what needs to be approved and when. That is very important for looking at category A and category B and the timing. Getting everything done up front is great, but when you are dealing with something with very high costs involved, if you are able in a safe way—as the committee suggests—to do it over a period of time and bring forward things at the appropriate time rather than up front, that has significant benefits. Equally, as we have been saying, with category A and category B works, it is about ensuring that you have the right specialist expertise operating on the most demanding aspects and the appropriate levels at some of the other maybe less demanding categories, such as category B.
We have talked about clarity of communication. I would also mention—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Roe, raised this—that building safety is not a static discipline. As the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Best, said, we need to ensure that there are safe materials and that they are tested suitably. That is not necessarily within the remit of the Building Safety Regulator at the moment but, as we get a better understanding of what safe materials and safe design are and how fire operates in a building, with that greater knowledge and experience, the Building Safety Regulator should look at how regulation can evolve to ensure that we enhance building safety and have a responsive regulator. I am very keen that those lessons are brought forward and that we can evolve our approach to regulation to ensure that we improve our safety.
In conclusion, we are dealing with two parallel national priorities: the remediation of unsafe buildings in the wake of Grenfell and the need to increase housing supply across the country and to ensure that buildings are safe. These priorities should not be in conflict and they do not need to be. A system that restores confidence in building safety will support investment and delivery, but a system that is slow and unpredictable risks undermining both. That is why the report is so important. It does not question the principle of strong regulation or seek to dilute the lessons of Grenfell; rather, it focuses on how we can ensure that the system introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 works as effectively as Parliament intended and as is needed. I hope the Government will give the committee’s recommendations careful consideration. They are practical, measured and focused on improving outcomes, rather than on the process for its own sake. I commend the report to the Committee.
Affordable Housing: Young People
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The allocation of funding for the DWP is a bit out of my housing remit, but I know that my noble friend who just answered the first Oral Question will have that in the forefront of her mind. As we deal with the situation around vulnerable young people, adequate housing is an absolutely fundamental building block of making sure that we set young people off on the right road from the very start. We will be working with colleagues in the DWP to make sure that we tackle the issues that prove to be barriers to young people entering housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, where proceeds of right to buy are used to build a new social home, the council housing waiting list reduces and a family has the opportunity to have their own affordable social home. Does the Minister agree that the Government should support and encourage strategies that provide more homes and reduce council housing waiting lists?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It was right-to-buy policies over the last 14 years which diminished the stock of social housing. So, while I agree with the noble Lord, I do not think that the right solution was brought forward. The Social Housing Bill that is currently before the House will change the right-to-buy scheme so that we enable more of the funding for right to buy to go back into the properties. We have now allocated 100%, so that local authorities can have 100% of the funding, and we will reform the whole right-to-buy scheme to deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme. We want a scheme that will help long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we also need to protect much-need social housing stock and ensure that more homes are built than lost. That is what we are doing with the Bill. We will make sure that when a local authority builds a new house, it is exempted from right to buy for 35 years, so that councils have the confidence to invest for the future.
Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(6 days, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. This is an issue that I have spoken about many times with many people in this Room, particularly at the LGA. The terrible thing is that I cannot say it has got any better; it has actually got worse. I will not repeat all the terrible things that people have already mentioned, because I think we have all faced them. The one that has not been mentioned is the abuse of family members, particularly children. It is not just abuse of the councillor themselves; it goes beyond that. This is entirely and totally unacceptable.
When I first became a councillor—not 53 years ago but in 2009—most councillors were just good local people who wanted to help serve their communities. They wanted to get the bins emptied, fix the potholes, maybe build a new leisure centre and improve their town centre. They were not particularly political or politically motivated. They were motivated by their locale. I think we can all agree that most of those things are the sorts of things we should be doing. They are not very political issues; they are just desirable.
What has changed is that the whole firmament has become much more political with the advent of social media. It is a snowball effect. It is an echo chamber where anonymous or pseudonymous comment can spiral out of control. We are seeing national and even international issues being brought into local politics. This should not happen. The world has changed. Twenty-odd years ago, someone had to write a vitriolic letter. No one else would see it. You would get slightly upset, and you would throw it in the bin. Now, it is on social media, it is viral and it goes everywhere. A well-meaning councillor who is just trying to do the right thing will often, because of spurious or false information, be subject to huge abuse, which then spirals into the real world with physical threats, firebombing of cars and so forth. It is just not right.
Why would you become a councillor? You need real strength of character and motivation, and people are going off to do something else—very meritorious stuff. We need good councillors and we need to keep good councillors, so we need to protect them. The LGA did a lot of good work and I think the previous Government moved quite a long way, but it is not enough. My key question today for the Government is: what will we do to go further? What will we do to make it safe to be a councillor so that it becomes an attractive job where you feel safe, can serve your community and do those things—fixing the town centre, getting a new school built or whatever—without feeling that you and your family will be intimidated?
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsMonday 1st June 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There seems to be a fair degree of consensus that we have a housing crisis and that something needs to be done about it, though we may differ on what the solutions are. In particular, we welcomed those speeches focused on protecting vulnerable tenants and strengthening safeguards of victims of domestic abuse. Those protections matter and we will continue to engage constructively as this Bill progresses to ensure that they are as robust and as effective as possible. But, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and other noble Lords, it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is also about the need for social support.
However, having listened carefully to the debate, we remain concerned that this Bill does not adequately address the fundamental causes of pressures facing social housing. The central challenge is not difficult to identify—we have a housing crisis because this country has not built enough homes that people can afford. We have not built enough homes for ownership, private rent or social housing to meet demand.
Yet instead of focusing relentlessly on increasing supply, this Bill concentrates largely on restricting existing routes into home ownership and expanding ministerial powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, just raised, the Bill is not about building one extra home. That is why we believe it risks treating some of the symptoms rather than the fundamental cause. The answer to a housing shortage is straightforward: build more homes that people can afford. That requires political will, difficult decisions and a willingness to support development where it is needed.
As an example, my own authority, Central Bedfordshire, has delivered more than 1,000 homes in the last six months alone. The noble Lord, Lord John, raised the increasing costs of housing in London—London has registered fewer than 1,000 homes in the first quarter of this year across the entire capital. That is a buildout rate around a 20th of that of Central Bedfordshire. Is it any surprise that housing is so expensive in London? Central Bedfordshire is not unique. I can name a list of neighbouring authorities, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford, Northamptonshire and South Cambridgeshire, which have all had good buildout rates, and there are many others across the country, though I am not quite as familiar with them.
Too often, we see Labour councils resisting development locally while demanding more powers and more funding nationally. When areas with the greatest housing demand fail to build enough homes, those pressures do not disappear; they are simply transferred to neighbouring authorities and communities which are forced to build, often on green fields. That is not a sustainable approach to solving a national housing crisis.
Much of this Bill is centred on weakening the right-to-buy scheme. We believe that that is a mistake. The right to buy was one of the most significant social mobility policies of recent decades, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. It gave millions of people, many from working class backgrounds, the opportunity to own a home for the first time, build security for their families and establish a greater stake in their communities. My noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Eaton raised the research from the London School of Economics, which noted how right to buy enabled an increase in human capital.
When managed properly, with receipts reinvested effectively, it can also lead to an increase in housing supply. Surely it is better to have two homes: one for the existing tenant exercising their right to buy; and a second new home, funded by the proceeds from that right to buy, for a family on the waiting list. That is known as a “buy one, get one free”. Two homes must be better than one. It has the benefit of allowing specialist accommodation, such as disability accommodation and so forth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, raised. If you get those proceeds, you can start doing that. I do not say this in isolation. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire, we used the proceeds to build more homes than we sold. Is that not a win-win? It can be done, as we did in Central Bedfordshire and as has been done elsewhere.
We have a generation of young people who increasingly feel locked out of ownership altogether. Many are paying substantial rents every month while finding it impossible to save for a deposit or satisfy affordability requirements. In 1980, London renters spent on average 14% of their income on rent. Today, private renters in London are paying close to 50%. Is it surprising that council housing waiting lists continue to grow? The right to buy is not the primary cause of the pressures facing social housing. The deeper problem is that housing stock has too often not been replaced and that overall housing delivery has lagged behind for many years.
We need to have an honest discussion about the management of social housing, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. I do not cite these figures to criticise tenants; they simply illustrate the scale of the mismatch that can emerge over time if scarce housing stock is not managed actively and fairly. Social housing is supported by substantial public subsidy. It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to expect that it is allocated fairly, managed effectively and focused on those in greatest need, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Bird, with his focus on the unemployed. At a time when many families remain on waiting lists for years, these are questions that Parliament should not shy away from addressing.
The Bill misses opportunities elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, raised, it will do little to tackle the well-known shortcomings of shared ownership, despite the fact that many shared owners continue to face significant costs while enjoying only limited benefits of ownership. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, while there are many excellent housing associations, not only is there insufficient focus on accountability where housing associations or registered providers fail tenants through poor management or declining standards but we need to ensure efficient and effective operation and delivery. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, they need to be accountable.
Alongside new housing delivery, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we should be thinking much more seriously about regeneration. Across the country, there are communities with enormous potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, yet this remains largely absent from the Bill.
There is a broader difference of principle at the heart of this debate. We believe that more homes of all tenures are needed. We on these Benches believe that home ownership matters. We believe in aspiration and regeneration. We believe people should have the opportunity to build stability, independence and security for themselves and their families. Of course social housing has a vital role to play; nobody disputes that. It provides an essential safety net for those facing hardship and circumstances beyond their control. However, a successful housing system should do both: provide support for those who need it while helping those who aspire to ownership to achieve it. This Bill does not strike that balance.
As my noble friend Lady Scott said in opening, there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and will support constructively, but there are also significant concerns that this House has a duty to examine carefully. Ultimately, the public want more homes, regeneration, greater affordability, fair access to social housing and, wherever possible, the opportunity to own a home of their own. That is a principle that on these Benches we will continue to defend. I look forward to the further scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority hereafter, I will use the term “strategic authority” unless there is a particular reason to be specific.
This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England and the English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of the White Paper has now been delivered through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders best placed to take the decisions that benefit their communities.
The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following the expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. This statutory instrument will establish the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Hampshire and the Solent on the instrument. The constituent councils are Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and Isle of Wight Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.
The instrument will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 do not apply for the purposes of this instrument due to transitional and saving provisions made in a separate instrument, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which this instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028 and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 on a four-year term.
The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire County Council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, there will be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the instrument. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting; that majority must include the mayor or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.
The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. On establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it does confer, focused on local transport and economic development, are designed both to support the work of the strategic authority before all of the provisions of the Act are in force and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.
MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.
Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary of all the responses has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and, on 17 July 2025, confirmed to Parliament that the statutory test to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.
This instrument represents clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England. It will make this a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing these regulations and outlining their effect. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although that does not extend quite as far as Hampshire.
We on these Benches recognise the Government’s broader ambitions to pursue devolution and to simplify local government structures. In principle, we are in favour of real devolution in which decisions are taken closer to the communities they affect. However, devolution cannot become simply a process of restructuring for restructuring’s sake; nor can it come at the expense of democratic consent, local accountability or financial clarity.
The first concern is the apparent lack of public support for these proposals. The Government’s own consultation process showed that a clear majority of respondents did not agree that the creation of this combined authority would deliver the benefits claimed for it. During the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we made it clear that the Government’s approach should be informed by local public consent. This raises an important constitutional point: if the Government are creating a new strategic authority with a directly elected mayor, new spending powers and significant transport responsibilities, what justification is there for proceeding where there is such evident public scepticism? Can the Minister explain what threshold of public support the Government believe is necessary for reforms of this scale to command democratic legitimacy?
Secondly, there is the question of the mayoral elections that were postponed from the original date of May 2026 to May 2028. Can the Minister explain why the Government concluded that this postponement was necessary? What assessment was made of the impact that this decision would have on public confidence in the devolution process? The postponement of mayoral elections raises important questions regarding funding, investment and delivery. These devolution arrangements were presented to local areas on the basis that mayoral structures would help unlock funding, strategic transport investment and economic development opportunities. Can the Minister clarify, therefore, what impact the delay to the elections will have on the timing and quantum of these funding allocations and devolved investment programmes, as well as on the implementation of the Government’s wider devolution agenda in Hampshire and the Solent?
Thirdly, there are important questions around accountability and cost. Part 6 of the regulations provides that the constituent councils must ensure that the costs of the authority are met alongside expenditure incurred by the mayor in relation to their mayoral functions. At a time when councils are already under significant financial strain, local taxpayers will understandably ask what tangible benefit they are receiving in return for the creation of another governance layer. Can the Minister set out what estimate has been made of the ongoing administrative and operational costs of the authority? Do the Government expect these costs ultimately to be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in local government?
There are also wider concerns regarding the transfer of powers. These regulations confer transport-planning responsibilities and related functions on the authority, including powers relating to local transport plans and grants. Yet responsibility for day-to-day local services will remain with constituent councils, creating a risk of blurred accountability between the local council, the combined authority and the future mayor. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure clear lines of responsibility, in particular where transport policy decisions affect local service delivery and local budgets?
Finally, these regulations cannot be viewed in isolation from the Government’s wider programme of local government reorganisation. Many residents across Hampshire and the Solent will understandably feel uncertain about what these changes will mean in practice, how power will be exercised and whether local voices will genuinely be strengthened or absorbed into larger regional structures. We have seen proposals for the wholesale reorganisation of the county and district councils into five unitary councils, involving the break-up of several district councils. This is causing significant concern in the local area, particularly in what I would describe as the greater Southampton and greater Portsmouth areas but are, I believe, classified as South West Hampshire and South East Hampshire, where there has been a significant enlargement of those two cities to incorporate significant parts of their rural hinterland.
In particular, in the case of Southampton, there is a splitting up of the New Forest district council and the Test Valley district council, so there will be a double whammy in terms of reorganisation. There is particular concern around breaking up existing communities and the efficiencies of doing all those changes, as well as a concern about scale for some of the traditional county council functions, such as adult social care and children’s services, including whether splitting them into five will deliver genuine efficiencies.
Devolution succeeds when it carries public confidence and when accountability is clear. It is less convincing when structures appear to be imposed from above, with elections delayed and costs transferred on to councils that are already facing acute pressures, and where key decisions on funding are still held by Whitehall. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on these points today; I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments. I know that he has great experience of dealing with matters such as this. I will pick up each of his points in turn.
The first is the issue of restructuring for its own sake. That is just not where we are with this. We have had extensive negotiation with local government. The proposals that were put forward came to us from local government, and we are acting on those proposals. Anyone who has been involved in local government for as long as I and the noble Lord have been will know that carrying on as we were was not an option: it is not effective or efficient, and it does not deliver best for either the people we serve or the country, so we did need to change things.
The noble Lord mentioned consultation. It is an important point, and I will answer his question in two ways. First, the purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral strategic authority over the proposed geography. It was never intended to be a referendum. A range of views were provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits as well as some concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State, but the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act were met for Hampshire and the Solent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify two points?
First, the Minister mentioned the 30-year funding. The point is that, in effect, it has been delayed for two years by a delay to the mayoral elections: obviously, that is of concern locally.
Secondly, in looking at wider devolution, there is concern around the new authorities being a lot smaller than Hampshire county council. We need confidence that they will not end up having higher costs in the provision of the two critical regulatory services of adult social care and children’s services.
Related to that, looking at South East Hampshire in particular, the Southampton-based authority, in effect, two districts are being split up and two half-districts, a full district and a unitary council, are being amalgamated. My geography may not be perfect—it may not be quite half—but this is quite a complex thing. What confidence do the Government and the Minister have that that will be done successfully, without risking any of those key services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the second point first because, as I hope I conveyed in my winding speech, the proposals we have considered have all come from authorities themselves. They set out very clearly the proposals that they sent forward and, in most areas, there were a number of different proposals. Each one of those proposals had to set out clearly how public services were going to be managed, both through the transition and going forward; if they did not do so, they did not get put in front of Ministers for the decision-making process. So all the proposals that came before Ministers met those criteria. It was for the local authorities to set out how they would do that, and they have done so in the case of Hampshire and the Solent.
On the point about funding, I did say that there will be the 30-year mayoral investment fund, but, in the two years prior to the mayor being elected, the authority will receive a portion of this funding to support early delivery of the growth priorities, and it will also receive other devolved funding for things such as transport and adult skills. I hope that will enable the authority to establish itself as a strategic authority with a strong foundation, which we want, before we have the election for mayor.
Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 9 March.
I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor typographical correction: at Regulation 4(3)(c)(i), the words “the right” should have a space between them. This was identified after the SI was laid and has been rectified through a correction slip. The correction is only typographical and has no effect on the meaning or operation of the regulations.
It has long been the case that a developer or land promoter can secure effective control over a piece of land—through an option, a conditional contract, a pre-emption right or a promotion agreement—without anyone outside the deal knowing about it. The land stays in the same name on the title register but, in practice, another party is determining its future. There is no legal obligation to disclose these arrangements and no reliable way of finding out about them.
The result is a land market that operates, in significant part, in the dark. Planning authorities draw up housing strategies without knowing who actually holds the cards on development sites. Smaller builders spend time and resources chasing land that turns out to be already committed, and local people find out about the development intentions for the land around them only when a planning application is submitted.
The Competition and Markets Authority examined these issues as part of its 2023 housebuilding market study and found that the largest firms alone hold contractual control over some 658,000 strategic plots through arrangements that are not on the public record. That is an extraordinary volume of land to be controlled without any transparency. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was passed under the previous Government, gave the Secretary of State the powers to address this, and the draft regulations before the Committee today give effect to those powers.
In essence, these regulations require anyone who holds one of the four specified types of contractual control right over registered land to notify HM Land Registry. HM Land Registry will then publish that information without charge—openly, digitally and in geospatial form—in a new database from April 2028. The regulations have been designed to support our objective of increasing transparency without introducing undue burdens on the sector.
HMLR will collect the names of the parties, the types of right, the land in question and the duration of the arrangement. Details about financial terms are not required. Conveyancers will provide this information. The information must be provided within 60 days of the right being created, assigned or varied through a regulated conveyancer, and HMLR must also be told when a right comes to an end. Conveyancers will also be expected to indicate the extent of the contractual control right to provide sufficient details to identify the land affected, to enable transparency rather than to represent definitive legal boundaries.
The regulations are focused on rights related to future development and include a proportionate set of exemptions for national security, loan security, short-term arrangements of less than 18 months and obligations under Section 106 planning agreements. They do not apply to agreements entered into before the regulations are made, unless those agreements are amended. The previous Government consulted on a five-year retrospective window, but we have decided not to pursue that, in order to minimise the administrative burden on businesses.
Where someone does not comply, HMLR may refuse to register a notice or restriction protecting that interest, and providing false or misleading information is a criminal offence under Section 225 of the 2023 Act.
I will say a word about why this measure matters beyond the legal mechanics. In the 1980s, smaller firms were responsible for a substantial share of housing delivery. That share has fallen dramatically and one reason for that, although it is not the sole cause, is the lack of transparency in the land market around them. They do not have the networks, the legal teams or the intelligence that larger operators have built up over decades.
A public database of who holds what rights and over which land changes that. It gives planning authorities the tools to more effectively understand the landscape of control over development land in their area, and to plan accordingly. Local communities will now be able both to understand who holds rights over development land nearby and to engage with them earlier in the process.
These regulations are a practical and measured step towards a land market that works more fairly. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As she will know, the origins of this policy lie with the previous Conservative Government and the work undertaken through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to improve transparency around contractual control agreements over land. We support greater transparency.
The Government argue that greater visibility of contractual control agreements may assist local authorities, communities and smaller developers in understanding how land is being assembled and brought forward for development. Although the principle is sensible, we also need to look at the practical implications of these regulations. Their success will depend ultimately on how they operate in practice and whether the Government properly monitor their wider effects on an already fragile housebuilding sector.
The context today is very different from when this policy was first developed. Developers, land promoters, conveyancers and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises are facing increasingly difficult market conditions. Inflationary pressures remain significant, input costs remain elevated, financing conditions are tighter and the costs of construction materials, labour and fuel continue to place pressure on viability across the sector—not to mention the increasing regulatory burden. At the same time, the Government continue to set ambitious housing targets while housebuilding output remains under strain. We have also seen growing financial pressures across parts of the industry, including on major housebuilders, as we read in the weekend’s business papers.
Against that backdrop, we must be cautious. Even relatively modest additional compliance burdens can have wider consequences than Ministers may anticipate. The challenge in many parts of the country is no longer simply identifying land, particularly brownfield land, but ensuring that development remains financially viable once construction, financing and regulatory costs are taken into account.
The Government estimate that the regulations will impose a cost on business of approximately £4.2 million per annum. In isolation, Ministers may regard that as manageable, but business does not experience regulation in isolation. These costs sit alongside increasing taxation, staffing pressures, financing costs and wider regulatory obligations. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of regulatory and economic pressures on SMEs operating within the development sector?
I will also press the Minister on the risk of unintended consequences, which several stakeholders raised during consultation. There is a legitimate concern that the regulations could alter market behaviour in ways that are not intended. These are, after all, private contractual arrangements, and we should be cautious about imposing disclosure requirements unless the benefits clearly outweigh the additional burdens and commercial sensitivities involved. For example, encouraging a shift away from flexible contractual arrangements and towards outright land acquisition in order to avoid additional reporting requirements could have the effect of tying up larger amounts of capital and potentially reducing the stock of land being actively brought forward for development.
Similarly, there is a risk that some landowners may become more reluctant to enter into option or promotion agreements if the public disclosure of those arrangements creates commercial sensitivities or local controversies at an earlier stage. Can the Minister therefore commit to conducting a regular review of the market impact of these regulations? I would be grateful if she could also clarify how the Government intend to ensure that the new dataset is genuinely usable and accessible in practice, and at what de minimis level this applies. Will it apply to all land ownership and the structures around that, or is there a size of plot or de minimis at which it does not apply?
The Government’s objective of increasing visibility within the land market is understandable. At a time when housing remains challenging and viability pressures across the sector are growing, the Government must ensure that these regulations support development rather than inadvertently discourage it. The test of this policy will not be simply whether more information is collected but whether it helps get Britain building more homes without placing further strain on a sector already facing considerable economic pressure. I hope the Minister can provide reassurances on these points and look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution to this short debate. He is quite right that this provision was brought forward in a Bill from the previous Government.
As I set out in my introductory speech, the purpose of this is to try to help support the SME sector and others, including local communities, alongside our other package of work, as we go forward to make sure that they have transparency and access to the information they need to make the business and local decisions that are so important to them. Transparency is not a substitute for other interventions to boost delivery, but it is a complementary and necessary precondition for a properly functioning and competitive land market.
The noble Lord is right that SME housebuilders have seen their market share significantly shrink since the 1980s, when SME builders delivered about 40% of the nation’s homes. A structural barrier to their return, as I am sure he will be aware, is the difficulty of identifying genuinely available sites. This new database will directly reduce that barrier for SMEs by allowing smaller developers to identify from the outset which sites are already under contractual control. More SMEs competing for genuinely available sites means more homes can be built by a more diverse market, which is central to our Government’s ambition to deliver more homes. We know that these regulations are not a silver bullet to the challenges SME builders face, but they do form part of a wider package of measures.
The noble Lord asked about exemption agreements. We have included targeted exemptions to make sure that the regulations are proportionate and require information to be provided only where it progresses the transparency aims. We have included the exemptions that I set out earlier, on national security arrangements such as loan security, non-development rights, short-term rights under 18 months and Section 106 agreements. Overage and clawback agreements are primarily financial mechanisms, which do not give a party the power to control how land is used or disposed, so a clear majority of the consultation respondents did not support their inclusion. Information about easements and restricted covenants is typically already available through the register of title.
I think the burdens and costs on the sector were the main issue that the noble Lord was raising. We have been deliberate throughout about ensuring that requirements are proportionate. The Government’s assessment is that the overall impact on business will be de minimis. No significant impact on the public sector is foreseen, and local authorities will benefit from access to the data at no cost. The information required is typically information that parties already hold. Exemptions exist for short-term and non-development rights. Our consultation, which was extensive, confirmed that the vast majority of parties already engage lawyers when drawing up these agreements. It was estimated that the process would add between 21 and 60 minutes per agreement.
As the noble Lord said, the impact on businesses is estimated at approximately £4.2 million per annum. That consists of ongoing compliance costs and one-off familiarisation costs to developers, land promoters and conveyancers. But, as always with these things, the important thing is to balance this with the improved transparency for communities and the industry to understand how land is available. Hopefully, that will off-set some of the costs because it will enable SMEs and others to access information that will tell them what land is available and save them wasting money looking at land that already has agreements over it.
In conclusion, these regulations will for the first time give government, planning authorities, small builders and local communities a clear and reliable picture of who controls development land in England and Wales. That is a straightforward but significant change and one that is long overdue. I trust the Committee welcomes the regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I asked a question, which I appreciate the Minister may not be able to answer, about whether there is a de minimis level in those exemptions—for half an acre, quarter of an acre or whatever. Secondly, she rightly raised the various exemptions, and I am pleased that they are there; for clarification, will they be under the judgment of the legal bodies handling the transaction or will they have to refer to somebody for those exemptions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to the noble Lord about the de minimis level in writing, if that is all right. In terms of determining what the exemptions are, the conveyancers will put this forward, so it will be up to them. As with all things in regulations, they will have to be honest in the way they approach this and exercise their professional judgment.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsThursday 23rd April 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 191-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (22 Apr 2026)
Lord Jamieson
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 89B and 89C in lieu—
“Brownfield land priority
(1) A spatial development strategy prepared by a mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority must seek to prioritise the development of suitable brownfield land within the relevant area before designating greenfield land for development.
(2) Greenfield land may be designated for development where the authority is satisfied that—
(a) the use of available brownfield land alone would be insufficient to meet identified development needs, or
(b) development of such brownfield land would not be viable, deliverable, or would give rise to unacceptable environmental impacts, having regard to subsection (3).
(3) In applying this section, the authority must have regard to—
(a) the availability and deliverability of brownfield land,
(b) the economic viability of development,
(c) the suitability of brownfield land for the proposed development,
(d) the environmental impacts of any development,
(e) the need to meet housing and economic development requirements in the relevant area, and
(f) and relevant national planning policy.”
“(ka) section (Brownfield land priority) (brownfield land priority);””
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Throughout the debate on this Bill there has been agreement across the House that there should be a focus on brownfield first, putting homes where they are most needed—close to jobs, facilities and infrastructure. It is better for the environment, helps to regenerate our towns and cities and saves our valuable green fields. The current crisis has highlighted the need to grow our own food.
While prioritising brownfield is in planning guidance, it is not working. Greenfield development continues to represent around 50% of all housing development, with the loss of around 50,000 hectares in the last three years according to government statistics—and that excludes solar farms. Why? Because it is easier and quicker for developers to build on green fields. If we are genuinely to move the dial, we need to do more. We need a more proactive approach. Strategic development strategies are an opportunity to proactively look at how more can be done to build on brownfield to regenerate those urban areas and build the homes we need, to remove barriers and to support doing the right thing. That is why we are moving this Motion to make clear that this should be the case and to give it legislative backing.
The Minister raised some concerns, and I appreciate the time she has given to discuss this. We have listened to those concerns and have changed our original amendment, which the Minister thought might have unintended consequences and, as such, legal challenges. Our amendment in lieu reframes this as policy-led and aligns more closely with how spatial planning operates in practice. We have specified the amendment as pertaining to spatial development strategies and have recognised that land is allocated to meet specific identified development needs. Our amendment recognises that authorities must have regard to relevant national planning policy; housing and economic requirements for relevant areas; environmental impacts; and deliverability and economic viability of brownfield development. We do not believe, as the Minister said, that it will cause delay. In fact, it is the reverse: this is an opportunity to have more sites available for development.
I reiterate that we are not seeking to stand in the way of development. Rather, we want authorities, mayors and central government to properly address and overcome the challenges of brownfield development. I hope the Minister will recognise the constructive intentions behind our amendments in lieu, on which I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I also thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her efforts on her amendment in lieu, to bring it more in line with the arrangements in Scotland while seeking to reflect English planning laws.
We must remember that this is not just about music or cultural venues. It involves several other existing businesses and facilities, which deserve recognition in this debate. I look forward to the responses from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend from the Front Bench, and I will speak to Motion G.
I take this opportunity to most warmly thank the Minister for meeting with a group of us this week and following that up with a meeting with the Music Venue Trust yesterday. I listened very carefully to what she had to say. I understood that, possibly, last week, the Government were minded to bring forward an amendment; it is still not too late for them to do so.
I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, and I would like to look to the Scottish model in this regard. The Scottish model gives a statutory legal basis, giving legal effect to the agent of change principle. The amendment is wider than the Scottish proposed law, which has now been in force for seven years, and our proposed amendment goes on to reflect English planning practice.
In the last seven years since the Scottish provision came into effect, the world has not caved in, and I do not think that, in that time, a significant number of music centres have closed, nor indeed have there been other instances of massive mitigation costs being sought. The Scottish provision has brought clarity and legal certainty to all those concerned. I am afraid I part company from the Minister: I think the House and the Government need to move on from light, fluffy, non-statutory policy to give statutory basis and legal certainty in the provision that I have set out.
We have set out in Amendment 94B that, in the event of an impact-sensitive development, regard is held and it is the agent of change—the new business—which takes any precautionary measures and pays the expense. It gives protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments.
I am very mindful of the fact that this mostly concerns music centres in England. We have had some figures recently from the Music Venue Trust in this regard. This is a wider issue than that. It reflects the fact that we have an urban-based problem here—a conflict between existing businesses facing competition and restrictions perhaps being imposed by others. While it is without doubt mostly music venues that have been affected by mitigation costs and the risk of businesses closing, the problem is wider and arises from dense urban living, brownfield regeneration and mixed-use development. The beauty of the amendment before us today is that it engages planning, licensing and nuisance in a way that would resolve this problem.
I firmly believe that the Government would be sticking their head in the sand by trying to go along with fluffy, non-statutory guidance followed up by a letter, and I ask the Minister to explain what status a letter would have. The provision proposed today, which would come into effect two months after the Bill is enforced, would resolve the issues once and for ever. It would give clarity to planners, developers, existing businesses and practitioners, and we could move on from the constant lack of clarity and uncertainty in various iterations of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance. I am minded to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their support and thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that the Minister has offered assurances that the Government will set out in regulation that strategic planning authorities, when preparing spatial development strategies, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. However, as I said earlier, this approach has not worked. If we are genuinely going to move the dial, we need to strengthen the prioritisation of brownfield development. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.
Home Ownership: First-Time Buyers
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Shared ownership has a very important role to play in supporting households into home ownership that would otherwise struggle to purchase a property on the open market that meets their needs. We are aware, of course, that some people who have entered shared ownership have faced challenges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill to introduce the measures to help with that. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience. These include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability and increasing transparency and fairness on costs. Shared owners will also benefit from the wider leasehold and commonhold reforms in a variety ways. We will debate the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill in due course—but the Act of 2024 grants shared owners the right to statutory lease extensions and makes it easier for them to challenge unreasonable service charges.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, stamp duty is a huge drag on those wishing to have their own home. In London, for the average first-time buyer, stamp duty is £15,000—a huge sum for those seeking to get a deposit. It also makes climbing the housing ladder extortionately expensive and prevents those wanting to downsize, thereby freeing up family homes, from being able to afford to do so. Does the Minister recognise that stamp duty is a bad tax, and it should be abolished so that people can afford to buy and to move?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a bit rich coming from someone who was in the government party for the past 14 years. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty on up to £300,000, and they can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000.
Business Improvement District Ballots: Digital Voting
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly as she reminds me of the days when I was doing election monitoring in Moldova and Georgia, which was a fascinating experience. I very much appreciated then the work of the OSCE, and still do. She is quite right that we have to do all we can to make sure that voting is safe. I believe that the Representation of the People Bill is completing its Commons stages today and will come to our House in due course. Where good practice is developed and promoted by the OSCE and others, we will look at that with great interest.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, BIDs do much good work for our town centres, but this is being blown away by the massive damage caused to our town centres by higher national insurance contributions, higher business rates, increased minimum wages and employment regulation. For example, UKHospitality figures show over 100,000 job losses since this Government came to power. Will the Government recognise the impact of these damaging policies on our town centres and reverse course?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The decline in our town centres—I speak from personal experience—started long before this Government came to power. Our Government are delivering on their manifesto commitment to protect the high street and rebalance the business rates system by introducing permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We will bring forward our high streets strategy later this year.
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument before the Committee. As the Minister said, this instrument makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. These amendments are minor and seek to ensure that the exceptions to the building control prohibition are effective and clear to the building control professionals, and that they respond to the drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We support these changes, but I have a couple of questions.
First, I understand that the Government will continue to monitor and publish data on the RAS regulations to determine their effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of these technical changes. I would be grateful if the Minister can provide the Committee with an update on the progress made so far by developers in meeting their obligations under the RAS regulations.
Secondly, the responsible actors scheme is part of a wider range of actions to address building safety, a key part of which is the building safety regulator. In October, only 15 of 193 high-rise applications had been approved. Can the Minister update the Committee on the number of applications and approvals, and the average turnaround times for each of the stages? I appreciate that the Minister may not have that information with her and would be very happy if she would write. With that, we support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the instrument and I will pick up his two questions. First, on the publishing of data for developer-led remediation, the ministry carefully monitors developer remediation performance, including through scrutinising detailed quarterly data returns. Data from these quarterly returns is published on GOV.UK and includes information about each developer’s progress. In relation to the BSR, I may have to come back to the noble Lord on the specific numbers that he asked for, but, in general, improving the speed in which remediation applications are approved is an absolute priority for the BSR, which has recently announced a remediation improvement plan.
Before I go on to the rest of the answer, the change in management of the BSR has driven very considerable improvements in its performance and I am very pleased to see that. The improvement plan includes improving internal processes, ramping up capacity to deal with remediation cases and working very closely with the industry to support applicants to improve the quality of their applications. That was one of the issues that was raised when we debated this previously. We expect applicants, particularly large developers, to work with the BSR to improve the quality of their applications, so that remediation can progress without delay. I hope that, with those improvements and the improvements that are taking place within the BSR, we are already starting to see considerable improvement, and I hope that that will continue. I will respond in writing to the noble Lord on the numbers issue.
In closing, this instrument makes technical amendments that clarify, as I said, drafting inconsistencies and defects previously reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and makes sure that the responsible actors scheme and its prohibitions will function smoothly in practice, should they be applied. It maintains the integrity of the existing system while making sure that residents and other affected parties are protected.