Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am certainly not calling the result of the Denton by-election at this stage. I do not think we even have a candidate yet, so I think it would be unwise.

In response to the noble Baroness’s question on timing, we have been clear throughout that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. Many of the local elections that are due to take place in May will take place. We were very clear that if councils said they had no reason for postponement then we would listen to them, but that where a council voiced genuine concerns—we had significant evidence from those councils whose elections have been postponed—we would take it seriously. To make sure that everyone knows that this was not a rubber-stamp exercise, where anyone who asked for a postponement got it, there were two councils where we did not think the evidence was sufficient, Nuneaton and Bedworth and Pendle, and their elections are going ahead. We do not do this lightly. However, with an unprecedented reorganisation going on in local government, it is right that we took account of what local government was saying to us.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Like my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, as a councillor in central Bedfordshire I have already been through unitisation. That did not involve cancelling elections; in fact, we had an additional election after two years. We were able to do that because we had a proper plan that was locally developed and supported by residents. Is not the reason that elections are being cancelled that the Government do not have plan, do not know what is happening, and have not been communicating to councils and leaders what they should do or when they should do it? It is taking too long, and we end up in the difficult situation faced by council leaders of not knowing. Can the Minister commit that the Government will provide a clear timetable, as asked for by my noble friend, for local government reorganisation and for when elections will be held? Democracy matters; it is from where local government derives its authority.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am afraid it was the failure to bite the bullet and get on with this kind of radical reorganisation for decades that has meant that we have decided that we cannot go on any longer with a broken system. Services in local government are not sustainable, the finance system is not working, and we now need to make sure that we get local government on the firm footing it deserves, that we are distributing funding more fairly, and that councils are the right size and shape to be effective to deliver efficiently key public services, as the public that we serve deserve, and drive forward our economy, housing and transport in the way that we all want to see, right across the country. The current system results in confusion and waste. We have got to get on with the job. We have had to take this unprecedented step to make sure that we are taking account of what local government tells us about its need for resources.

On the timetable, I have just set it out again. I do not understand the confusion about the timetable. We have been very clear about it and we will move ahead with that. Local authorities are working, and have worked, very well within the timetable we have set out. We work closely with them on that, as on all the other matters related to the reorganisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

With respect to the noble Baroness, putting in new resources at this stage would not really help matters. Councils have their programmes of work under way. They are all working very hard on the reorganisation programme, as they are on the transition. They have an enormous job to do on working out the transition for key public services and on how they are going to drive growth and housing programmes going forward and put new resources into that. When you have new councillors and council officers coming in, it takes quite some time for them to get up to speed and be able to deliver at pace. Councils have considered that very carefully and will have made their own decisions. That is why we had 29 of them submit requests to postpone their elections.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As there is still time, I will come back on a couple of things that the Minister said. The Minister spoke of the need for fundamental reform. Can the Minister answer the following questions that I have asked previously? What real additional powers, and what funding, will come to local government from the Government? Secondly, the Minister said that local government funding was not sustainable, so why, through the Government’s unfair funding proposals, will many councils suffer some of the sharpest cuts that they have seen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The fair funding formula that we announced this year has given local government a significant increase in funding. Having spent the 17 years that I was a council leader cutting budgets every year, I know that has been a welcome change for some of our councils.

On the new powers that local councils will get, I know that we are in the process of considering the English devolution Bill and that we will debate it tomorrow afternoon. The seven areas of competence that are included in that are just the starting point for devolution. We want to see a widespread devolution of things that are currently decided in Whitehall; we want to see them being decided in local areas by local people. Once those combined authorities are established, the mayors will be able to apply for further powers that they see as necessary for their areas. It is important that those are driven by mayors. We have seen that existing mayoral areas have different needs. Some areas have a much greater need for powers on skills, for example, while others have greater need for powers on health and transport, and it can be all three. It is very important that that is driven at a local level. The very wide-ranging competences that we have set out in the English devolution Bill will enable local governments to take the powers that they need to drive their local areas forward. That is a huge move forward, and I welcome it.

Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this statutory instrument, which I support and which will be hugely helpful for local taxpayers in the generation of local jobs. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate; I look forward to the Minister’s response to all the points made by the noble Lord. I would say just two things. First, we are talking here about procurement contracts below the threshold. Secondly, I believe that best value can include the generation of local jobs as a consequence of that procurement process; there has to be an allowance for that.

I want to ask one specific question of the Minister, which I hope can be replied to now. It touches on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: the definition of local area. I have not understood it; nor have I understood why there is reference in the Explanatory Notes to the consultation that took place in relation to combined authorities. My immediate reaction when I read this statutory instrument was that I did not understand how combined authorities fitted into this structure. It is quite difficult to see how that would work.

In particular, in Article 3(5)(a), the local area is defined very clearly. It is stated that,

“where there is one relevant authority”—

let us say one council—

“which intends to enter into a relevant contract … the area of that authority”

is the whole of the area of that authority. My understanding of this is that a council cannot subdivide its area; it has to be within its whole area. However, it can also be “the area specified” as

“the area of that authority, or … any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border that area”.

I have not understood why the counties and London boroughs are pulled out in this order as being a special case when the metropolitan districts are not in the old metropolitan counties—from my perspective, in the north-east of England, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire. If one council decides to enter a procurement process, is it forbidden to define its local area as a neighbouring authority or part of one?

For the sake of choosing a random example, if Bradford Council decided that it wished to procure as a single authority, would it be able to run the process including a neighbourhood area such as Calderdale, Kirklees or Leeds? I have not understood this; nor have I understood why this issue is not addressed in the context of the Bill on English devolution that is going through, where this issue is not mentioned at all. Procurement does not appear in that Bill. It seems to me that there is a need for clarity on why the combined authorities are excluded and why the London boroughs have become a special case. All metropolitan areas should be a special case.

Beyond that, I am happy for the Minister to write in reply, if this is seen as at all complicated, but we need absolute clarity here now; otherwise, when people start to implement the order, there is going to be confusion about what they are allowed to do. Otherwise, I am in favour of this order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

We are generally coming to a fairly positive view across the parties on this instrument. It makes a notable change to the long-standing restrictions in Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which were originally designed to prevent local authorities taking account of non-commercial considerations, including location of supplier, when awarding contracts. As the Minister clearly outlined, this order proposes to disapply that restriction in a narrow set of circumstances, allowing local authorities, best-value authorities and parish councils to reserve below-threshold contracts either to suppliers based anywhere in the United Kingdom or within a defined local area.

The intention is clear: to give local authorities greater flexibility regarding their local economies, their local supply chains and, where appropriate, the use of local SMEs and VCSEs. Many of us recognise that that is a positive move for local government on small-scale contracts. However, it would be helpful to get further clarity on some issues. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Shipley, raised the issue of the definition of boundaries. Is it sub-local? Does it include metropolitan boroughs and so on? I would like assurance and clarity on that, as well as on what level of flexibility there is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are discussing a matter of semantics here, but the confusion might have occurred because, under the Local Government Act 1972, “county” includes metropolitan authorities. That might be the issue, but it is only fair that I set that out more clearly in writing to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to frameworks —and, yes, councils can still jointly procure under this process. He spoke about VCSEs. We will, of course, keep all matters under review in that way. I hope that this is a real opportunity for VCSEs; over many years of procuring contracts, I have often heard them say that not enough consideration is given to the possibility of VCSE delivery, so I hope that this will expand the opportunities for VCSEs.

The noble Lord spoke about the restriction that meant that this was not implemented before. Again, we did not go out to consultation because the consultation had already been done. I do not know why the previous Government took the decision to change tack and not implement it, but the response to the consultation was very clear that the previous proposals would be too restrictive, which is why we made these changes and brought them in, in the way that we have.

I just want to say that I said the term “subcentral”, but it is not a term that I would ever use myself. I will make sure that it does not appear in any of my future appearances before the Committee.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I want just to clarify the point that I tried to make about consortiums. I want to make sure how the consortium will function where maybe people are looking, shall we say, to give some local focus. If you end up in a consortium, which might be Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Kent, will you be able then to say, “We’ll only accept bids from people from Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Kent” because they are not coterminous, not neighbouring? I am not expecting an answer now, but perhaps the Minister could kindly give it some thought and just say whether, if one enters into a consortium, the footprint can effectively be the consortium?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether, within a strategic authority’s competence, it would have the power to borrow in order to nationalise local transport.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. This group of amendments on Clause 2 concerns the areas of competence afforded to strategic authorities under the Bill. The amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing. They seek to test the scope and limits of the powers the Government intend to devolve, and to understand the rationale behind the choices made in drawing up this list.

We have tried to understand the logic that underpins the Bill. Devolution, if done well, can bring decision-making closer to communities, improving outcomes for local people and delivering better value. But ambition must be matched with clarity, legal certainty and a clear understanding of how these powers are intended to operate in practice. Clause 2 is central to that. It is right that this Committee examines it carefully. Of course, this would be so much easier to debate if the Government were being clear on the powers and fiscal capacity that they are devolving to local government. However, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook commented, we see little in the Bill of what is actually being devolved.

Amendment 2 in my name would leave out Clause 2(a). This amendment probes whether, within a strategic authority’s competence, there would be the power to borrow to acquire local transport businesses. The Bill as drafted appears to give strategic authorities a broad remit over transport, but it is not clear whether this extends to the acquisition of assets, the taking over of services or the borrowing powers that would be required to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s intention here. Is the power envisaged to be purely strategic and co-ordinating, or could it extend to ownership and operational control? If the latter, what safeguards or limitations would apply? Is transport buses and trams, or is it also rail?

Our Amendment 5 concerns the reference to public safety. This is a term that appears in a number of statutes but its meaning is not always consistent. This amendment seeks to determine what is meant by public safety in the context of the Bill and on what legal definition this remit is set out. Do the Government intend this to relate to emergency planning, community safety partnerships, policing or something broader? Clarity is essential, not least to avoid overlap or conflict with existing statutory duties.

Amendment 11 in my name seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will be expected to identify, seek and assume powers in their areas of competence, and how accountability for those powers will be maintained. The amendment proposes that strategic authorities may exercise functions only within a powers framework set by the Secretary of State, who would be required by regulation to specify the scope and limits of powers, identify any functions reserved to central government and impose any conditions or statutory objectives. It would also require strategic authorities to publish a statement setting out which powers they have assumed and how these relate to the functions within their constituent councils. This is intended to ensure clarity over scope, limits, conditions and transparency for both constituent councils and Parliament as to where responsibility lies.

Before I conclude I want briefly to acknowledge the other amendments in this group, which raise important questions about the breadth and ambition of the proposed areas of competence. My noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to include community engagement and empowerment, a reminder that devolution must be rooted not only in institutional structures but in the active participation of the people it is intended to serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows, because we have had the conversation, that I feel that the order of that wording is a little unfortunate. We will reflect on that because it does look as though it is infrastructure related just to transport. That is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill is intended to reflect that the competences will include local infrastructure and transport. If that local infrastructure relates also to transport, well and good, but it might be other infrastructure. So I will reflect on that and come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. What has emerged quite clearly is that there is a huge desire across the Committee for a proper devolution framework that is both ambitious and workable, and one that truly empowers local leaders while ensuring clarity, accountability and coherence.

I want to come back to competence because there appears to be some confusion. My noble friend Lord Porter raised the fact that local authorities already have a general power of competence. Therefore, I want to be clear: what do we mean by competence in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, raised, what matters for the public is delivery. For that to happen, local authorities, mayors and strategic authorities need to have the responsibility, the powers and the funding. My noble friend Lord Lansley, in helpfully referring to the White Paper, said that a competence is a strategic mandate “to do”, as opposed to the general power of competence. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could clarify—not necessarily now—exactly what we mean by an area of competence and what that means in terms of responsibilities, powers, funding and the ability to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned energy. Over a century ago the last energy revolution of neighbourhood gas and electricity was rolled out by local authorities because they had the power and the funding—they did not have the responsibility but they took the responsibility—to do so. By the sounds of it, many noble Lords here would like local authorities to be in the same position again to be able to do things at the local level.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned tourism, which is absolutely crucial to delivering economic growth, particularly in certain areas, such as Bedfordshire, where we have the delights of two national zoos and various other things.

My noble friend Lord Lansley and other noble Lords raised the very important issue of empowerment. It is partly because of the need to try to delve into and understand this that my noble friend Lady Scott and I tabled some of our amendments. Amendment 2 seeks precisely to understand what is meant by the devolution of transport powers; I appreciate that the Minister provided some clarity on that. Amendment 5 is about public safety; that term has significant implications, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. My noble friend Lady Scott raised the important issue of LRFs and where they will fit in the future. The importance is around how this will work in the future and the clarity as we go through this process. It is not just about what areas people are competent in but what powers, funding and responsibilities they will be given to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the inclusion of this measure—above all because, if it is enlisted as one of the areas of competence, it will strengthen the argument that strategic authorities will have to make with the all-powerful Treasury that this is one of the funding elements that must be included.

I declare an interest: I live in Saltaire, which is a world heritage site. We are an open world heritage site, which means that we cannot charge for entry. The delicacy of our relations with Bradford Council, with a very strapped budget in terms of providing the resources to cope with the tourists and visitors, is very much one of the things we have to struggle with. As other noble Lords have said, Bradford has just had the most successful City of Culture year. It has done a huge amount for social cohesion and morale—indeed, for all the things the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about earlier, in terms of expanding people’s horizons and bringing people together.

Culture has been funded through a range of different streams. We all know about and remember the battles with Arts Council England about funding areas outside London. We have seen the way in which local councils used to pull cultural elements together through education in schools, local music arrangements and so on. They have dismantled those music hubs, which have been played around with—they have been constructed and put together, then taken apart—and schools have become very separate. If we are to build back to local intervention, local help and regional support, culture needs to be stressed as one of the things that is of enormous benefit to all of us, both socially and economically. It has been squeezed as councils at all levels have had to squeeze their budgets; they have found that culture is one of the things that has to go, as other things seem more important immediately, but it leaves a huge gap in the long run.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I have a point of clarification: I believe that my noble friend Lord Parkinson was referring to Bristol, not Ipswich.

The amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would add the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence. The noble Earl has long been a vocal advocate for the cultural and creative sectors; his contributions to these debates and their economic, social and civic value are well recognised by the Committee. The case made by the noble Earl is compelling, as is the case made by the noble Baroness.

Cultural policy is most effective when it is shaped locally, with the flexibility to reflect the distinct histories, assets and ambitions of local areas; we have heard this from pretty much every noble Lord who has spoken today. Taken together, these amendments ask an important question: what role do the Government envisage for culture within the devolution framework? The Bill as drafted is silent on this point. Many combined authorities already treat culture as a strategic priority; local leaders would welcome clarity that they may continue to do so within the new statutory framework.

As with earlier groups of amendments, the issue here is not simply whether culture matters—few in this Committee would dispute that, I think—but whether the Government’s model of devolution is sufficiently flexible and ambitious to allow strategic authorities to support and grow the cultural life of their areas. These amendments invite the Government to set out their thinking and explain whether the omission of culture from Clause 2 is deliberate or merely an oversight. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendments 6 and 51, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for Amendment 10. These amendments seek to create a distinct area of competence for culture; and to enable a mayor to appoint a commissioner to this additional area of competence. As noble Lords will be aware, we had long discussions about this matter during the passage of the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

When I was thinking about this, I thought I would have a look at what was going on in Hertfordshire, my own county, which calls itself the Hollywood of the UK. That might be disputed territory, but that is what it calls itself. When you look at the economic impact in Hertfordshire, there was film and TV investment of £3.7 billion, and 4,000 direct jobs, but 7,000 to 19,000 jobs if you include supply chain and freelance workers. There were major new investments, such as Sunset Studios in Broxbourne, which brought £300 million a year into the local economy; Sky Studios Elstree has an estimated value of over £3 billion over the first five years; and then there are Warner Brothers, Elstree Studios, and all the rest.

I know that is the economic dimension of this, but the whole ecosystem starts with local arts and grass-roots infrastructure, skills and training, and inspiring a new generation of creatives to go into the industry. Mayors and strategic authorities can, and already do, play a very important role in these areas. That is precisely why the Bill’s existing areas of competence have been framed as they have. They are deliberately broad, enabling a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including cultural, creative and heritage activity.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for correctly highlighting the power of these activities to tackle some of the divisions we are seeing in society; they play a very powerful role in that respect. My noble friend Lady Griffin highlighted the importance of skills enabling the culture industries to thrive, which illustrates the cross-cutting nature of the competences because skills in the creative industries and elsewhere are included in the competences as we see them.

For example, Clause 41 extends a broad power to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors to their area. That power sits under the “Economic development and regeneration” heading. This demonstrates how these activities are intended to be captured without the need to list them in a separate policy area. Indeed, many authorities already fund and support culture and heritage initiatives using their existing powers.

The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a point about the West Midlands and Birmingham. As we have already had north-west and Yorkshire examples, I will use the example of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which invested £4.1 million into arts and culture projects as part of the legacy funding following the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games.

However, I take the noble Viscount’s point that for local authorities this has been a very difficult time when they are faced with the difficult choice between whether they fund the adult care services and the children’s services or arts services. That is why this Government have started to work on the fair funding of local government so that we can get local government’s confidence back that there is the possibility to invest.

The provisional 2026-27 settlement will make available £78 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England. That is a 5.7% cash-terms increase compared with 2025-26. By the end of the multi-year period, we will have provided a 15.1% cash-terms increase, worth over £11 billion, compared with 2025-26. The reforms ensure that this funding is allocated fairly and that the places and services that need it most are supported. It is for services such as adult care and children’s services, but it will also ensure all areas are able to deliver at the kinds of cultural services that we have been talking about.

In my own area, I hung on to the Gordon Craig Theatre in Stevenage. In spite of successive cuts in funding, we recognised its value to our community, not only in terms of our strong cultural life but to skills and our economy. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, called recognising the long-term strategic benefit of what that brought to our community. While I am talking about specific places, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned Bradford, and I congratulate Bradford on its fantastic year as City of Culture. It has done an amazing job, and we look forward to that continuing in Bradford and elsewhere around the country.

On commissioners, I note that they are an optional appointment for mayors to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role, and it would therefore be reasonable, for instance, for a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration to also lead on a strategy focused on culture and the creative industries.

However, I note the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who is a great champion in this area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I would be very happy to meet them and discuss this further before we get to Report. I hope that with these reassurances, the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to clarify one of the statements she made. This is a devolution Bill. She implied that she wants clarity that all functions are done at the same level across the country. To my mind, the whole purpose of devolution is that you do it at the level that is most appropriate. That may be very different, for instance, in Yorkshire compared with Stevenage. My noble friends from Yorkshire and Lancashire have disappeared, so I cannot refer to them. It may be that there is a brilliant parish council that can take on more responsibility—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook mentioned Salisbury—whereas, in another area, we may say, “Well, no, that’s better done at the unitary or strategic level”. Devolution is about that local determination of how services are delivered at the best level for the best results for residents. I want to make sure that the Minister was not implying that that is not the case.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have set out clearly in the Bill—with the competences, for example—where we see strategic responsibilities lying and where local council leaders will be responsible for the services they deliver. As we go through the local government reorganisation process, we will have unitary authorities across the country delivering those services. What we do not want to do is muddy the waters by saying that there will be some areas that have different strategic powers from others. That is why we have set out the competences in the Bill.

It is not about what you deliver at local level because the strategic competences allow that to be flexible across different geographies and demographics. It is about ensuring that the strategic level is delivered by the combined authority and local services are delivered by the local authority. I do not think it would be helpful to muddy those waters by having the picture be different across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, in echoing my colleague’s comments reflecting on the previous debate, it sounds as though today we are agreeing on uniformity rather than devolution. The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to merge, restructure or abolish councils without parliamentary oversight and local consent—all apparently in the name of devolution. A top-down authoritarian approach replaces local choice with a central direction from Whitehall. A single model is to be imposed across England regardless of geography, identity or local preference. It shifts real power away from local councils and into large strategic authorities headed up by regional mayors, with reduced numbers of local councillors serving larger areas and populations.

Civil servants in Whitehall carving up maps is not a process that encourages local participation and people having real powers, as devolution implies. In fact, it is the very opposite of devolution. When its results become apparent, they will fuel further distrust and anger, as local people will find that they have even less chance to influence decisions affecting their lives or opportunities to participate in the governance of their local area. Mayors do not have the confidence of the population all over the country, so imposing a universal model is asking for local dissent. In my area of Bristol, there was a referendum that decisively rejected continuing with an elected mayor, so this actually imposes something on an area that is contrary to what the local population said.

We had some talk about regional assemblies. Having served on the South West Regional Assembly, I dispute that all the RDA money goes into Bristol, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—Councillor Scott—said, but that is something that we can perhaps talk about afterwards. Having looked at housing plans for the whole of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and more, I can tell the noble Baroness that rural affairs were very high on that agenda.

This amendment seeks to restore the requirements of full local consultation on the substantive changes being proposed, including the geographical area, functions and powers of the new authorities, and governance arrangements including membership representation and accountability. Consultation is also to include funding arrangements, transitional costs and where they will be borne, and the impact on existing local government funding. It is essential for there to be transparency and accountability on funding, and that local obligations and responsibilities are fully funded, with councils enabled to do the job for which they were elected.

It seems deeply ironic that an unelected Chamber such as ours should be party to removing powers and accountability from local communities and riding roughshod over local democracy. This amendment goes some way to restoring the rightful importance of local leadership, local consent and local participation.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I speak on this group of amendments concerning Clause 3, which addresses the creation of single foundation strategic authorities. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing in nature, and we have also given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.

At the heart of our concerns is the familiar theme that we have returned to throughout the Bill, and I suspect we will again—the balance of power between central government and local communities. Too often the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create, reshape or direct local government structures with minimal checks, consultation and accountability. That is not the model of devolution that we believe in.

I also ask the Minister for clarification on the role of single foundation strategic authorities. Will all unitary and counties not in a combined authority be offered the opportunity to be a single foundation strategic authority? What powers and funding will they be given and how does this compare to combined authorities, mayoral and foundation mayoral authorities? Where will a single foundation strategic authority fit in the landscape? Could it be forced into a combined authority?

Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is sensible and necessary. It would require the Secretary of State to consult all levels of local government in an affected area before designating a single foundation strategic authority. Indeed, I would go further. Consultation should involve not only local authorities but local residents. If we are serious about localism and empowering communities, rather than simply rearranging governance structures, the voices of the people who live and work in those areas must be heard.

Amendment 15 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook probes whether the affirmative procedure alone is sufficient scrutiny for the Secretary of State’s powers under this clause. Given the scale of the decisions being taken and the potential impact on local governance and accountability, it is legitimate to question whether Parliament should have a more substantial role in overseeing these powers.

Throughout this Bill we have systematically sought to remove or constrain the Secretary of State’s ability to create new authorities or confer new powers without proper consultation or local consent. Clause 3 as drafted continues the pattern of centralisation. For that reason, we have tabled an amendment opposing the question that Clause 3 stands part of the Bill. We believe that the Government must provide far greater clarity about how and when these powers will be used and what safeguards will be in place.

As I said earlier, this is a theme that we will return to later in the Bill. For now, I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong arguments made today for a more genuinely localist approach, one that respects local government, involves local residents and ensures that decisions about local government are not taken unilaterally by the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, for their amendments on single foundation strategic authorities. Clause 3 provides a power for the Secretary State to designate a single unitary council or county council that is not covered by an existing strategic authority as a single foundation strategic authority. Any future designation of a single foundation strategic authority will be subject to the consent of the council involved. For this reason, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is not a necessary requirement.

I appreciate the intention behind the proposal. However, it would not be proportionate to impose an additional requirement to consult every level of local government within the proposed area of the single foundation strategic authority. The principal body affected by the designation will be the old unitary county council and no designation can be made without the consent of the relevant council.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 3 should be included in the Bill. Clause 3 is vital to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its ambition to ensure that everywhere in England can benefit from devolution. The Government recognise that non-mayoral devolution to single local authorities can serve as an important foundational step, allowing areas to see early benefits from devolution, while considering all options for unlocking deeper devolution by working with neighbouring local authorities in combined authorities and combined county authorities, over the longer term.

The second amendment in the group, Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, probes whether the affirmative procedure is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s power to designate a council as a single foundation strategic authority. I should reassure the Committee that this is in line with the long-established practice whereby secondary legislation is used to establish new institutions and to implement agreed devolution agreements within areas.

In addition, the use of the affirmative procedure ensures that no designation can be made without the approval of both Houses. As I said, we want local authority designations to be done at the local level; that is the provision, I believe. However, the Government recognise that, in rare cases, non-mayoral devolution can serve as an important first step. To access further functions available at the mayoral tier, single councils will need to work across a wider geography.

I will let the noble Lord know about the issue of funding in due course in writing, if that is okay. Establishing those single foundation strategic authorities will accelerate the transfer of powers out of Whitehall to local government so that local leaders have a greater say over decisions in those areas.

With these reassurances, I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government have made our intention very clear: we want to see unitary authorities established across the country. We want that initiative to come from local areas themselves. Some areas may be more comfortable going into the single foundation authority first, before they take the step to go into a combined authority; that is what the provision in the Bill is about. We want to make sure that there are unitary authorities across the country. In extreme circumstances, I believe, the Secretary of State has a power to make sure that it does happen, but that would be very much a power of last resort; we would not want to use it unless there could be no agreement any other way.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister kindly said that she would write to me about funding, but I had two other related questions. First, will all authorities be able to say, “I want to be a foundation authority”, or is that going to be limited in some way? Secondly, if you are a single foundation strategic authority, could you still be forced into a combined authority at a later date?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

For most local authorities—I have spoken to a great number of them over the past few months—the attraction of taking your unitary authority and going into a combined authority is the ability to have the greater powers that that level of devolution will accrue to the area and the communities for which you are responsible. I think that it will be the exception rather than the rule that people will want to be a single foundation authority, but they may be more comfortable with using that as a first step then working it out for themselves. This has happened to a certain extent through the whole devolution programme. Where people are in a unitary authority, they will look around them to see which of the surrounding authorities work best in terms of their economy and public services, as well as which model makes more sense to their local community, before they decide which way to go; if they wish to take some time to do that, the Bill makes provision for that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

16: Schedule 1, page 89, line 15, leave out paragraph (b)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and my noble friend Lady Scott have stolen my first line about the size of this group; that is largely down to the structure of the Bill, which has numerous schedules. Consequently, we have tabled a vast number of amendments to make a relatively simple change.

I thank all noble Lords who tabled amendments on these issues. They are not merely technical adjustments; they are amendments that go to the heart of our concerns about the true purpose and direction of the Bill and the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking in it. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has made clear, we on these Benches firmly believe that devolution must be locally led, rooted in local identities and local democracy, and not imposed by central government. Genuine community empowerment cannot be handed down by central diktat, which imposes structures that override locally elected representatives and residents. If devolution is imposed from Whitehall, it ceases to be devolution in any meaningful sense.

The amendments we have tabled seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot exercise powers affecting the governance, composition or boundaries of local authorities without their explicit consent. That consent is not an administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Such changes must be based on local identities and local wishes to truly reflect the meaning of community. They should not be abstract or managerial plans drawn up at a distance in Whitehall, however well intentioned.

Communities are not interchangeable units on a map. They have histories, relationships and ways of working that cannot simply be redrawn by statutory instrument. Any restructuring must have a demonstrative benefit for local people, not just for the administrative convenience of central government. Crucially, it is local councils, through elected councillors accountable to their residents, who are best placed to judge what will or will not work for their area. This is a particular concern given the Government’s decision to cancel local elections this year, denying the vote to potentially 4 million people. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ thoughts on these timely issues and the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 21 and 24. My noble friends on the Front Bench have pretty much all the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is a pity that she cannot be here, but I join in sending her our very best wishes and look forward to her return to the Committee.

Amendments 21 and 24 are in the same area of where proposals can be brought forward for the establishment of new combined authorities. Before I go on, I could have tabled—I neglected to table—two further amendments about county combined authorities in exactly the same terms as Amendments 21 and 24, which relate to combined authorities. Therefore, perhaps the arguments I am making on combined authorities can be taken as read-across.

The purpose of my Amendments 21 and 24 is to challenge the process by which the Secretary of State would make a decision on a proposal for a combined authority or a combined county authority that is brought forward by the constituent councils in an area. As things stand under the existing legislation, which was set up in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but, for the purposes of combined authorities, is in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—LuRA 2023 has the same for combined county authorities—the way it works is that those proposals come forward for an area and are subjected to tests.

I am interested, in terms of how the tests are currently applied, in whether they are likely to improve

“the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people of the area”.

Additionally, I suggest that the proposal should be required to include the purposes that are intended to be achieved by the establishment of this combined authority or combined county authority. The Secretary of State would have to look at and assess—these are the tests—whether those improvements in economic, social and environmental well-being as well as the purposes included in the proposal are likely to be met.

To me, these are two elements of the test of whether a proposal coming forward from an area should be accepted. The first is an objective test: will it improve the well-being in the area in various ways? The second is more subjective but none the less purposive: the people in this area and the constituent councils have said why they want to have this authority, so the Secretary of State should look at those purposes and say whether they are likely to be met. In this Bill, the question put to a relevant proposal—what purposes are you trying to achieve?—is simply swept away. There is no requirement for such a proposal to have those purposes any more.

Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to have purposes so that they cannot form part of a subsequent test. The test that is to be applied would no longer be the test of economic, social or environmental well-being, which is an objective test related to the benefit to the people living in that area, and would be replaced by a statutory test: is it appropriate to make the order in relation to the area, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence? In those words, “convenient” leaps out in particular. It makes one think that what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was just saying about the desirability of having conformity is what is actually driving these decisions now, rather than, “What is going to happen to benefit the people who live in this area?”, which should be the objective test.

That question did not escape the notice of the Lords Constitution Committee. In its 16th report, published on 13 January, it stated:

“We draw this provision to the attention of the House. It should satisfy itself that it is content to grant the Secretary of State this power within Schedule 1 to subject the new arrangements for a combined authority to such a broad and potentially subjective test”.


Of course, in the text at which the committee looked, what the committee means by “broad and potentially subjective” is, by implication, a bureaucratic test—“Is it convenient for us to have a combined authority?”—whereas what we have at the moment, which is what the committee is referring to, is, in essence, a test of the benefit. It is intended to be able to be determined more objectively, and it is certainly more relevant to the people who live in an area whether a combined authority is or is not in their interests.

When we go on with this Bill, I hope that the Government will in each of these respects think whether the statutory test should have perhaps both the bureaucratic element of whether it is convenient and the objective element of whether it can demonstrate that it will bring benefit to the people who live in this area.

My noble friends have two amendments in this group, Amendments 22 and 36, the purpose of which, as far as I can see, is to remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of combined authorities and county combined authorities. It seems to me that although the Minister said this is an exceptional power, there is a risk that once this power is available—again, because it will be convenient to do so—we will be instructed to have combined authorities according to the Secretary of State’s proposals rather than the ones brought forward from within the area itself.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendments 21 and 24, which draw attention to the important points raised in the report of the Constitution Committee on the new statutory test for creating and amending strategic authorities. The Bill will introduce a new framework that will standardise powers and make devolution quicker to achieve and simpler to understand, particularly for local areas. As part of these measures, we have introduced a new streamlined statutory test that consolidates core parts of the previous legislation, links to the areas of competence and aligns with the rest of the framework. The old statutory tests were not only more complex and less flexible but did not adequately reflect the new areas of competence. They would make it harder, not easier, for local areas to achieve the benefits of devolution. That is why, in our view, they need to be changed. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting day debating the Bill. I think there is universal agreement across the Committee that devolution is desirable and that local areas having genuinely devolved powers and being able to deliver for their residents would be a good thing and would deliver better outcomes. However, it is essential that they are part of forming that process and area. The Minister said that the Government believe that devolution can deliver great benefit when led by local leaders who know their areas best. I cannot do anything other than agree with that, but we then talk about a backstop that gives the Secretary of State immense powers to impose solutions on people, and that is the area that we are all concerned about. That is why we proposed these amendments to ensure that that is not done for administrative convenience.

As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, there was a test in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that very clearly stated that there must be a clear benefit to devolution and that the area seeking devolution must establish why it is doing it, and it was judged on the basis of whether it would deliver it. That has gone, and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, the test now seems to be whether it is administratively convenient. We are not here to do administratively convenient things. We are here to deliver real devolution at a local level, determined by local residents, local councils and local leaders. That is our overarching concern. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this is a backstop arrangement so that we do not have islands or things such as that. While I may have some sympathy about that potential issue, we are giving sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to impose. That is the reason for our amendments.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister as we progress through this Bill how we will ensure that that local voice, the voice of residents, councils and councillors, is heard and is not swept under the carpet, so to speak, on the theme of administrative convenience and diktat from Whitehall. With warning that we will come back to this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am sorry, but I am going to take slightly longer on this SI, because this is a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and a safety crisis in the UK, and we need to get both of them right.

The purpose of this SI is clear enough. Basically, it follows on from work that we did in the previous Government on establishing the BSR, which was established under the Building Safety Act 2022. That was brought forward by the Conservatives and it was the right thing to do. None of us wants to see again the horror of Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives. The inquiry rightly set out that systematic changes were needed after the decades-long failure that allowed such a tragedy to occur. It is vital that any regulatory system created in the wake of Grenfell is rigorous, trusted and functional.

In principle, strengthening the clarity of responsibility is welcome and in line with the legislation brought forward by the previous Conservative Government. However, in practice, the regime that the SI seeks to underpin is already under severe strain. It is not working as intended. Developers, local authorities and construction professionals are encountering severe and sustained delays. According to the Construction Plant-hire Association, more than 150 high-rise residential schemes are stalled at the gateway 2 approval stage, with delays stretching not to two weeks but up to 40 weeks. London alone accounts for more than 60% of the affected schemes and these delays cascade down through the supply chain, leaving cranes, machinery and personnel—hired at enormous cost—idle while developers wait for decisions that should have been completed months earlier. Just as importantly, the risk of taking on new projects means that people are not doing them. This is about not only the idle projects out there but the projects that have not started.

The Government have promised 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, yet the evidence is overwhelming that they will fall dramatically short, with barely a third of the homes that should be completed actually to be completed and delivered. Experts across the board, from the OBR to Savills, the Home Builders Federation and Professor Paul Cheshire, agree that there is little to no chance of the Government hitting their target.

We now have the lowest number of additional homes in nearly a decade. The HBF states that housebuilding is flatlining at around 200,000 homes a year—far below the 300,000 required to get even close to the Government’s requirement. In London, the picture is dire: housing starts under the current mayor have collapsed, and the number of private homes under construction is projected to fall to just 15,000 by 2027.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire and a local government pensioner. I extend my thanks to the Minister for the time that she has given noble Lords today, as well as for the many constructive meetings that she has kindly hosted outside your Lordships’ House. I am likewise grateful to the many organisations and individuals who have written to us all and provided many submissions to and analyses of the Bill.

One question troubles me: what is the true purpose of the Bill? I remain far from certain. Over many years, we have seen a consistent trend of centralisation in the UK. As a councillor and an ex-chair of the LGA, I am a huge advocate of devolution, and I was looking forward to the Bill delivering real devolution. We have heard support across this House for genuine devolution. But—and there is a but—while “Devolution” is in the Bill’s title, as hard as I try, I find very little devolution in the Bill. Yes, the Bill devolves licensing of micro electric vehicles and removes outdated Secretary of State consent for things such as special event notices, the conversion of footpaths to cycle paths, and the construction of cattle-grids. Given our previous discussion on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I am pleased to see the partial removal of the need for Secretary of State approval for lane rental schemes. While these are all very helpful, they can hardly be described as real devolution, and would certainly not justify a Bill of this size—well over 300 pages.

In fact, the reality is the reverse, with the Bill seeking to centralise powers in Whitehall. Reading the Bill, there are 43 mentions of “must have regard to”, including regard to guidance from the Secretary of State; 76 mentions of “duty” in relation to local government; and 105 mentions of the “Secretary of State may”. With all this new guidance and new duties that have to be followed, there is no mention of transferring funding for fiscal devolution in relation to, for instance, new duties for health, housing and education. Instead, there is an ability for mayors to increase taxes on hard-working residents, who are already suffering from a £68 billion increase in taxes over the last two Budgets. The Bill clearly risks substantial increases in local taxation from uncapped mayoral precepts that can be used for almost any purpose, no doubt to fulfil new duties and guidance as dictated by Whitehall.

Had the title of the Bill been “local government reorganisation”, this would have been more understandable. The Bill’s focus is on the establishment of mayors and strategic authorities and the transfer to them of powers currently held by existing county, district and borough councils. I ask the Minister: what is the purpose of the reorganisation? In the Bill, it is clearly not about devolving powers from Whitehall.

I will reflect on some comments that were made across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised development corporations, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, but do we really need mayors to create development corporations? The existing structures could do that. Taxis have been raised by many noble Lords, as has safeguarding—and the alarming statistic on the number of Manchester taxi drivers from Wolverhampton. These issues need to be addressed.

Why is there a delay to the mayoral elections? Why could they not have carried on? The Minister said that these strategic authorities would carry their formation, so why not have a mayor to help that? Also, the issue of town and parish councils is critical, and the Bill is rather reticent on that.

On devolution, there were some interesting quotes. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, called the Bill “constitutionally incoherent”. My noble friends Lady Shephard and Lord Trenchard spoke eloquently on local democracy and local identity. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said the Government should “pause and think” before rolling out. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, called it a “woeful” Bill. My noble friend Lord Porter made an interesting comment: should we be judging this on how small Whitehall gets? Our suspicion is that it will not get smaller. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, made important comments on commencement, and I ask: why are we having a Bill when many powers that already exist on the statute paper have not been commenced? This should be about local identity, local democracy and real devolution. We should be trusting local people, as my noble friend Lady Maclean said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it should be about place-shaping, which is best done at the local level.

I will reiterate the important questions posed by my noble friend Lady Scott regarding cost and economies of scale. Both my noble friend and I have led councils through reorganisation, and we know the difficulties and the upfront costs involved, as well as the need for scale in certain services, such as social care. How will the Government ensure that any projected savings, potentially in the tens of millions, are actually realised and not frittered away by consequent changes? If such savings do materialise, will they be used to ease the burden on local taxpayers, who are already under considerable pressure? In Committee we will wish to probe in detail the areas of competence that the Government seek to shift, and, crucially, the rationale for doing so.

I must also raise what I consider to be a fundamental issue: what powers are actually coming down from government to local government—local councils and mayors? The Minister suggested that future powers will depend on what mayors demand, but how will these demands be made? Who decides which powers are devolved and which remain tightly controlled from the centre? As drafted, there is no clear pathway by which a mayor may secure the genuine authority needed to effect meaningful change—and, as importantly, funding for the services involved. Annual bidding for funds is not the same as having a guaranteed revenue stream against which you can plan. In this regard, the Government already have form, removing the incentive for growth provided by retained business rates, which are set to be removed by a business rates reset. The Bill does not devolve power; it simply rearranges administrative functions through Whitehall diktat.

Devolution has huge potential. Whitehall does not know and cannot implement holistically at the local level. If we as a nation are to address the issues of social care, health, economic growth and inactivity, it cannot be done centrally; it needs to be done by local partners working together at the local level to get the best outcomes for their communities. As we have heard across the House, whether it is Cornwall and Devon—there is a bit of a dispute about cream and scones, but hey—or Kirklees, Yorkshire or elsewhere in the country, they are all different and need to be looked at separately.

I hope that in Committee the Government will provide the clarity that is presently lacking and explain how they intend to bridge the gap between nominal competence and real power. Only then can we properly assess whether this legislation truly serves the interests of local communities or simply strengthens the hand of central government. For these reasons, I fear the Bill does nothing to empower local communities. Instead, it reduces local democracy through government-imposed restructuring, irrespective of local opinion, local geography or local identity—bureaucratic reorganisation that will cost money, distract from housing delivery and offer no evidential basis for improved services. It risks higher costs for residents through the new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, higher parking charges and the creation of further layers of mayor-appointed officials. Can the Minister assure the House that this will not lead to higher bills for hard-pressed residents while services are disrupted through reorganisation? These are serious concerns and I look forward to returning to them in more detail at the next stage of the Bill.

Gateway 3 New-build Applications

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord may be aware that one recommendation of the Grenfell report was to have a single building regulator. Progress is being made towards that—a single body is being set up with oversight of the building safety regulator. We need to move this forward very quickly, but it is important that we get it right as we do so. We need to work with the industry to deliver the single construction regulator in a way that will work effectively for everybody. The new body has been established through a statutory instrument, which was laid on 11 November. So progress is being made, and we need to make sure that we move this on as quickly as we can.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen a significant drop in the delivery of housing starts in London. Have the Government analysed the impact of delays in and the uncertainty of the BSR process on the viability of apartment blocks above 18 metres, and thus the development of those blocks? If so, will the Minister share that analysis with the House?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

One of the benefits of the changes to the BSR is that regular data is now being published monthly. The November data has been published and is available online for all interested parties to look at. As I have said, we accept that the delays have been unacceptable. About 15% to 25% of the new dwellings that we want to build will be the responsibility of the BSR to improve. The new team has introduced an innovation model to deliver significantly reduced processing times for all new build applications—not just for London but for everywhere else. We expect most cases under the previous model to be unblocked by the year end. There has been a dramatic improvement already, with reductions of 20 weeks or more in some of the approval processes.

Fair Funding Review

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how the pressures on local authorities to deliver additional housing and employment growth are factored into the Fair Funding Review.

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

We have already taken important steps to ensure that local government is able to support our Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, to tackle the housing crisis and to kick-start economic growth. The Fair Funding Review 2.0 reforms further incentivise these ambitions through an inbuilt reward in the council-tax calculation and the business rates retention scheme. We understand that local government is at the heart of delivering our growth and housing missions. More details will be published at the provisional settlement later this year.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Additional housing and commercial property come at a cost to councils in both capital and revenue terms, and more than that raised by the additional council tax. Can the Minister explain why this Government are removing the incentive of retained business rates, which will force many councils—which have done the right thing and supported growth—to raise council tax to the maximum and cut their services?

Water and Sewerage Companies: Statutory Consultees

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Of course our regulatory system is important in helping and supporting the management of the development of the number of new homes we want to deliver. But we have taken a step back to look at the statutory consultees within the planning system—the moratorium was announced by the Chancellor in January—so that we can take account of some of the feedback we have had that the statutory consultee system is not working as well as it should. The Statement confirmed to the House a number of steps that the Government have taken to improve those statutory consultee arrangements—and that includes some of the regulators—including limiting the scope of those consultees to apply only where advice is strictly necessary.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that water and sewerage companies and undertakings should fully engage with local plans and spatial development strategies as statutory consultees, so that these issues can be addressed up front at the strategic level rather than having to do it on a site-by-site basis? That would speed up the planning process and deliver better outcomes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that early engagement with the local planning authority, the Environment Agency and the relevant water and sewerage companies, as appropriate, can help establish whether there will be water and wastewater issues that need to be considered. We expect water and sewerage companies to take a strategic approach to planning their water services, accounting for growth and the needs of the environment. There must also be strong collaboration between local authorities and water companies, so that local plans, water resources management plans, and drainage and wastewater plans align.

Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, there is a certain amount of logic in adding data centres to the list of projects that may be taken through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. We agree with the Minister that having sufficient data centre capacity will be absolutely crucial to this nation going forward. We also recognise that, when this legislation, with its list of nationally significant infrastructure projects, was originally written in 2008, data centres were a dream on the horizon. However, allowing decisions on large data centres to be taken by the Secretary of State rather than through the local planning system is a significant change; I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, around local democracy and accountability.

These issues were also raised, as was said earlier, by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew attention to two key concerns. The first is that the Government have not yet published their draft national policy statement for data centres alongside this measure, which means that we cannot analyse it in the round. Without that framework, neither Parliament nor the public can properly understand how such applications will be assessed under the national regime.

For a bit of fun, I looked on the web for the definition of a data centre. It is defined as a “facility containing computer servers, data storage systems, high-capacity networking and associated plant”. To me, that is an incredibly broad definition, so we need a great deal of clarity about what exactly it is; otherwise, there is the potential to include pretty much anything that has a computer as a data centre.

The second concern is the Government’s intention, subject to future legislation, to remove statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage and instead rely on non-statutory engagement. Ministers say that they still expect high-quality consultation, but the committee urged the House to seek firm assurances that local people will still have a meaningful opportunity to make their views known. We share that concern.

Some data centres have already proved highly contentious because of where they are proposed, particularly where they involve development on the green belt. The Government are moving steadily to loosen green belt protections. We have warned against this consistently, which is why, during the passage of the planning Bill, we tabled and won an amendment to ensure that brownfield land is prioritised for development. That principle attracted support from all sides of the House then, and I have no doubt that it still commands broad agreement.

Against that background, the Government should have set out a clear policy statement now, not at some vague point in the future. Only with such clarity can Parliament and the public understand how decisions will be taken. We all remember that, shortly after the election, the Secretary of State intervened to approve two large data centres on green-belt land that had been rejected by their local authorities. That episode shows exactly what is at stake. If the Government wish to avoid further controversy, they must be open and honest about how they intend to weigh local impact against the national need.

That is why proper consultation is indispensable; it is not a procedural formality but a foundation of legitimate planning. Local voices must remain at the heart of the process and not be pushed to the margins. Yet, as was said earlier, the Government are removing long-standing statutory duties to consult with the community. Ministers say that they expect high-quality engagement, but expectation alone does not deliver. Only enforceable routes for community involvement can do that.

We have always stood firmly for the principle of local content—that is something that I share with the noble Baroness; we have a bit of an alliance on this—and will do so again, when your Lordships’ House examines the forthcoming devolution legislation. Communities deserve a real say in decisions that shape the places that they call home. It is our duty to make sure that they are not denied it.

How will the Government ensure that energy and resource pressures, particularly on water, as has been mentioned, do not undermine development of data centres that are now deemed nationally significant? We are already seeing huge pressures on local electricity and water grids that are already hampering development, both housing and commercial. How will Ministers ensure that future data centres are located and designed responsibly and that the policies of the Secretary of State for Energy Security do not put those investments at risk?

If we are to develop the data centres that this country needs, it is not just a case of streamlining the planning system. No amount of power grab of planning powers by the Secretary of State will address the fundamental issue of the cost of electricity in the UK. It is this that is undermining our industry and undermining the economics of data centres in the UK. When will this Government change policy and seek to address this fundamental issue of electricity and energy costs in the UK?

I would be grateful if the Minister could address three short questions. First, to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, when will a draft national policy statement for data centres be published for consultation? Secondly, what guarantees will the Government give that local communities will have real and effective opportunities to make representations once statutory consultation is removed? Thirdly, what will this Government do to ensure sufficient electrical and water capacity in order to ensure that future data centre development does not place unsustainable pressure on local energy and water infrastructure? These are important questions, and the Government need to answer them clearly and with a commitment for action, not warm words and obfuscation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate on the SI. I shall try to address all their questions; if I miss any, I am sure that they will let me know, and I shall respond in writing to them.

First, to pick up on the issue of the publication of the national policy statement, which I know is a concern that both noble Lords have expressed, we do not anticipate any significant gap between the SI coming into force and the publication of the draft national policy statement. If for some reason the gap is more pronounced, any projects subsequently directed into the NSIP regime will be considered in the same way as any other business or commercial project under Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008.

When the NPS arrives, it will set out which types of data centre infrastructure are considered of national significance—I think that is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised. That includes details of any thresholds and parameters, such as size or other relevant factors, as well as relevant policy background—including the needs case for data centres. The national policy statement is currently under development and testing. Given the time it may take to comply with statutory requirements for the designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate to lay the statutory instrument in advance, because we know how quickly this industry is moving and we want to make it possible to deliver data centres as quickly as we can.

The proposed national policy statement for data centres will be the very first national policy statement to be prepared covering a prescribed type of business or commercial project. We are working on that at speed. If there is no national policy statement in place, the Planning Act 2008 will apply, as I said. I hope that that clarifies when we are expecting that to come forward.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also mentioned grid capacity. He knows that I have been working very closely with DESNZ colleagues—I do not have the net zero brief anymore, but I continue to take a great interest in this. My colleagues in DESNZ understand that grid capacity is not just an issue around data centres; it affects the whole construction industry. We need to move at pace to make sure that we have grid capacity to meet needs going forward. DESNZ is actively working on that, and I am sure it will make further announcements in future on that subject.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned some issues around the environmental sustainability of the impacts of data centres. They are important, and, of course, it is important that we make sure that the NSIP regime does not diminish them, as in comparison with the TCPA regime. Both planning regimes are governed by the same underlying principles to ensure that environmental effects from the proposals that come forward are identified and considered clearly as part of the application and decision-making process. The underlying legal and policy frameworks are different. For NSIPs, where a national policy statement has effect, the first port of call for decisions is in the context of the relevant national policy statement. Under the TCPA regime, local authorities decide planning applications in accordance with the local development plan, as we all know. That is the substantive difference between the two, but it should not undermine the environmental aspects being taken into consideration.

The extent to which a proposed data centre NSIP would have environmental impacts, both positive and negative—including water and energy consumption, noise pollution, waste generation, land use, visual impacts and location—would be part of the consideration of the NSIP during its examination and its determination by the Secretary of State. Prescribed statutory bodies, such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and the Canal & River Trust, play an important role in that examination. They must be notified of accepted applications and invited to a preliminary meeting, and they are entitled to make oral representations at hearings.

Environmental impacts are considered as part of the development consent order process, and the 2017 environmental impact assessment regulations set out the procedures for determining whether a proposed development requires the applicant to undertake an environmental impact assessment. Many large business or commercial projects, which will now include data centres, can be caught by the EIA regulations. An EIA is a process where the likely significant environmental effects are assessed and taken into account, and, where applicable, an applicant must submit an environmental statement as part of their application to the Planning Inspectorate.

The emerging national policy statement on data centres, like any national policy statement that is being developed, will need to be supported by an appraisal of sustainability which takes account of the environmental, social and economic effects of designating an NPS and reasonable alternatives, sets out mitigation and enhancement measures and helps inform the preparation of the national policy statement to promote sustainable development. Habitats regulations also apply to an NPS on habitats sites.

I have gone into that in some detail because I want noble Lords to understand that there is significant environmental protection, regardless of which route through planning data centres take.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned heat. Data centres produce significant heat; the technology exists to capture that and use it in district heating networks or to meet significant demand. I hope that, increasingly, as this industry develops, there will be more creative and imaginative uses for that heat. There is potential for it to be captured and used for further benefit and there have been successful examples of using data centre heat for hospitals and homes. A current UK example, if she is interested, is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. That is very good news. The Greater London Authority is developing a pilot to test heating up to 10,000 homes and at least one hospital—Middlesex—from London-based data centres. We are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether further interventions are necessary and appropriate to encourage that sort of take-up of recycling the heat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister may have been coming on to this, so I apologise if I have butted in too quickly. It was not just the quantum of energy; it was the cost of energy, and this is very much seen as an enabling bit of legislation to make it easier from a planning perspective to build data centres. Fundamentally, we have extremely high energy costs in the UK. They are 25% or 30% more than in Europe and more than double the price in the USA. If we want a competitive industry for data centres, we need to get the energy price down. Can the Minister comment on that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think colleagues in DESNZ are working tirelessly to make sure that we are looking not only at the cost of our energy in this country but at its security, because that is very important. That is why there has been this very strong push. We have removed the restrictions on land-based wind farms, and I know that DESNZ colleagues are working very hard to make sure that we both have energy security and are reducing the cost of energy, for businesses, which is really critical, but also for our householders, because I know that energy bills are a real pressure on family budgets.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am probably stretching my licence here, but the Minister talked about removing restrictions on wind power. Might her colleagues in DESNZ be looking at moving some of the restrictions on North Sea oil and gas, which would also have a big impact on our energy costs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have heard the noble Lord’s party speaking about that in the other place. At the moment, the emphasis is very much on making sure that we make the most we can out of renewable energy sources. It is a great resource that this country has and it has been very underused in recent decades. We can make far more of that, helping to establish our energy security and make that safer, as well as making sure that we are reducing the costs for householders.

In conclusion, I want to draw the Committee back to what these regulations seek to achieve. They are an enabler for developers of data centres, and I thank noble Lords for their support overall for that being a part of our critical national infrastructure. This will enable these projects to be directed into the NSIP consenting process through the Planning Act 2008 as opposed to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Applications for data centres directed into NSIP will undergo a thorough and robust process, including examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and other interested parties can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations in full.

London Boroughs: Financial Support

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope the work we have done so far will illustrate to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that we are committed to improving how we assess need to make sure that central government funding is distributed fairly to the places that need it the most. Our proposals use the best available evidence so that we can more effectively capture variations in demand for services. A particular bugbear for me over the years—I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard me say this—is that we need to identify in local authorities pockets of high deprivation within generally more affluent areas. We continue to explore and review the new data that comes forward on measures of deprivation, and a final decision on the inclusion of the 2025 index of multiple deprivation will be made in the autumn, when we set out our funding plans for local government.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. This Government have said that their priority is growth. The previous Conservative Government incentivised councils to grow their local economies through a share of business rates growth and the new homes bonus, which many councils use to support economic growth. The new homes bonus has already been removed, and now this Government are resetting business rates, causing a severe financial squeeze on high economic growth councils. Are this Government no longer interested in growth?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The exact opposite is true. We are supporting our councils, which is why we have increased the overall spend on local authority funding, providing over £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services, including economic development services. The other work we are doing alongside that, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we will debate later today, lays the foundations so that local authorities have a clear run to improve the economies of their local areas.