Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, as part of the Renters’ Rights Act, a transforming set of reforms to bring more protections and security for tenants in the private rented sector, we are introducing a new landlord redress scheme. The service will resolve issues for tenants where their landlord has failed to address a legitimate complaint. It will provide impartial and fair resolution, giving tenants access to redress outside the court.

The Government recognise that most landlords are looking to provide a good service to their tenants. The new landlord redress scheme will support landlords to do just that, by providing guidance and tools to help them handle complaints locally and early in order to prevent escalation. This new service will close a key gap in housing redress, providing private rented sector tenants with enhanced consumer protection rights which tenants in the social rented sector already benefit from. It will help to raise standards in the sector by equipping landlords with tools and information on what best practice looks like.

These regulations are the first legislative step towards establishing landlord redress for the private rented sector. They set out the framework for how a mandatory private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated. An approved scheme would be designed and run by an independent provider, while a designated scheme would be designed and administered by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State. The regulations also set out how such a scheme may be amended, allowing the service to adapt to emerging changes in the sector, and provide for continuity of redress by ensuring an orderly transition if a scheme closes or approval is withdrawn.

The regulations do not themselves approve or designate a redress scheme, nor do they impose an immediate requirement on landlords to join one. Rather, they set out the statutory criteria that any future scheme must meet, including requirements relating to governance, complaint handling, types of redress and enforcement of decisions, information sharing, reporting and review. They provide clarity and assurance for the sector on what can be expected of the service once it is established and in operation.

This framework is essential because a scheme cannot be approved or designated until these conditions are in force. It therefore enables the next stage of implementation: the establishment of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme and, in due course, further regulations specifying which landlords will need to become members of a scheme and when such a requirement will come into effect. Subject to parliamentary approval, we will turn to progress the design of the scheme and ensure that it meets the robust conditions set out in these regulations. The scheme will be designated once the Secretary of State is content that it satisfies the approval conditions.

The intention is that the Housing Ombudsman Service, which provides redress to tenants in the social rented sector, will deliver the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman service, promoting consistency in redress across the sectors. We will continue work to implement the service, including developing the further regulations required and setting up the service. We will give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme comes into force.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that a private landlord redress scheme must meet, paving the way to establishing the new service and securing access to fair and binding redress for private tenants. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this SI. To be clear, we support the principle that tenants should have access to effective routes of redress when things go wrong. The overwhelming majority of disputes between landlords and tenants should not require lengthy, costly and stressful court proceedings when there is a fair and independent alternative. That is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman.

The question is whether this scheme is proportionate and workable in practice. This needs to be done in the context of a housing crisis, with too few homes available for rent. We need a private rented sector that works for tenants but also for responsible landlords who provide those essential homes for millions of people across the country. A successful regulatory framework should protect tenants from poor practice without driving landlords out of the market or imposing burdens that ultimately increase costs for renters. I recognise the Government’s objective in establishing a mandatory landlord redress scheme, as there is a clear logic in ensuring that tenants have access to a system capable of providing independent, binding resolutions where complaints cannot be resolved directly.

We do, however, have a number of concerns. How will the interaction between landlords and managing agents be addressed? Many landlords employ agents to manage their properties; those agents are already required to belong to a redress scheme. Under these regulations, landlords will also be required to join such a scheme, which we raised during the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to avoid duplication where a complaint relates to actions involving both a landlord and an agent? If a tenant complains about property management repairs, communication failures or other issues where responsibilities overlap, how will the scheme determine who is accountable? What safeguards exist to prevent multiple investigations into the same complaint and conflicting outcomes being reached by different bodies?

The Government have described this scheme as a complementary measure, sitting alongside local authority enforcement powers, licensing regimes, the courts and the new landlord database, yet many landlords look at this growing list of registration requirements, fees, compliance obligations and potentially significant fines—not to mention court delays—and wonder whether it is worth the candle to carry on renting out a property. What work has been undertaken to ensure administrative alignment between the redress scheme, the landlord database and local authority licensing schemes? In particular, what steps have been taken to prevent landlords from being required to pay multiple fees for systems and fill out multiple forms that, from their perspective, may appear to serve similar or overlapping purposes?

The private rented sector is already facing significant pressures. Landlords face rising costs, increasing regulatory obligations and continuing uncertainty about future reforms. In many parts of the country, they are leaving the sector altogether. A recent article for Landlord Knowledge estimated that there will be 220,000 fewer rented homes available by the end of this year; that is around 5% of the market. With Zoopla estimating that in 2024 there were 21 people chasing every rental home, the last thing prospective tenants need is fewer homes for rent.

I turn to the Government’s preference for a single approved redress scheme. There is clearly a need for balance: a single scheme would reduce confusion and increase consistency. However, without competitive pressure, there is less incentive to innovate, to improve customer service and to control costs. The Government have indicated that further schemes could be approved if necessary. Can the Minister elaborate on the circumstances in which that power might be exercised? What performance measures will be used to assess whether the designated scheme is delivering an acceptable service to both tenants and landlords? I would also welcome further clarification on the £25,000 compensation cap.

Finally, I will make a broader point. The vast majority of landlords are responsible individuals who provide good-quality accommodation and comply with their obligations. Public policy should be directed towards addressing poor practice and rogue operators, without creating a system that treats each landlord as a potential offender. The success of this scheme should be measured by whether it resolves disputes quickly, fairly and proportionately, while supporting a healthy and functioning sector. Its success should not be measured by the volume of complaints it processes or the number of enforcement actions it takes.

We support the principle of effective redress and recognise the need for tenants to have access to independent dispute resolution, but it is essential that this scheme is practical, proportionate and properly integrated into existing regulatory structures. As I said earlier, there is a shortage of rental homes. How will the Government ensure that this does not further decline? I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance on duplication, costs, administrative burdens and the interactions of the scheme with the wider reforms affecting the private rented sector. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments and his very thoughtful questions, as ever, in relation to this instrument. I completely agree with his comment that it should be proportionate and workable in practice. He made a number of points around housing supply. We have made the biggest investment in a generation into affordable and social housing, and even yesterday there was talk of even further investment in that regard. It is important that we continue to focus on the housing supply question—he is quite right that we need to do that to make sure that the market is functioning effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, the instrument establishes the legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, but does not introduce a requirement on landlords to join a scheme or establish a live service. I will just echo the noble Lord’s comments about good landlords: I said throughout the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act that good landlords had nothing to fear from it; it is the rogue operators who not only make life difficult for their tenants but undermine and undercut the work of those good landlords. We want to support both good landlords and tenants, and this is a necessary first step in delivering the private sector landlord ombudsman.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister once or twice mentioned the biggest investment in social and affordable housing ever; I am curious about that. I know that the investment has been announced, and my understanding is that applications are now going through. It would be very much appreciated if the Minister could update us, either in written form or today, on when that money will actually be out of the door and being used.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. The applications closed at the end of March, I think—somebody will correct me if that is not right—and are being considered now. As soon as the announcement is made, I am happy to update the House.

Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

At end to insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations will reduce local democratic oversight over planning decisions, and risk putting further pressure on council officers.”

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. These regulations may appear to be a relatively straightforward implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, but they represent something much more significant. They change one of the fundamental democratic safeguards of our planning system.

Nobody on these Benches disputes that our planning system needs to work better. We need more homes. We need faster commercial developments and we need better infrastructure. We need a planning system that is efficient, proportionate and gives certainty to communities and developers alike. But we fear the Government are pursuing speed at the expense of democratic oversight, and I am afraid that, on this, I must disagree with the Minister.

Planning is not an exact science; it is an exercise in judgment. Planning officers, planning committees and inspectors are all required to weigh competing material planning considerations: the need for housing, economic growth, environmental protection, heritage, highways, design and the impact on neighbouring communities. The legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework provide the framework against which those decisions are made, but they cannot prescribe the weight and view for every one of those considerations. Ultimately, that is a matter of judgment.

In many cases, that judgment is relatively straightforward. That is why around 90% to 95% of planning applications are already determined by planning officers under delegated powers, with only a small proportion ever coming before elected planning committees. Of those that go to committees, the vast majority go in line with the planning officer’s recommendation. I cannot find national statistics, but for Central Bedfordshire, in the last 12 months, only one of the 56 applications that have gone to committee where the officer disagreed has been overturned on appeal. That is a very small number.

The applications that reach committee are often those where the balance of decision-making is finer: where they have a significant impact on a community, where residents have genuine concerns, where there are competing planning considerations to be weighed, or where substantial developments will have a lasting consequence on the character of an area. Those are precisely the cases where we need democratic accountability. People will not always agree with the outcome of a planning decision, but they are far more likely to accept the decision if they have seen the arguments tested in public by elected representatives who are accountable to the communities they serve. That is democracy in action.

These regulations, as the Minister highlighted, generate a national framework governing how authorities must discharge planning functions, and they significantly narrow the discretion that authorities have traditionally exercised through their own constitutions and schemes of delegation. As the Minister said, all Schedule 1 applications will include minor residential applications for nine homes or fewer, minor commercial and householder developments, and discharge of planning conditions and reserved matters for applications of up to 500 homes. Schedule 2 applications, which are largely all others, are presumed to be determined by officers unless, at the gateway test, both the nominated officer, who is normally the chief planner, and the nominated councillor, who is normally the chair of committee, agree that it raises

“an issue of economic, social or environmental significance to the … area”

or a significant planning matter

“having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”.

That is a dramatic reduction in the democratic accountability of the planning system.

Let us look at Schedule 1. The Government suggest that these arrangements relate to minor applications, but this needs to be seen in context. An application for nine homes in a small village is significant. If you happen to be a neighbour, that is significant. What happens when a site is agreed with the suggested nine homes but is subsequently brought back with 15 or 20 homes under reserved matters? That is not an unusual situation. For developments of up to 500 homes, all reserved matters, discharge of conditions and Section 106 arrangements would be determined by officers.

When members of the public hear “reserved matters”, they think of the colour of the front door and so forth, and I would be very happy with officers determining that, but that is not the case. Those of us who have dealt with planning applications for a number of years know that reserved matters generally involve the layout, design, density, highways, landscaping, drainage, open space, how many community facilities are there and so forth. These are not trivial decisions. When the Minister was leader of Stevenage Borough Council, would she have been happy with a 500-home development in the centre of Stevenage and not having any influence on the decision being made?

This may be bad, but it gets worse. The threshold for some of those more major applications, which could involve thousands of homes, going to committee requires a “significant” issue. That is a very high planning threshold.

There are other practical considerations. Going to planning committee provides an intermediate step that allows local councillors to have a discussion with planning officers to get those extra things. I can relate examples in my own ward where we successfully worked with the developer to get a few houses moved in a different direction so that they did not overlook and to get some additional funding for recreation.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am aware of the time.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord is aware, so may he bring his remarks to an end, if he does not mind?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I will. I thank the noble Lord very much. This is time limited.

The planning system needs to strike a balance; this system does not. We need to ensure democratic accountability; there is no need to remove it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I suggest to the noble Baroness that freeing up some of the time of our experienced planners will give them the opportunity to go back to developers and challenge information like that when it is not adequate. The fact that there can be dialogue between the planning officers and the developers will definitely speed the process up.

In conclusion, I remind noble Lords what the regulations are seeking to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision-making, so that the housing and growth which local communities want and need can be delivered more quickly.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I query a couple of her comments? There was reference to the local plan. What happens with applications that are not in the local plan? Those are quite significant. We talked about reserved matters and the Minister admitted that, for very large applications, it is appropriate for those matters to come to a committee. But as both the Minister and I know, you have at local plan stage and at outline planning stage virtually nothing. It is a little more than a red line and some pretty graphics of what is proposed. There is nothing to tie the developer’s hands, and those changes can be very significant. We can see a 50% increase in the amount of housing, or the amount of affordable housing halving, the Section 106 amount halving—a whole series of things. Those are fundamental, not small changes. I agree with the Minister that the principle may have been agreed, but not the detail. There was also a comment about “significant” being decided locally. I just want to be clear: is the Minister saying that what is significant will be determined locally for level 2?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the reserved matters, I have already set out in some detail how they are going to be treated, and that they can go back into the process. The size of an application’s related outline permission will fall into Schedule 2. That means it can be subject to the gateway test and referred to committee, where councils think that is necessary. Applications that are not in the local plan will be subject to the gateway test, so they will be treated exactly the same as another application.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Sorry, I think there is a slight misunderstanding. I am referring to reserved matters applications below 500 houses. Obviously, the outline will have gone to committee, but, on my understanding of how it is written, will reserved matters for, say, a site of 499 houses, which is a major development in most places—and reserved matters can be dramatically different from what was initially envisaged—be allowed to come to committee if the senior planner and the senior officer believe that there has been a significant change? Further, the Minister referred to applications falling into Schedule 2 if they are not in the local plan. What about minor developments, which may not be in the local plan: would—and could—they go to committee?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The local authority will determine whether items that are not in the local plan are Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, and it will then decide whether those applications need to go through the gateway process. I am not sure what the argument is over reserved matters. While the principle of development is agreed at outline permission stage, every reserved matters application could still represent a substantial major development in its own right, and those will be subject to the same test as a new application coming in. If the outline permission does not meet that threshold, the reserved matters application will be in Schedule 1; if it does meet the threshold, it will go into Schedule 2 and be subject to the gateway test.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am sorry to be slightly pedantic on this, but the information I got from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was very clear: any reserved matters application that is below 500 houses is in Schedule 1—there is no significance test. I would be very pleased if the Minister, either today or later, could clarify that. In the same vein, everything that is a minor development—nine houses or fewer, and so on—even if it is not in the local plan, will be determined as Schedule 1, and therefore not subject to planning. If the Minister could clarify that, either now or subsequently, it would be very much appreciated, because that was certainly not what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee picked up.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thought that I had been as clear as I can be. Applications for fewer than nine houses will automatically be in Schedule 1, and there will automatically be an officer decision, so there is no need to clarify that any further. On whether applications of significant social or economic interest would be brought to the attention of the committee, a local council can put a definition of that in its planning guidance if it wishes. If that answers the noble Lord’s question on that point, I hope that I have picked up all the questions I have been asked.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation, as I interpreted it. The English planning system has always sought to strike a balance between national government-set planning policy and local government and local authorities that put that policy into practice through democratically accountable institutions with knowledge of their local communities. That balance has served us well. I thank my noble friends Lady Eaton, Lady O’Neill and Lord Evans of Guisborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions. They have all sung with one voice: they feel that these regulations will remove democracy and transparency and risk undermining faith in the system. Local planning committees that consider controversial applications give that opportunity for visible public decision-making, and there will be genuine consequences to passing these regulations.

These regulations move that balance to central prescription, not by changing planning policy itself to improve it, but by strong-arming how local authorities organise the democratic process by which planning decisions are made. All too many will be made in private, in the dark, and we will lose faith in it. That seems to contrast, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough said, with what a certain Member of the other House was saying yesterday about further devolution. It seems interesting that the first move the following day is a dramatic move towards centralisation.

We all accept that there are occasions when planning committees frustrate and delay development, but that is not a reason to completely undermine the democratic underpinning of the planning process. During the passage of the Bill, we proposed an amendment to tighten up the committee process without completely undermining it. Unfortunately, this was dismissed out of hand by the Minister. I recall the phrase “driving a coach and horses through” being used. We also sought to clarify the situation on brownfield, with a strong material presumption in favour of development on brownfield sites, which has also been rejected by the Government.

It is by providing clear, consistent planning policy and guidance, and a consistent and coherent planning process with appropriate checks and balances, that we can ensure a smooth-running planning system that the public have faith in, not by undermining the democratic fundamentals. For that reason, I would have liked to ask the House to support this regret amendment. However, I am a practical man and I recognise that, at this time of night and after dealing with a slightly contentious Bill earlier, noble Lords would probably prefer that I do not. So, with regret, I will not press my regret amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat my interest, though it is not so specific, of being a councillor, but not on one of the authorities affected. This is an entirely sensible change to make. I have a couple of questions about councils’ retention policies for details. Clearly, the strategic decisions will be retained for ever, but all councils have a policy of ridding themselves of mounds of paperwork, because it is very costly to retain them. I would like to know from the Minister about councils’ retention policies. Given that we are now in a digital age, where retaining such documents is much easier, although still with a cost, have councils had to reconsider their retention policies and what does that mean in practice? For example, there is a seven-year rule for a lot of decisions made by councils, after which material can be disposed of. Clearly, that will not apply to big contractual and budget decisions but, given the nature of this SI, it would be helpful if retention policies for councils’ documents and transactions were universal.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I need to declare again that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although I do not believe we will be impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I make clear that we understand the practical problems that the Government are seeking to address through this instrument. It is sensible that, where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage successor councils. The purpose of the Section 24 framework is therefore understandable.

However, while this measure may appear technical, it raises wider issues and questions about the Government’s management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We are being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework, left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier as part of the Government’s work on local government restructuring. Given their determination to accelerate structural reorganisation across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will arise as the process goes through?

Time and again, we are told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services, yet councils continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. Against that backdrop, this statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of the Government being forced to amend machinery when the train is already moving.

I am also interested in the Government’s decision not to review the financial thresholds. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds, yet, while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of £100,000 and £1 million remain unchanged. There is a significant difference in real terms between the value of £1 million now and its value in 2006. Given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, why are we again using a fixed date in these changes to the legislation, rather than one that flexes, for example, with the vesting date of the councils concerned? There is also a question of consultation. The Government refer to discussions with Surrey County Council and other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement.

None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument, but they are relevant because this SI is being presented as a practical fix to a problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged and whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere that maybe should have been thought of earlier. Good government is not simply about having a destination in mind but about ensuring that the route has been properly planned —a comment frequently made by one of the Minister’s noble friends about HS2.

I will also raise a broader issue relating to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan yet, from the outside, it looks increasingly like a programme that is being rewritten as it goes along. Timetables have shifted and elections have been postponed and, in some cases, restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures that they are expected to implement. That is simply not good enough. This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise; we are discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people are represented. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability.

The Government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is also the date of the mayoral elections of the non-devolution priority programme. We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the Government are delaying democratic mandates because their own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its promises.

Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new Prime Minister on the horizon—the most likely contender has strong views on devolution—does the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remain intact? I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after 16 July.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their responses to this statutory instrument. I will try to respond to the questions.

There are no plans to change council retention policies for paperwork, and they are not affected by this SI, so that is not included in this piece of legislation.

I will answer the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made first on local government reorganisation and the management of it. He asked me, first, what other unforeseen consequences we can expect. Well, they are unforeseen, so I am afraid I cannot identify them. If I could, I would have a crystal ball. The timetable for local government reorganisation has not changed. I take the noble Lord’s point about the elections, but that was due to changing legal advice. I spoke to the Local Government Minister this morning and, as far as we are concerned, we are proceeding with the timetable as we had originally set out. We will work through the process for the other 14 areas that have not yet had their local government reorganisation announcements, with a view to making an announcement on them before the Recess. That work is still going on and going ahead.

On the noble Lord’s question about mayoral elections, we decided for very good reasons that it was important that we had established the foundation authorities and that they were working properly before the mayoral elections went ahead. That was the rationale for that decision. But the work is being done to the timetable that we set originally. I hope that is reassuring.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about the thresholds and why we are not changing them. They are not changing: it is £100,000 for land disposals and certain non-capital contracts and, as he said, £1 million for capital contracts. The thresholds and timing are established features of the Section 24 framework. Those thresholds are intended to capture decisions that could have a material impact on successor authorities, while allowing routine activity to continue without unnecessary delay. The safeguards apply once a shadow authority exists, because that is the point at which there is a clear and accountable body able to give consent on behalf of the future successor council.

The instrument does not change the thresholds or the point at which the safeguards apply; it ensures that they operate as intended in practice. They are intended as broad indicators of material financial decisions, rather than precise limits. The key issue raised by the councils that we spoke to was not the thresholds but how they operate in practice with the existing aggregation period start date, which was onerous on councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me why the amendments are needed, which relates to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The issue was identified during implementation planning, including in Surrey, and it has been tested with the wider sector. Under the current framework, authorities have to look over an extended historic period when assessing whether thresholds are met, and that is not proportionate. Without the update, councils would be required to review that over the long period, and that could result in inconsistent application across areas and create an unnecessary administrative burden for councils.

It may further cause a risk to the effective management of public assets and finances during reorganisation. There is also a potential risk that historic land disposals could be rendered void and historic contracts could become unenforceable. It would also make safeguards much more difficult to apply in practice. Under Section 28, land disposals made in contravention of a direction are void, and contracts entered into in contravention of a direction are unenforceable, so we must avoid that happening.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me to expand further on the consultation that was done as part of this process. I set out in my introduction that we tested this through engagement with councils and the wider sector; we have a sector advisory group, which contains experts in these types of areas, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, so that we make sure that what we are doing is practical and sustainable. I hope that that responds to the questions.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her responses, but I just wanted a little clarity on three of the questions that I asked. The first is on the impact of inflation. Roughly speaking, inflation has almost doubled, so £50,000 spent in 2006 is the equivalent of £100,000 now—not quite, but in approximate terms. That is a significant change. As we are updating the regulations, and the purpose in 2006 was to capture the important spend, it will now capture a lot more than the important spend. That was the point I was trying to make. I completely agree with why it is being put; I do not have any issue with that.

Secondly, one could argue that a mistake was made in 2006; we should not have had a fixed date or it should have been updated in the interim. I asked why we are not looking at a date that might relate to, say, vesting or something else, which might seem more rational.

Thirdly, I was also curious about the response on the timing of elections—and please correct me if I have got it wrong, because I may very well have. My understanding is that the elections for the original six priority mayoral areas will be in 2028, as will the 14 follow-ons—as I call them. The Minister said that that was in order to allow the foundation authorities to have the time to set up and get organised. I appreciate that the following 14 are not foundation, but they will operate to a much tighter timetable. That seems to be a bit of an incongruity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the subject of the amounts, I take the noble Lord’s point about inflation, but these amounts are intended to act as broad indicators of material financial decisions, not precise limits. It is relevant to keep the same amounts in place; it makes the amount at which they have to be referred reasonable and that is a rational way of doing things.

On his point around the date, if we did not have a specific date, it might complicate the accountancy practices. I will look into that and come back to him on that point.

On the issues around the mayoral elections, the decision was made to make sure that we have the new authorities vested and in place, with a chance to establish themselves. They are delivering key public services. There is a lot of work to do, as the noble Lord has pointed out to me on many occasions—and I properly understand that point—before the mayoral elections take place. We know that it is a tight timetable but, to be honest, in my 30 years in local government, nobody has bitten the bullet and sorted this out. It is time we got the foundations of local government into single unitary authorities, so that everybody across the country has the same type of local authority. That is why we are moving forward at pace with the timetable.

To conclude, the instrument makes a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on financial decisions operate effectively during local government reorganisation. It has been developed in response to engagement with councils and tested with local government representatives. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft order, which I commend to the Committee.

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.

On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.

My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.

I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.

My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?

My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?

The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.

Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.

Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before I start, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument.

At the outset, we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform. But, as we debated on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions— I think that was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised. Strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy: moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best.

We agree with the Government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes, infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. The recently released Savills report on housebuilding, which forecasts that only 839,000 houses will be built in the five years of the Labour Government, compared to the target of 1.5 million, just highlights that the system is not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Just to be absolutely clear, the Minister used the example of 1.5 million, which clearly Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire do not hit. The Minister is clearly implying that there will have to be a board, not necessarily of those three, but of other geographies. Similarly, Norfolk and Suffolk do not hit those targets.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, meeting the categories set out in the English devolution Bill is a clear goal. We want to make sure that they work as a spatial development strategy, and they have to meet certain criteria to do that. We want to get on with the job, so we are putting this process in place to deliver it now.

There were a number of questions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on authorities that are required to produce a spatial development strategy. Combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will all have the duty to produce spatial development strategies. These authorities will be known as strategic planning authorities. The Government will be able to group any of these authorities together, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board.

In most cases, combined authorities or combined county authorities will produce an SDS for their area, and upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. However, some upper-tier county councils may produce one individually, and some combined authorities or combined county authorities could be grouped with an authority outside their area under a strategic planning board.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me specifically about brownfield land, and it is a question he has asked me a number of times. I will try to again answer the question. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed as a matter that strategic planning authorities must have regard to. These regulations will be combined with the regulations setting out the procedure for preparation of a spatial development strategy. So, I hope that that has clarified the issue. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these regulations.

Home Ownership: First-time Buyers

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right. The Government recognise that some people who entered shared ownership have faced real challenges. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience, which include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, making sure that there is greater transparency and fairness on costs, ensuring that fees do not generate a profit and giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for optional services, which often was not pointed out. We are continuing to consider what more can be done to improve that experience for all our shared owners.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, despite a housing crisis, we are seeing housebuilding plummet as affordability collapses and first-time buyers are reluctant to extend themselves in a period of economic uncertainty. This is particularly the case in London, with an average house price of £661,000. The Minister talked about hidden costs; those houses attract a £23,000 stamp duty. Does she agree that we need to stimulate housebuilding and that removing the economically destructive stamp duty tax would be a good start?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are exemptions from stamp duty for first-time buyers, so that is not the case for them. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty land tax up to £300,000 and are able to claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. The Government are working closely with the Mayor of London. I will meet the deputy mayor for housing this week to talk about what further steps we can take to help the building of homes in London. It is not true to say that no housebuilding is moving forward. We had an increase in growth in the first quarter of this year.

Jo Cox Civility Commission

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for introducing this debate and raising the importance of community, of respect, of getting involved, and of the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. I need to declare that I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I thought this debate might be a bit of a downer but he really uplifted it, and I think we are all feeling much better for that. I think that is the right legacy for Jo Cox and others: for us to feel good, not bad. We should look up, not down, and recognise what a wonderful country we live in, and that the vast majority of people are good.

We need to cherish and protect that which makes our country great. We need to rely on our politicians to lead and develop our country. We want the best politicians. Politicians should not need to continually look over their shoulder for threats when they inevitably have to make what will be difficult decisions—because there will be difficult decisions for all politicians.

I particularly want to focus on councillors—I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, so noble Lords might not be surprised. Councillors are embedded in their community, and in many ways they face greater risks because they are well known. It does not matter whether your address is published; most people know where you live as a councillor because you are part of that community. The LGA survey in 2025 showed that 72% of councillors had faced abuse, 50% were subject to misinformation and 25% had received threats of violence.

We want the best councillors. Traditionally, many councillors were not particularly politically driven; they basically just wanted to help their community and do what was right. Maybe it was to try to get a leisure centre built, or maybe, like me, they were fed up with too many potholes. Whatever it was, it was not because they were saying, “I am definitely a strong Labour person”—or a strong Conservative person, or whatever it was. They just wanted to do good.

That was why, when I was chairman of the LGA, I launched the Debate Not Hate campaign—which, to be topical, is about playing the ball, not the player. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, said, we need to recognise that what we say matters. In the age of social media, comments made will inevitably be exaggerated. They will be misquoted and distorted and frequently will snowball.

One of the reasons I like door knocking is that I get the chance to talk to somebody for five or 10 minutes. I have pretty much never walked away from a door and had somebody say, “You’re a terrible person”. They may still disagree with me, but at least we had the opportunity to realise that we were coming from different angles. We could be wrong but we were not bad. That is really important when we have our debates. We should not imply that somebody is wrong because they are bad. They are wrong because we may have a different set of values or because we do not agree with their analysis, but it does not make them bad. To say so is a shortcut that causes huge problems.

The risk—or the reality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, said—is that you get only the people who are thick-skinned, to which I add the highly motivated, standing. That is not good for our country or for our local communities. It is not enough to talk about community; we need to live it, be comfortable with our actions, respect each other and not give the opportunity for this foul abuse.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to say I was grateful to all noble Lords who had spoken in the debate, but I am certainly most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for doing so. She identifies a couple of critical issues: the need for more housing and the need for clarity and information. That is important.

It is important that we keep a sense of perspective here about right to buy. It does not mean that that home disappears, or that the family living in it disappear; they are still in that home, and in many cases they will remain in it for many years, irrespective of whether it is a social home or they actually acquire it. The issue is therefore not about the loss of physical dwellings but about the change in tenure and the availability of social housing for other tenants. That is precisely why the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the amendments that we have tabled address the serious discussion about replacement. We need reliable, current information and data.

Equally, if there is a case for one-for-one replacement which we believe, that should be examined openly and supported by evidence rather than assumptions. We have now had the opportunity to look at the impact assessment for this Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issue of how we can reduce housing lists by increasing supply. If you look at table 4, what is the impact of removing right to buy? After five years or so, when it settles down, it means that over 3,000 fewer houses every year are built. That is 3,000 fewer homes for families and 3,000 more families on the council waiting list every year. We need more homes, and right to buy is an opportunity to increase that.

Think what would happen if the Government were to focus on building more homes rather than stopping families having the opportunity to own their own home. As we seek a minimum of one-for-one replacement, we could be seeing over 5,000 extra homes every year. That is 5,000 more families given the opportunity for a social home and 5,000 fewer people every year on housing waiting lists.

The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill do not seek to prescribe a particular outcome; they seek to ensure that Parliament and the public have the information necessary to assess the effectiveness of the policy and make informed decisions about its future.

I was going to say that this has been a constructive debate—maybe I should say this has been a constructive discussion—but we all recognise the need to increase housing supply and the opportunities for home ownership. I hope the Minister will reflect on the arguments made, the case for greater transparency and the need for more homes.

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

My Lords, before I speak about the Social Housing Bill, may I just wish our team England—well, it is “our team England” for some of us—all success this evening, and I hope we will be finished in time for some of us to see some of it.

I thank everyone for the lively and constructive debate we had on this Bill on Monday; it is a pleasure to be back to continue discussing it. Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require the Secretary of State to reconsider our one-for-one replacement policy. Relatedly, Amendments 55 and 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a report assessing the viability of this requirement. Amendment 53, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would insert a clause requiring reports to the Secretary of State on sales and replacements. Separately, Amendment 58B from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require a report to Parliament within a year on the impact of Clause 5 specifically.

We announced in our response to the consultation on right-to-buy reforms that we are removing the formal one-for-one right-to-buy replacement target. However, and I say this very specifically, this does not mean we are complacent about replacing homes sold. Far from it: we call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the Government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The one-for-one target was introduced in 2012, when the only social and affordable housing delivery that councils were asked to do was to replace homes sold under right to buy.

Our ambition far surpasses this now. We want to see more than one-for-one replacement and do not want a target that limits that ambition. As I set out my letter following Second Reading, this Bill is not the extent of our delivery ambition. Our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the course of the programme, and we are taking decisive action to reinvigorate council housebuilding, including supporting councils in our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We also invested £17 million last year to boost council housebuilding skills, and we have permitted councils now to combine their right-to-buy receipts with grant funding.

The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill forecast that England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through our package of right-to-buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all the receipts from sales—something we have long campaigned for from local government—and reducing cash discounts, alongside the provisions in the Bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period, instead of what would have been a loss.

--- Later in debate ---

On right-to-buy discounts, it is difficult to assess the impact of discount changes in isolation. We will, however, keep discount levels under review and ensure that the right balance is being struck between protecting social housing stock and enabling tenants to access home ownership. On these grounds, and on the basis that we do not want a replacement target that limits ambition, we are going to resist these amendments, but we will continue to work in partnership with councils to reinvigorate council housebuilding and ensure we are consistently replacing more homes than are lost through right to buy. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

May I ask for some clarification from the Minister? Clearly, table 4 in the impact assessment shows that under the pre-November 2024 baseline, if we take the 2034-35 figures, 4,750 homes would be built from the right-to-buy receipts and, under the new baseline, 1,550 would be built. That is 3,200 fewer homes. The assumption that we are going to have more homes available for social tenants relies on the fact that those tenants who might have bought their home will leave that home anyway. If they stay there, we will have fewer homes for new social tenants.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think the figures stated relate to what happens once we have enacted the Bill. As I have said many times, the ambition to deliver more social homes is not just about the replacement of right-to-buy homes. Right-to-buy sales may go down, but we still anticipate that the measures being taken in the Bill will result in a net increase of 18,000 homes over the period; whereas, because the sales were going up, we would have lost 26,000 homes. With the social and affordable homes programme adding to the overall total and the net increase in homes that we are seeing through the right-to-buy programme, which is 18,000 as opposed to a 26,000 loss, we will see an increase in social housebuilding.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

68: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Local connection requirements(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 166A(7) and 167(3) of the Housing Act 1996, require that local housing authorities ensure that reasonable preference in allocations policies takes account of local connection.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), local connection includes—(a) residence,(b) employment,(c) family association, or(d) service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on the implementation of subsections (1) and (2).(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen local connection considerations in social housing allocations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84 and 113 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle: social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. As we have heard in previous debates, demand exceeds supply in many parts of the country. It is therefore essential that allocation policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords Library shows that each new social rent home requires a grant of between £80,000 and £100,000 in order to be built. Those figures are for outside of London; I do not have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher.

Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. If we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us. As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. In many cases, that is not the case, but it is the concern. The Minister has related stories of the difficulties she faced from the locals when Stevenage was originated as a new town. Communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to the area are given appropriate consideration. Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring that housing is directed to those with genuine ties to the community in the area.

Amendment 69 concerns eligibility for social housing among those who are not British citizens. Given the pressures that exist on housing waiting lists across the country, it is important that the Government are clear about who is eligible for social housing and that we ask whether reform is needed. Ultimately, this amendment is about the principles that underpin allocation of scarce public resources.

As of March 2023, there were approximately 1.33 million households on the local authority housing registers in England—the highest figures for a decade, and significantly higher than in recent years. Behind those statistics are families, pensioners, young people and vulnerable individuals, all waiting for access to secure and affordable accommodation. At the same time, 431,000 households in social housing had a lead tenant who was a non-UK national, representing around 10% of all social housing households. These figures inevitably raise legitimate questions about eligibility, prioritisation and fairness.

The purpose of this amendment is not to diminish the contribution that many non-citizens make to our country or to ignore the complexity of the individual circumstances. We are not saying that we should not support those who come to this country and contribute—but that does not mean that they should be entitled to potentially a lifetime council house at well below market rent. Indeed, that is why we want to have this debate—an honest and mature debate. When demand substantially exceeds supply, who should social housing be intended to serve? That reflects some of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s comments in the previous debate.

Many members of the public would reasonably expect that access to social housing should be closely linked to contribution, long-term commitment and belonging to this country. At the very least, Parliament and the public should have a clear understanding of who social housing is for. Public confidence in the social housing system depends greatly on the perception of fairness. I refer back to my comments that this requires a substantial upfront subsidy, which is particularly important at a time when waiting lists remain at historically high levels.

Amendment 74 similarly seeks greater clarity regarding the guidance on social housing eligibility in respect of certain foreign public officeholders and associated persons. This amendment arises in part from concerns highlighted by a recent high-profile case involving the First Lady of Sierra Leone. That case raised significant public concern and has rightly received widespread scrutiny. I appreciate that that has now been resolved, but it took 12 months from the public becoming aware. It is not about a single individual or a single country. Rather, where individuals hold senior public office overseas or are closely associated with those who do, is it not reasonable to ask whether existing eligibility rules are sufficiently clear and robust? We seek clarity from the Government on this. Are existing checks and information-sharing arrangements sufficient? Are local authorities equipped to identify circumstances in which an applicant’s position, assets or access to resources overseas may be relevant to eligibility decisions?

Amendment 81 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. It is important that eligibility criteria remain aligned with economic realities and reflect changes in incomes, housing costs and local circumstances. Thresholds that are not regularly reviewed risk becoming detached from the conditions they were designed to address.

Amendments 82 and 84 seek better information. One would require estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration. The other would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. Whatever views noble Lords may take on wider immigration policy, effective public policy depends on understanding demand. Local authorities cannot plan effectively unless they have a clear picture of the pressures affecting housing needs in their areas.

Amendment 113 would require housing register applications to be reviewed periodically to ensure that waiting lists remain accurate and up to date. Given the pressures on social housing supply, it is important that waiting lists reflect genuine and current need.

I was particularly interested in Amendments 93 and 94, concerning prison leavers and former offenders. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his long-standing work on prison reform and rehabilitation. The cost of reoffending both to society and to the public purse is enormous. Amendment 94 is a measured proposal that seeks to improve the sharing of information between prisons and local authorities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.

Together, these amendments seek to ensure that social housing policy is informed by accurate information, fairer eligibility criteria and a clear understanding of housing demand, seeking to get local community support. I beg to move.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 91 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a modest amendment, asking simply that the Secretary of State conduct review of veterans’ access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes or impose new burdens on local authorities; it asks the Government to look and just tell us what they find. I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it is difficult for us to make reasonable judgments about what is working and what is not without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice.

I turn to the case for this amendment. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1,820 to 2,270, according to MHCLG’s homelessness data. The most recent figures, for 2024-25, record over 2,000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help. The ONS veterans survey suggests that the true number may be closer to 7,500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count.

The Government have made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really acknowledge that. The December 2024 regulations removed the five-year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away from a housing register simply for lacking local ties. Updated guidance now explicitly extends additional preference to veterans with service-related mental health conditions, including PTSD. Those are real improvements, and they deserve recognition, but guidance is not the same as accountability. Additional preference does not guarantee placement in the highest band and, in many authorities, even the highest bands involve long waits, because there is just not enough social housing stock. Shelter has noted that the rights veterans hold in practice depend heavily on individual local authority policy and can vary enormously from one area to the next.

There are particular concerns about veterans with service-related disabilities and complex needs. Around 16% of veteran households receiving new social lettings include someone injured or disabled as a result of their service. Specialist adapted accommodation is limited— I spoke about this at Second Reading. I feel particularly passionately about the need to improve the stock of adapted housing because my husband is disabled and we know how difficult it is to find any housing in the private sector or the social sector, which we have not benefited from. If there is simply not enough anywhere, it is difficult for anybody with any disability to do anything other than find themselves waiting for a long time on the social housing waiting list.

Operation Fortitude’s 900 units of veteran supported housing typically run at full capacity. A 2021 review found no new policy introductions for wounded, injured or sick veterans since 2016. The data picture is deeply inadequate. The Government do not publish national figures on how many veterans are on social housing waiting lists. MHCLG’s own lettings statistics acknowledge that between 18% and 44% of local authorities provide complete information on veterans on their registers—that is quite a variation. We cannot evaluate whether the system is working when we cannot see it clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is about access to and eligibility for social housing. I want to make two opening points. First, it is important that debate on these issues is conducted carefully and respectfully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. Language that stigmatises or mischaracterises people living in or applying for social housing is simply not acceptable. Secondly, I remind noble Lords that there is an extensive review of social housing allocations statutory guidance currently being undertaken, which will consider many of the issues raised as part of this group.

I will address specifically Amendments 69, 74, 82 and 84, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. In 2024-25, 89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals, 4% were European nationals and 8% were from outside the European Economic Area—broadly the same as the previous year. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa prevents access to state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for social housing. Only eligible people can join waiting lists and receive a tenancy. Where foreign nationals are eligible, they will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocation scheme.

On 20 November, the Government announced the biggest reforms to the legal migration system in 50 years. These reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have built their lives here and contributed to our community, the economy and public services. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that I do not think we need to take lessons on asylum from the party opposite, which totally lost control of the system. That is still having an impact on housing and social housing now. We are addressing the system as a whole, which is the right approach, rather than stigmatising those who live in social housing. That is why we oppose Amendment 69. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, the problem here is the lack of available social housing. We cannot blame other people for that —what we need to do is crack on and build some more.

Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance on eligibility for foreign public office holders and associated persons. That power and guidance are unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power under Section 196 of the Housing Act 1996 to issue guidance on social housing allocations. Foreign public office holders and associated persons are already subject to local authority allocation rules. Authorities can apply qualification rules such as local connection and income tests to reflect local priorities. I remember the very same debate in my own authority around the five-year local connection test. There is therefore no need for this power. It would not be appropriate for me to comment here in the Chamber on the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I draw Members’ attention to the statement from Southwark Council on that issue.

Amendments 82 and 84, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would both require assessments that we do not think are necessary. Amendment 82 would require an assessment of social housing demand arising from net migration. Social housing demand depends on many factors and the effect of migration is not direct, so a yearly assessment would not be proportionate. Demand for social housing comes from a multitude of factors that are likely to be correlated, including economic conditions and a range of government policies. It is artificial and potentially misleading to seek to neatly and reliably separate the impact of net migration from other factors.

Amendment 84 would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. It is important to reiterate that asylum seekers are not eligible for social housing, so they will not be adding to demand for social housing. Where an individual is granted refugee status, they may subsequently approach a local authority for housing support. Whether they access social housing will depend on meeting local authority allocation policies, including any local connection or residency tests.

I want to highlight the progress made on sharing asylum pressures more fairly across the country. Since 2022, the Home Office has shifted from a model where asylum accommodation was concentrated in a small number of areas to one where all local authorities share responsibility, with each allocated a defined, evidence-based share of demand.

Much of the data sought in the amendment is already available. My department collects and publishes extensive information on social housing waiting lists and allocations, including data on new lettings and household characteristics. The Home Office regularly publishes a breakdown by local authority of accommodated asylum seekers, and my department publishes the homelessness duties owed to those as a result of leaving asylum support as part of statutory homelessness statistics. With this explanation, I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, does not press these amendments.

Amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seeks to require local housing authorities to take account of local connection when considering if an applicant for social housing should be awarded reasonable preference for an allocation of social housing. Local connection tests help local housing authorities manage social housing stock and are best placed to set the rules to ensure homes meet local housing pressures and that policies take account of the local context. We seem to have a bit of a theme of wanting to centralise these issues, but local authorities can set out in their allocation scheme that they will consider local connection as part of prioritisation. The vast majority, 89%, are choosing to consider it at an earlier stage as part of the qualification for the housing register, and we do not see the need to remove this choice from local housing authorities. I ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.

Amendment 113 would require local authorities to review applications on their housing register every three years. I of course support accurate and up-to-date housing registers and expect local authorities to review data regularly. However, it is for local authorities to determine how best to do that as part of how they manage their local social housing allocations schemes. This enables them to design schemes in a way that fits local priorities. A full review of the housing register might not always be the most efficient way to maintain an effective register. An applicant’s eligibility and qualification for social housing will be reassessed at the point of a home being allocated, so having ineligible households on a housing register does not mean that they will get social housing. With that, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Amendments 91 and 93, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces and former offenders respectively. This Government are committed to making sure that those who have served and their families have access to social housing. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections in the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have housing need. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for recognising the work that the Government have done on that. Where local connection or residency tests apply, legislation exempts the Armed Forces community, regardless of when they last served, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. There is also statutory guidance in place on improving access to social housing for members of the Armed Forces.

The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, referred to access to social housing even for those in the highest bands. I understand her point. That is why our Government have placed such a high priority on the delivery of new social housing. It is the lack of housing that prevents people in high bands getting it, not whether they are a priority. I will make further remarks on her valid points on adapted housing when they come up in a later group.

With our review of statutory guidance on social housing allocations already under way, we do not need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the Armed Forces or former offenders, so I kindly ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, not to press their amendments.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to ensure that local housing authorities get the information necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. This amendment focuses on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice are committed to tackling. I spoke to my noble friend Lord Timpson just yesterday about this, and my officials also met with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, yesterday, as he said, to discuss his proposal in more detail. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s work on this issue.

Supporting people into stable accommodation from their first night out of prison is critical to reducing homelessness and reoffending, as those without stable accommodation are more likely to reoffend, as we have heard. I support the intent of this amendment in reducing prison leaver homelessness. All prisons and probation services are already subject to the duty to refer under Section 213B of the Housing Act 1996. This requires them to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice. We continue to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that this process works as effectively as possible. My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison and publishes this annually. Therefore, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his amendment, but my officials remain happy to have further conversations with him, if that would be helpful.

Finally, Amendment 81 seeks to create a new statutory requirement for the Government regularly to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing. As I have made clear, eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process. The Government do not set income eligibility thresholds; they are set by local authorities and private registered providers. This allows them to set thresholds that reflect the local context. I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of those independently set thresholds. The evidence is that it would cost more to implement than it would raise in revenue. A regular review would also penalise tenants for earning more and could lead to incentives to reduce working hours to avoid higher rent.

Income should not be equated with housing need or a lack of housing need. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. This can be the case, even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list. Therefore, I ask that this amendment is not pressed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I would like to go back to one point that the Minister raised on the review of housing waiting lists. She made the perfectly valid point that someone may have registered on the housing waiting list with a certain series of circumstances and that those will be tested at the allocation point. I accept that. However, the point we were trying to make is that the housing waiting list includes data that is used in making a variety of decisions on the prioritisation of what should be built and so on. Our view is that that data needs to be accurate. What can the Minister say on that point?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In my experience, most local authorities do exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting: they very carefully take account of the information submitted by applicants for the waiting register when they apply for it. I think that those processes are already in place.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am sorry; I must be talking at cross-purposes. My point is that, given the length of time that people will be on the housing register, circumstances will change, and therefore what was put on one or two years ago may no longer be accurate. This is about having up-to-date, accurate data on the housing register, so that the council can make good decisions on policy, not on a particular allocation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Local authorities take a great deal of care when people apply for the social housing register, because they need to make sure that they meet their local provisions. That includes local connections, whether they have income eligibility and so on. They take great care in that respect. Most local authorities conduct regular reviews of the information they have—I will not say “all local authorities”, because I do not have the evidence in front of me to suggest that, but I think that nearly all of them do so.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There have been a variety of views, so I will begin on the bits on which I think we generally agree.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for his eloquent contribution, as well as to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. They looked at how we can better support former offenders and those leaving prison. We support the intentions behind both of their amendments, and we believe that local housing authorities should at least be given more information about prison leavers in need of housing.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her strong case on behalf of veterans. We too agree that those who have served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces should be prioritised in social housing allocation processes. She is right to highlight the needs of those with potential disabilities arising from their time serving in uniform. When I first became a councillor, one of the first cases I dealt with was a military family that fell between the cracks of the regulation and the allocation. That was before the Armed Forces covenant, so I was very pleased that we were able to change council policy to have much greater flexibility. That family was then housed to great benefit.

I raise the issue of disabilities. I am very conscious that we do not have enough good-quality social housing for people with high and complex disability needs. One of the points that I made earlier in the debate about right to buy is that it provides the resources to look at new housing. I give the example of Central Bedfordshire: we were using right-to-buy receipts to develop specialist housing. The Minister knows that we were doing that for older people’s housing, but we also did it for disabilities. It was an absolute delight when we went to see families. I know one person who was constrained in a wheelchair and had very little movement. He said that that was the first time he had ever been able to open the front door of his own home, because he had one of those little infrared buzzers. It can be transformational, and we need to look at that.

We are also in agreement, which the previous amendments reflect, that there is a need to look at prioritisation, whether for offenders, military or other groups. That is why we have some of our amendments in the group. We can all say the solution is more social homes, but we need to recognise that, for the moment, demand massively outstrips supply, and therefore, difficult choices will be made. For every family or person who gets a social home, there will be many who will miss out—all with good and deserving cases. We suggest that there needs to be an open and honest discussion on prioritisation.

As my noble friend Lord Jackson asked—and I thank him for his eloquent support, both for my amendments and for the other amendments in the group—where else do non-citizens get priority? Why should UK citizens not be a higher priority? Why should UK military personnel not be a higher priority than a non-UK citizen? This is a debate that we need to have. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

76: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Standards relating to maintenance of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to standards for maintenance of social housing, in line with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include provision relating to—(a) damp and mould,(b) electrical safety,(c) response times for repairs, and(d) tenant complaints procedures.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we seek to increase housing supply, how do we ensure that social housing is not only available but safe, well maintained, accessible and capable of supporting thriving communities? The debate about housing often focuses on numbers, and understandably so, when we face such a shortfall. However, quality matters just as much as quantity. People deserve homes that are safe, healthy and fit for modern living. Equally, they deserve neighbourhoods that are well designed and capable of supporting long-term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe whether the existing guidance is sufficient and whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector.

The importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences when basic maintenance problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Awaab’s law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and that expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is not simply about the condition of a property when it is first built; it is also about how the property is maintained over the many years of occupation. Good maintenance protects tenants, preserves housing stock, and reduces costs in the long term. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond regarding his amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100 and the other amendments in my name. We have the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty, but it is clear that in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations.

In Amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusion by design standard set out in the Bill. Though it appears duplicative at first instance because of the previous legislation I referred to, it would be additive, clarifying, enabling and empowering, not just for disabled people but—by nature of being inclusive by design—for all people. Through that clarity, it would enable and empower the local authority and the landlords, who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country. An inclusion by design standard would be something to rally around and a gleaming light that could focus attention and deliver for disabled people and all people, far more than what the current legislation specific to equalities achieves.

In Amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting accessibility and adaptive housing standards. There are standards that exist in this area currently, but to have something that brings together accessibility and adaptive housing in a clear statutory statement in the Bill would be empowering for all people, not least those who are trying to do their best to deliver on this provision. The amendment suggests a register which would clearly set out the list of adaptive and accessible housing countrywide. I know that the Minister will consider this to be centralisation, but I believe it would be empowering to all local authorities. In a sense, it is something that any other organisation and business would do. It is nothing more than having an asset register—a clear, up-to-date and real-time set of registers of what the provision is. It will enable local authorities to have clarity as to what might be available just across the way in enabling authority. I know that local authorities and landlords work incredibly hard with adjacent authorities and neighbouring organisations, but to have this provision in real time available to them would be assistive in that process. Because of new technologies, it would not need to be expensive, bureaucratic or burdensome. In fact, with some neat coding, it could very much take care of itself once established.

Similarly, on my amendment on accessibility of digital, it is right that local authorities and landlords seek to use digital means wherever they can, but it is critical that all those digital means are accessible to all in our local communities, and indeed that alternative means are always available.

The amendments are not duplicative, because what is more significant than housing? It is about the safety and security of having somewhere you can go, and when you close your front door, you can say, “This is me. This is us”. That provision, safety and security should be available and accessible to everybody across our communities, not least to disabled people. It cannot be right that just by dint of being a disabled person, for lack of accessible and adaptable accommodation, you have a longer wait on a list than a non-disabled person. These amendments would be assistive in that process. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 119B, the Government cannot support linking the commencement of the Act to the introduction of these regulations. While accessibility is a critical consideration, it should not act as a precondition that delays implementation of the wider reforms in the Bill. For those reasons, while I share the noble Lord’s commitment to accessible and inclusive services, the Government are unable to support these amendments and I respectfully ask him not to press them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this group. This debate has focused on the fundamental point that housing policy is not simply about providing a roof over someone’s head; it is about ensuring that people live in homes that are safe, healthy, accessible and capable of supporting a good quality of life.

The debate has also highlighted broader questions about design, accessibility and the environments in which people live. As we consider these issues, it is important to continue to focus on the creation of mixed, sustainable communities. Good design should not be reserved for one tenure or another. The aim should be to create places where people want to live, regardless of whether they are tenants, shared owners or owner-occupiers. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points raised during the debate. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

79: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Shared ownership strategy(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for increasing opportunities for shared ownership.(2) The strategy must include proposals relating to—(a) first-time buyers,(b) key workers,(c) housing association provision, and(d) staircasing arrangements.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.

While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership—including management fees, lease fees and so forth—tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity.

In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs. Rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats. But we are talking about affordable housing for people who do not have much money and cannot afford to pay a sudden lump of money.

Some landlords raise additional administrative charges. When we look at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when they are looking to buy and sell, we need to recognise that these people are often in chains and that the response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale.

Right now, many people who are aiming for 100% ownership through staircasing face too many obstacles. For example, in designated protected areas you may be able to buy only up to 80%. We have to start shifting the balance. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a handout: people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder in their communities, for the security of their future and that of their family. We need to change the balance so that the shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.

Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the Government’s ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead? If so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness?

Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier. We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charges, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats. Before expanding the model further, it is important that we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed.

Amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers and the differences in legal documentation. Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model.

These are probing amendments, intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 106 seeks to introduce a model shared ownership agreement. I do not believe this amendment is necessary simply because shared ownership model leases are already available. The model leases contain fundamental clauses that govern how shared ownership operates, including in respect of the provisions outlined by the noble Lord. Shared ownership providers offering grant-funded properties must use a lease containing these fundamental clauses, and it is expected that properties delivered via Section 106 agreements also do so. In addition, shared ownership providers are required to adhere to guidance regarding the provisions raised as a condition of receiving grant funding. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s vast knowledge and the amount of work that he has done on this. I also appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has also raised this issue many times. I think there is universal acceptance on this side of the Committee that something needs to be done. It is a little bit more fundamental than looking at the “customer experience”, which, if I may say so, feels like a glib marketing throwaway, although I know the Minister does not mean it as that.

The purpose of these amendments has been to explore whether the current arrangements are delivering. Quite clearly, we have the National Audit Office and so forth saying that they are not delivering. I do not think that we can be satisfied with, “We are looking at it”; I think this needs a fundamental review. The Minister said that it is a widely understood scheme. I think conceptually it is widely understood, but I do not think that the consequences of being a shared owner, particularly of a flat, are widely understood. The potential financial ramifications, where the risk lies and the risk-sharing between the equity owner and the landlord are not appreciated. I think many of the complaints that we have seen out of this are because people did not understand what they were letting themselves in for, particularly for flats. I press the Minister to think again between now and Report and to look at how we can formally come up with a thorough review that looks at all aspects of this.

I would be interested to understand a bit more about what the Minister said about model clauses. Some model clauses and a thorough template are quite different. I would like to take up the Minister’s offer of discussions on this. This is an area where we need to make significant improvements because it is a real opportunity, when done right, to get people on the housing ladder, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, in more expensive areas, who otherwise may not have that opportunity, but that is going to work only if we have a scheme that works. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 79 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

118: Clause 17, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential power to amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same session as, this Act by regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this final group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Clause 17(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to

“amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.

Amendment 118 would remove this power.

Amendment 119 would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for any regulations made under Clause 17. This would give Parliament stronger oversight of secondary legislation.

The theme of both amendments is to give Parliament stronger oversight of the Secretary of State’s powers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why these powers were included in the first place and how the Government intend to use them in the future if this Bill is passed as currently drafted. The House deserves to know to properly consider these provisions, so I look forward to an answer from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for the amendments on powers in Clause 17. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded:

“There is nothing in this Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”.


That conclusion gives important context for these amendments.

On Amendment 118, this is a standard consequential power that is found in many Bills and is limited to making a provision that is consequential on the Act. It cannot be used to introduce new policy; its purpose is to ensure that the legislation operates coherently once enacted, including by making any necessary technical changes to existing legislation. The Bill already provides an important safeguard where regulations under Clause 17 amend or repeal primary legislation. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses must actively approve them. Removing the power entirely could leave technical inconsistencies or gaps on the statute book and make implementation less effective. It would mean that even minor consequential amendments to primary legislation would require further primary legislation. For those reasons, we consider the power necessary, proportionate and appropriately safeguarded.

On Amendment 119, the Bill already ensures enhanced scrutiny where regulations amend primary legislation. Applying the affirmative procedure to all consequential regulations would be disproportionate. Additionally, the power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act, and it is intended to be used only to ensure the effective implementation of the Act and to maintain a coherent legislative framework. I believe that the existing approach strikes the right balance. I hope the points I have made have provided some comfort to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I ask them to withdraw their amendment—and come on, England!

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply and her brevity, such that we can go and say, “Come on, England”. We still have concern about giving the Secretary of State powers without, in our view, proper parliamentary scrutiny, so we will continue to scrutinise the Bill in relation to secondary legislation and making provision for the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This is to protect the balance of power and to ensure that noble Lords continue to have oversight of changes made after this Bill becomes law.

We will review Hansard, and I thank the Minister again for her answers throughout Committee. We have had an insightful and worthwhile debate about this Bill’s provisions, and I look forward to working together with noble Lords ahead of Report.

As we close Committee, I would like to reflect on our key concerns. Our focus should be on building more homes, not restricting opportunity. We believe that right to buy not only provides an opportunity for families to own their homes but provides the resources to build more homes. This Bill not only denies the opportunity for families to move on in life but risks tens of thousands more families languishing on council housing waiting lists. We have also sought amendments to make housing allocations fairer and more transparent, to address issues with shared ownership, and to ensure better performance of registered providers. I beg to leave to withdraw our amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak—although I am not sure it is a conflict in this issue— I need to declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank noble Lords for speaking in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who I think at the end of her speech said she is in favour of the single transferrable minute from one speaker to the next to allow her to speak longer. I thank my noble friends Lord Hayward, who raised the very important question of why now—I will come to that later—and Lord Jackson, who gave an excellent exposition of the shortcomings of the transferable vote or supplementary vote system

This is, in essence, a reversal. Within a relatively short period of time, we have moved from supplementary vote to first past the post, and now back to supplementary votes for mayoral elections. Whatever view one takes of the respective systems, that degree of oscillation is not a strength of constitutional design. I ask the very simple question: what problem is this change actually seeking to solve? The Government’s answer appears to be the claim that the supplementary vote system produces a mayor with broader support and therefore greater legitimacy. It is also said to allow voters to express preferences more fully and to ensure that votes are not wasted—although, as my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, in the previous London mayoral election there seemed to be an awful lot of wasted supplementary votes.

These arguments are familiar; they have been advanced in favour of preferential systems for many years. But repetition is not justification. The reality is that this draft does not demonstrate a failure in the existing arrangements of first past the post; nor does it set out evidence that voter confidence in mayoral elections has been undermined by the current system. Instead, it simply asserts that the alternative system is preferable. That is not sufficient when what is at issue are the rules by which democratic office is secured. First past the post has one defining virtue, and that is clarity. The candidate with the most votes wins. There is no second count, no transfer of preferences, and no recalculation. The result is immediate and intelligible. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, the public have previously demonstrated that they have a preference for the first past the post system.

That matters more than Members may realise, because the electoral system does not exist just in theory. It exists in the mind of the voter at the ballot box. If the voter does not really understand how their vote translates into outcome, we risk something important being lost. The supplementary vote system is not incomprehensible, but it is more complex. It does introduce a second stage of allocation, where preferences are redistributed. That may be administratively manageable, but it is not straightforward and it is not intuitive. We must remember that confidence in our elections is essential.

The Government also argue that the system produces a more legitimate mandate, because it takes account of second preferences. That is a fundamentally different conception of legitimacy, and it is not a neutral change. Under first past the post, legitimacy comes from a clear view expressed at the ballot box. Under supplementary vote, it comes from aggregated preferences after elimination and redistribution. Those are different constitutional logics. First past the post is well understood: it is tried, tested and clear. The question for this House is which is more appropriate for mayoral elections in England today. We are not persuaded that the Government have made a strong enough case that change is required.

There is also the wider concern of uncertainty caused by frequent changes. That cannot be ignored. Electoral arrangements should not shift back and forth with such frequency. Voters, candidates and administrators require stability. They need to know that the rules they are voting under today will be same at the next election. At present, that confidence is weakened by repeated changes.

I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could address a straightforward point. What is the Government’s principle here? Is it that electoral systems should be treated as settled constitutional arrangements unless there is clear and compelling evidence of failure, or is it that they may be altered whenever the Government take a different view? Those are very different approaches.

There is also the question of practice. The instrument requires changes to ballot papers, guidance to returning officers, counting procedures, voter information, and administrative systems across combined authorities. All of that is manageable, but it is not without its cost, its friction, and its implications for time. As my noble friend Loyd Hayward has raised, I also ask the question: why now? Why the urgency? Putting this in place will take some time for electoral returning officers, yet there is a risk we shall very shortly have a mayoral by-election. Would it not be better to delay to ensure a smoother implementation and also to include those other potential future changes? My noble friend asked: why now? I also ask: why now?

What assessment has been made of the costs to local authorities of implementing this change? What additional burdens will fall on electoral administrators? What steps will be taken to ensure consistency of understanding across different areas in the run-up to elections? More importantly, what assessment has been made of voter understanding? It is often assumed in this debate that voters are closely engaged with the mechanics of electoral systems, but my personal experience is that they are not. In fact, sometimes they are not that closely engaged in the detailed minutiae of politics, so I think that is a stretch assumption. What matters to voters is that the process is clear at the point of voting and that the outcome is trusted. Trust depends on simplicity and familiarity; both are weakened when this system changes repeatedly.

None of this requires us to resolve, once and for all, the philosophical debate between electoral systems. Reasonable people will differ on that question. But what the House is being asked to approve is not an abstract principle; it is a concrete change to the machinery of elections, justified on the basis of asserted improvements in legitimacy. We on this side of the House are not persuaded that the case has been made. We are not convinced that the benefits outweigh the cost to clarity, stability and confidence. We are concerned about the wider pattern of repeated alterations to electoral arrangements. We are also concerned about “why now?”

For those reasons, while I look forward to the Minister’s response, I must indicate that we remain unconvinced by the necessity or wisdom of this statutory instrument.

New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which is the location of two of the new towns: Tempsford and a large chunk of the extension to Milton Keynes. Following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I must also declare it is the location of the Forest of Marston Vale. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the committee for an excellent—and very much a foundation—report. I am aware that some of the comments made today will probably be covered in future reports.

I have some experience of new towns, not only Milton Keynes but Washington, where my father was from. When I first used to visit it as a child to see my grandmother, it was a small pit village. Now that village and several of the other small pit villages are transformed into a new town of 70,000 people, which I saw grow up through my childhood. The Government are proposing several new towns; I do not intend to comment on the ones in central Bedfordshire, although I would describe many as urban extensions rather than new towns, but I want to reflect on the principles of good urban planning. As the report makes clear, we need a compelling vision. We need to define a clear purpose and we need infrastructure first—not just roads, but utilities and soft water—and that means getting a whole group of different entities to work together.

That is very important, but I want to raise a couple of things that are also important. First, new towns should have a heart, a soul and a purpose. In our ancient cities, you can often think of that as a cathedral, so what will be the centre of a new town? What will give it its purpose? A town centre that works is not just about shopping; it is about community and where people come together. That gives it its identity. Secondly, the new towns should not just be urban commuter dormitories. They need to be living places where people can sleep, but where they also have the opportunity for work and for leisure—I recognise that there will still be commuting.

These days, we talk often about these wonderful towns. Milton Keynes is on my doorstep, but we are not going to be able to build new towns with that low a density in the south-east because there physically is not the space. We need to think about the density of new towns. That means a different sort of new town, not one based on road and car, but based much more on public transport, walking and cycling. That requires much higher densities. When I go to Europe, I see towns that are successful because the coffee shop has 12 apartments above it and the shop has apartments above it. People do not need to get into the car to go to the town centre. I have a curious question that I keep asking people: why is it not economic to build underground car parks in town centres in the UK whereas it seems to work pretty much everywhere else in Europe?

The Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned Cambourne, where I did a fair amount of door knocking in the recent elections. It is a wonderful housing estate, but I would not class it as a town. It did not have a proper town centre; it is something that evolved—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me on that. We need to, and can do, better.

Several noble Lords mentioned design. I raise the fact that our population is changing. When we designed new towns in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it was for a much younger, much more family-orientated population. We have shifted. We have a much older population, and we will need to deal with many more singles and couples, not large families, and that is a different sort of town.

A number of noble Lords mentioned funding. If we are going to deliver infrastructure up front, we need to do that, but it is not just about cash flow. Realising the land value will not be as simple as it used to be in the past because many of these areas already have embedded value that we need to think about.

We talked about development corporations in the report, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords raised whether we can have mayoral or council-led development corporations, because if it is just in one area, that is a potential other avenue that we should look at.

A number of noble Lords raised leadership and speed. Clearly, many of us fear that this will spend more time in the planning than in getting bricks on the ground. If we are going to do this, we need real leadership and we need to get on with it. Again, I refer to Central Bedfordshire: Wixams station is going to be delivered 20 years after it was originally envisaged. That is not good enough for these new towns.

Finally, we need to consider the wider area. New towns can have a major impact on the other settlements nearby and could denude them, their town centres and so forth. We need to reflect on that as well. With that, I welcome my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley to the Front Bench.

Affordable Housing: Young People

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.