Representation of the People Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, touched on perhaps the most interesting element of this group, which does not directly affect the Bill at all. It is the potential wider knock-on effect on the Online Safety Act. If we get to a place where we have 16 and 17 year-olds registered, the existence of that electoral register, as the noble Lord rightly mentioned in passing, may become an important building block in future age-verification processes under that Act. So, I suspect that in some ways the most important issue these amendments raise is not for this Bill but for other areas that exercise us at other times.

A general point has come out through these amendments and in several earlier groups, which is that we will have two fundamentally different processes. Under this Bill, we will have the right to vote from 16; under the Online Safety Act the key age threshold is 18. I will not relitigate the previous debate, particularly in light of my comments earlier, but just observe that those two ages being different is not a reason to be particularly hostile, because we have many variations in all sorts of other areas, as was noted in previous debates. However, we should recognise that those two numbers are different. It would be helpful to have more clarity from the Government about their plan to ensure that the different age threshold under the Online Safety Act does not provide inadvertent, unwanted consequences that damage the extension of the franchise to 16 year-olds.

I do not agree with all the details of the methods that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has chosen in his amendments, but one important point is worth drawing out, which comes under his Amendment 35. Lawyers might argue over the word “outcome”. I think it is reasonable for schools to teach children about the values of democracy. If we look at, for example, the decisions made about the national curriculum under previous Conservative Governments, there is a very clear direction that we, as a nation, are not neutral between democracy and dictatorship. Therefore, it is reasonable for schools to communicate that we want people to participate in elections. It has to be done in a way that is fair and that recognises there are people who may wish to spoil their ballots or not to vote as a matter of principle, but promoting democracy is a reasonable part of our education system. Although there are some details I disagree with, the basic point about how the Online Safety Act world and the world to be created by this Bill are going to interact is one on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Government.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments, which raise important questions about young people’s access to electoral information and the need to ensure political balance in our schools. We have had a number of useful contributions. This has been one of the shorter debates, but some important issues have been raised.

As I recollect our discussions so far on this Bill, most, if not all, noble Lords have been in almost universal agreement about civic education. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who is not in his place today, said he spent 17 years teaching the British constitution. In fact, my first exposure to democracy was learning the British constitution, and I am pleased to say I passed.

My noble friend Lord Gascoigne made an important point on the first day that votes at 16 cannot be seen as an end in itself but must be accompanied by an understanding of what citizenship is and what playing a part in our free, liberal, democratic society means and entails. It is important—and we are spending quite a lot of time on it—that we consider those two things in parallel.

This group again addresses the complete inconsistency in the Government’s approach to votes at 16. As my noble friend Lord Markham told us at Second Reading, if we consider a 16 year-old old enough to choose a Government, we must accept that they are old enough to hear all the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the fact that we have a distinct difference between the Online Safety Act age of 18 and votes at 16. We need somehow to reconcile that and recognise that we need to make sure that those who are going to vote have the information they need.

My noble friend’s Amendment 34 would require politically neutral, age-appropriate election information to be published on social media; that recognises the reality that young people, as has been said several times today, obtain their information online on social media and not through the more traditional channels of newspapers or TV. If the Government intend to extend the franchise, they must ensure that newly enfranchised voters can access the information necessary to exercise that right. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure that young people can receive accurate and politically balanced electoral information?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to query two things. First, the social media ban will apparently not prohibit young people accessing trusted news sources. Trusted by whom? Who makes that call? That was partly my point. I would have thought that you could trust the Home Office to bring out an interactive game without getting it so badly wrong. That might be something to consider.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is absolutely right: we have to look at this. When discussions came out about drilling for oil in the North Sea, searches on that were age-gated, and anybody under 16 could not get through. You had to prove who you were, prove your age and so on. That was quite a big discussion. Will the Minister at least take back to the Government the possibility of thinking this through a bit more, rather than just saying that it is all going to be all right? I do not agree with the ban on social media for under-16s. I had to listen to practically everybody in this House lecture me about how you cannot let under-16s anywhere near this stuff, how everything will lead to suicide, mayhem, bedlam and all the rest of it, and how we have to stop them getting access to it. Suddenly, it is okay if it is news—and that is news to me. We therefore need a bit more detail.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I want a bit more clarity. I understand that schools are obliged to be politically neutral. In this country we have tens of thousands, if not millions, of teachers—I do not know the number. If we are to have 16 and 17 year-olds voting and want politically neutral education on the political landscape for them, it will be a lot easier, and we will have much more consistency, if there are clear guidelines that can be reviewed and seen by others. Is that the intention?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, social media is not the only source of high-quality news content, nor always the most reliable, as we all know only too well. It is important that young people continue to have access to a wide range of trusted sources on political information. There will also be a defined list of exemptions including, for example, educational services. The noble Baroness is right to flag up the point that we are in a new area here. We need to continue to think about how we make sure there is access to the information needed to make the decisions that these young people will be making, while also protecting them from some of the terrible online harms we have seen.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to impartiality in schools. Existing guidance expressly allows schools to use election periods to raise political awareness and all those issues. I am not sure whether I am quite addressing his question. The existing guidance makes sure that, if there are mock elections, hustings or visits from candidates or party representatives, schools have to maintain a political balance. Schools already do this, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson for their amendments and for the amendments from other noble Lords. These raise important questions about the safeguards necessary to maintain public confidence in our electoral system. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Hayward: the objective of this should be to increase public confidence in the electoral system.

My noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendments 10 and 11 concern the exemptions applying to younger electors in relation to the duties of election and electoral registration officers. These amendments highlight a wider question about consistency in the Government’s approach to lowering the voting age and the need to ensure accuracy of the register. As my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley observed at Second Reading, the Government must explain where we draw the line between the rights and responsibilities of 16 and 17 year-olds. If young people are to be entrusted with electing their representatives, it is reasonable to examine how that decision interacts with existing duties and protections in electoral law.

As the Minister made clear in debate on Monday, EROs are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the register. Should not the same tools be available to an ERO, irrespective of age? Can the Minister explain the rationale behind retaining these exemptions? Have electoral administrators been consulted about the practical implications? As I said at Second Reading, electoral law is already overly complex and conflicting. We should be seeking opportunities to simplify its administration, rather than further increasing inconsistencies.

I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 125 seeks to pilot schemes for more flexible voting, including early voting, mobile polling stations and alternative voting locations. Such pilots have already been undertaken locally. Amendment 128 raises the question of piloting electronic voting machines. Our established paper-based system has considerable advantage, in being straightforward and transparent. Electronic systems always raise the issue of cyber security, as we have seen in the Health Bill with the single patient record. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the security risks associated with electronic voting machines, and how the accuracy of an electronic count will be independently demonstrated and verified?

One topic we have debated a lot this morning is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 124: whether counting should begin on the day of the election. Having stood as a candidate on many occasions, I have great sympathy with this and would like to know sooner rather than later. However, as a previous leader of a council, I also have to agree with the comments of many other noble Lords in this Chamber about the difficulties and complexities of doing a count. As a number of noble Lords raised, local council elections are frequently much more complex than a national election, with multi-member wards and an increasing diversity of candidates making the process longer and more complex, along with the potential for multiple elections on the same day. At the same time, many councils are finding it increasingly difficult to get sufficient staff—a matter that has been raised elsewhere in debate on this Bill. Ultimately, I believe that we need to trust the ERO to make the appropriate decision.

My noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 129 and Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concern undue influence such as religious or spiritual pressure on voters. The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental. Every elector must be able to vote freely without intimidation, coercion or improper influence. I appreciate the comments of many noble Lords on this; so far, there seems to be consensus that it is an important topic and that these amendments need addressing.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raised concerns about family voting and the particular vulnerability of younger electors to the pressure they might face at home. These concerns deserve careful consideration as the Government propose to extend the franchise. Does the Minister consider existing law sufficient to protect voters from coercion, both in polling stations and where postal voting is used? It is not just the law but the implementation thereof that is important. Will there be further guidance given to polling staff?

This also relates to Amendment 123, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on improving polling cards. Ensuring eligible voters understand the secrecy of their ballot and the voting process is crucial.

We should remember that those responsible for administering elections must make these provisions work in practice. The robustness of our electoral arrangements is fundamental to electoral integrity. I hope the Minister will address the concerns raised in this group and explain how the Government intend to preserve the security and transparency of the ballot, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for this extended debate, which was broken in the middle of the group. I will make a couple of general points before I respond to individual amendments.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for using his crutch to stand up. If he wishes to remain seated when making his contributions, I am sure the Committee would be very happy with that.

I agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made about the interesting situation that we saw unveiling in the United States overnight. It would have been nice to have been able to stay up and listen to those results—I did not, but was very tempted. That points to some interesting issues as we discuss this group, which contains matters that go right to the very heart of our democracy. There were comments made early this morning—for example, by James Talarico —about attempts at enormous financial and other influence on the elections process. We will come on to some of those later in discussing our own Bill. It was a pleasure to see the power of the democratic process overcoming something of that. We need to make sure, as we go through our own discussions, that we retain that faith in democracy and continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, to give the people of this country the confidence that it is the democratic process that takes precedence, even where there are attempts to have financial and other interference. That is very important to all of us in this House.

Noble Lords will have to excuse my sniffles; this is my second cold in two weeks. I am going to have to speak to my friend the Health Minister to suggest that having two colds in two weeks should be banned.

I add my tribute to the EROs and election staff. We have a very safe and secure system in this country, and that is down to a lot of work from our returning officers and election staff, so I am very grateful to them for all the work they do.

I will now address the individual amendments. I turn first to Amendments 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and her Schedule 1 stand part notice. These amendments would remove measures from Schedule 1 that safeguard those under 16. This would result in electoral registration officers being required to conduct activities such as house-to-house inquiries and making telephone calls to under-16s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—that election administrators are included in these discussions.

These age-based measures are important for implementing the franchise change effectively. In extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year olds, it is vital that they are given the same opportunities as any other voter to be accurately registered. The Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement will bring significant benefits, but it must be accompanied by additional measures to protect these young people who are not yet entitled to vote. This is the approach taken throughout the Bill, which includes measures in Clauses 7 to 13 to safeguard young people’s data, mirroring the approach taken in Scotland and Wales. We should take the safeguarding of those under the age of 16 seriously, and these amendments would remove safeguards that we consider vital. I emphasise to noble Lords that it is not those of voting age who are being treated differently but those below voting age. For those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for raising the important issue, through Amendment 123, of how electoral information is communicated to voters. We agree that the information provided to electors should be clear and accessible, and I take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about polling cards. We already recognise that there is scope to improve election documentation, including poll cards, and we intend to consider how their design and clarity can be enhanced as part of wider research into how people learn about the electoral process. However, we do not believe a statutory requirement to report to Parliament within 12 months is necessary to take this work forward. Frankly, we just need to get on with it, and I am very happy to report back to the House when we have concluded our work.

I turn to Amendment 124, from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost. As someone who was elected many times over 27 years, I recognise the importance of election results being declared promptly, and I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about this. We all want to hear our results as quickly as possible. Noble Lords have highlighted very graphically how local elections take place—so I do not need to give any further examples—and, as such, they require greater operational flexibility than parliamentary elections. Decisions about when to begin verification and counting are therefore best made by returning officers, taking account of those local circumstances. This amendment would replace that operational judgment with a rigid statutory requirement, subject only to narrow exceptions for emergencies and safety risks. We do not believe that that restriction is necessary or proportionate.

In speaking to Amendment 124, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised some issues around different elections using different systems. I say to him that I recognise that there was a referendum in 2011 on different voting systems. The Prime Minister has decided the best way to take this issue forward is to initiate a national commission on electoral reform, which is the right way to start a national conversation on this issue.

I turn to Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 already provides powers to pilot changes to when, where and how voting takes place at local government elections—powers the Government used to pilot flexible voting in the May 2026 polls and will use again in a further round of pilots in May 2027. We understand the amendment seeks to go further by enabling flexible voting to be piloted at elections beyond those currently provided for under Section 10, potentially including UK parliamentary elections. We do not believe it would be appropriate to extend the piloting power to parliamentary elections at this stage. Our priority is to continue testing these approaches at local elections and build that evidence base before considering any wider changes. I share both noble Lords’ enthusiasm for more modern and flexible voting arrangements as a matter of principle, but it is important that we test these thoroughly and build the evidence base before we go any further.

On this theme, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his Amendment 128. However, the use of electronic voting machines creates the potential for hacking, computer error and interference. Although elections are not always no-fail events for candidates—we do fail from time to time, as I have on occasion—they must be no-fail events in terms of process, and the integrity of the ballot must come first. That is why we have no plans to introduce electronic voting in the UK, and therefore it does not make sense to run pilots. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

I will address the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as he is in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, this may be the group on which we have the most widespread agreement from all corners of the Committee. I very much agree with the broad thrust of the comments from the three noble Lords who have spoken so far.

To give one further illustration: in preparing my ring binder of things that I thought might be useful to have with me during Committee, I thought it might be useful to print off copies of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and PPERA 2000, the two pieces of primary legislation that we will, I hope, amend through this legislation. I dutifully downloaded the PDFs for both from legislation.gov.uk. One comes in at 543 pages and the other at 524 pages, which is about the length of the last copy of War and Peace I saw. I decided not to print those off, but it illustrates the problem, which was quite rightly touched on earlier, about how staff and volunteers have to grapple with understanding large parts of what is a very complex legal landscape.

However, I would not want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, by not taking the chance to quibble just a little over a couple of his amendments in this group. His Amendment 16 would remove a cross-reference, but I would go the other way and say that we need more cross-references in legislation. But he is absolutely right with Amendment 17. I am sure that there is some fine legal brain in this House who will be able to elucidate why the definition that would be removed by Amendment 17 is not simply a rearranging of the words. That definition adds very little meaning.

Overall, it is welcome that we have seen, in one of the more recent government amendments tabled, a tidying-up by the proposal to repeal some previously uncommenced legislation. I hope that the debate on this group will encourage the Government to look at further steps for tidying up as we progress through the Bill.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will be part of the agreement across the Committee on this one. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for introducing these amendments and agree with all of them as a point of principle—to be slightly different from the noble Lord, Lord Pack.

We need this debate on the complexity of electoral law and administrative bureaucracy. I echo the Minister in recognising and thanking electoral returning officers for their job. It is not an easy job, as various noble Lords have made clear, to deal with all the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, said that just two Acts added up to over 1,100 pages. They are long, complex, inconsistent and, on occasion, in conflict. Electoral returning officers have to deal regularly with new regulations, guidance and changes. It is a surprise that anybody actually wants the job.

In addition to dealing with that, there is the sheer difficulty of running the operation. You may be dealing with 200-plus polling stations. You have to make sure that you get all your polling booths to them. You have to send out thousands of postal votes and rely on the postal system, which itself always has the potential for error. You have to make decisions on the spot in order to overcome all these various things. The Bill then prescribes, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has said, exactly how someone is supposed to do the job and who in the council is supposed to do the job and, as my noble friend raised, includes that specific point about requiring all staff to be made available. What happens if all staff are not willing to be made available? What sanction can the chief executive have? Will it be part of their work contract? What about needing them potentially to be made available to another neighbouring authority that needs more people? The system works. The EROs get the job done. It is a difficult job and, as I said in my previous speech, we should trust them.

I will go through some of these amendments, beginning with Amendment 13 to Clause 7(4)—reiterated in Amendment 16 to Clause 14—which defines “absent voters records”, “overseas elector lists”, “overseas elector’s declaration”, “registration officer” and “voter register”. Subsection (5) then clarifies the roles of a deputy electoral registration officer and a person assisting the electoral registration officer. My noble friend has already raised concerns over how other Whitehall departments determine this. I can go on through all the various clauses—and that is before I get on to the clauses that my noble friend has opposed in order to prompt this debate.

It is clear that our electoral system, local government and layers of administrative bureaucracy are complex. We are fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy and to work in a system that has evolved, relatively organically, over time. Some legal complexity is perhaps expected, but we are concerned that, rather than seeking to improve the situation, some provisions in the Bill risk unnecessarily increasing the bureaucracy and practical complexity. I will not go through it all, but it is very clear from across the Committee that the Bill is overly complex, adds complexity and does not do what it should do, which is to make life simpler and more certain.

I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the recommendations made by noble Lords on how and where electoral law and administration could be made a little less complex without weakening the system’s strength, especially at the local level. In fact, by increasing consistency and simplifying where appropriate, it would strengthen the system. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of what further government amendments we can expect.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for this debate; it has been a very interesting subject to discuss. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I am sure he will have equally lobbied his own side on these issues before the Bill came to the House. This is the first election law I have dealt with, but I am sure that he will have been urging his own side to consider these issues in all the legislation that has gone through in the previous 14 years.

This Bill came forward to serve three specific purposes: to introduce voting for 16 and 17 year-olds, which is a manifesto commitment from my party; to take steps towards automatic voter registration, so as to tackle the under-registration of some 7 million to 8 million people; and, lastly, to tackle overseas political finance. During the course of the Bill, some of those issues have been the subject of much public debate, and we have had the Rycroft review of political finance, which has added to the Bill. There will be further amendments which will, I think, be laid on 9 November. In response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, he will have sight of amendments before we get to a further day of Committee on this Bill.

The consolidation of electoral law is a key issue. I have heard loud and clear, both at Second Reading and in the engagement meetings I held with noble Lords, the importance of doing this. In the process of the Bill, it is not possible to tackle the whole consolidation of all election law—I am sure it is even more than the number of pages that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, outlined. However, it is important we take that on board and look at what the process is going to be for what is certainly a job that needs to be done. I am going to take that back to the department and, at a later stage of the Bill, I will come back to it, because I understand what noble Lords are saying.

I took very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about read-only access to registers, which he made during the previous session, and I pushed for more information on this. There are complexities around the localised nature of the register. In effect, we have 300 separate electoral registers, which is probably the point that the noble Lord was making around data protection. I will do some more work on this and I am happy to discuss it with him further in due course.

I recognise the broader concerns the noble Lord has around the complexity of electoral law and the administrative burdens which are placed on those responsible for delivering our elections. However, removing from the Bill important provisions which contain essential legal definitions, which his amendments would introduce, is not the right way to address either of those concerns. The legal definitions clarify the scope of the provisions so that it is clear who is captured by them—namely registration officers and those assisting registration officers—and confirm that the measures do not attach to absent voting lists which relate only to devolved elections. These clauses are not unnecessary additions. They contain substantive measures designed to improve the operation of our electoral system, as well as definitional information to aid the proper interpretation and application of the law.

The noble Lord asked specific questions about the measures on electoral registration officers and returning officers. Electoral registration officers and returning officers carry personal legal responsibility for functions fundamental to the effective operation of our democracy. Discharging those responsibilities requires access to staff, premises, systems and other resources from across the local authority, often within tightly prescribed statutory timetables and during periods of considerable operational pressure. Requiring ultimate responsibility to rest with an appropriately senior officer will help ensure that the officeholder has sufficient organisation-wide authority and accountability to secure the necessary support and provide effective oversight. This is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that returning officers have the authority and access to resources they need to run elections effectively. It provides a clear minimum standard, while leaving local authorities flexibility over whom they appoint within that framework.

The Committee will have the opportunity to debate all the measures in the Bill as it progresses. The Government will continue to make their case for each of them, but I assure the noble Lord I am listening carefully to all views expressed in the Committee.

I thank the noble Lord for his clause stand part notice on Clause 44. I will explain briefly the importance of this clause to the Bill. At present, political parties cannot withdraw their support for a candidate once the nomination papers have been submitted, even when serious issues arise. Clause 44 enables parties to act where concerns arise during the nomination period. The scope of the provisions is very carefully limited. Support may be withdrawn only up to 48 hours before nominations close, ensuring the candidate still has time to stand independently or for another party, and the party can nominate a replacement. This clause forms part of a suite of new safeguards designed to protect the integrity of elections and prevent and deter personation or false nominations. Removing it would weaken the Bill.

I have listened carefully to the debates, particularly on the consolidation of election law, and I am very happy to continue those discussions.

Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. It follows the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and establishes the detailed requirements for the Government’s new private rented sector database, as the Minister said. They also introduce fees for registering and renewing property entries with the amount to be determined by the database operator, although it has already been suggested that this will be £65.

On this side of the Committee, we fully support the principle that tenants should be able to tackle rogue landlords and have access to safe and decent accommodation, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman. However, we were very clear, during the passage of the Bill, that this database needs to be user-friendly and light-touch; it needs to enable electronic data entry and minimise unnecessary bureaucracy. The Minister herself gave us assurances that this would be the case. This comes down to our fundamental request: we need a database that works. The noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken have expressed a great deal of concern that the database does not work. These concerns were echoed in the submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has drawn the SI to the special attention of the House.

I welcome the fact that the department has committed to continuing to work with the sector to make continuous improvement. The question remains: can it get it working in the first place? Can the Minister tell us why the Government have not halted implementation of the system until it can be fully piloted, so that the recommendations can be implemented and the sector and tenants can have confidence that it works?

This SI comes at the time of a housing crisis. Are the Government aware that they are already driving landlords away? The latest Rightmove survey shows that there are 2% fewer properties for rent nationally—with a particular issue in London, where there are 9% fewer rental properties and where rents have risen by 3.2%. This is before today’s announcement of higher taxes on landlords. Even the OBR is forecasting long-term increases in rents.

It appears that the database is not fit for purpose. While it may work for a few individual landlords, insufficient consideration has been given to the practical requirements of large-scale, professionally managed rental businesses or the role of agents. As my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Howard of Rising said, large landlords will be required to register properties individually, entering up to 70 separate data points for each home. That may work for a landlord with one or two properties who knows what they are doing, but it does not work for a landlord managing, say, 3,000 properties. As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, we could be talking about 200 days of work just to register those properties; that is an extraordinary figure for a system that is supposed to simplify and modernise the regulation of the private renter sector.

Private landlords already face extensive regulatory obligations, including gas and electrical safety requirements, energy performance standards and, where applicable, property licensing. These regulations require much of the same information to be provided again through a central government database. Why are landlords being asked to enter information that the Government already hold on existing databases?

During the passage of the Bill, the issue of simplifying and consolidating was raised frequently by many noble Lords. The Government claimed that the system for bulk uploads will not offer time savings and that integration will better meet the needs of stakeholders as described. The purpose of digital government should be to reduce duplication, not institutionalise it. Can the Minister explain what appropriate integration with existing property management systems will look like? Can she assure the Committee that this will be fully implemented and trialled before the database is rolled out?

I am also concerned about the severely limited role that letting agents will be permitted to play in the registration process. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned, landlords rely on professional letting agents to manage both their properties and their regulatory obligations, and to ensure that they comply. Under the proposed system, landlords themselves must initiate and complete the registration process, with agents permitted to provide only certain information on their behalf. This is particularly difficult to understand, given that the Government’s impact assessment assumed that letting agents would register properties on behalf of the landlords. For agents managing thousands of properties, this will mean repeatedly returning to individual landlords to initiate registrations, obtain access and secure further information. Can the Minister explain why professional letting agents cannot be authorised to manage the entire registration process on behalf of their clients, as they do with many other regulatory requirements?

As my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, this whole plethora of passwords being shared between different people, properties and so forth raises significant cyber security issues. What happens, when a person at a large landlord or agent leaves, to the hundreds or thousands of passwords and databases that they have to share? Are they shared across businesses?

Can the Minister also assure the Committee that not every individual property under landlords and agents will require its own registration and password, as proposed? This is an obvious burden and a financial one too, and it is on top of the £65 registration fee that, as has already been mentioned, is not a one-off but an annual fee. These costs of additional bureaucracy, time and so forth will simply be passed on to tenants. Can the Minister tell the Committee to which metrics the fee will be pegged? What safeguards exist to prevent this becoming an unsustainable cost? The proposed system lacks the necessary integration to automate changes.

We also raised concerns regarding potentially significant fines. As has already been described, this is a bureaucratic nightmare. The risk of unintended, innocent, data-entry errors is significant, yet the landlord faces a potential £7,000 fine for each one of those errors. That is unreasonable. We need to get the database system working. As others have said, the whole aim of the Bill is to remove rogue landlords; it should not make the life and processes of genuine, good landlords so difficult that rogue landlords can hide in the background. This seems especially punitive considering that the Prime Minister has now introduced a system whereby parking fines can be appealed on the basis of an honest mistake.

As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising raised, the current system provides an alternative for landlords, as they can create their own database, print out the necessary forms and send them on to the department. Many large landlords may find that simpler, because they are able to maintain their own database and assure themselves that it is up to date; they are able to update it electronically and provide their own reports, which they just fire off the printer. They send thousands of forms to Marsham Street, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. That cannot be the right way of doing things.

In many parts of the country, there is a desperate shortage of private rental housing. Yet, whether an individual landlord or a large-scale corporate landlord, the Government continue to make being a landlord more difficult, thus reducing the incentive to become a private landlord. This is already having an impact on the market: not only are we seeing landlords exiting, but I am told by the development industry that the private build-to-rent sector has stalled. Ultimately, it will be tenants who will bear the consequences at a time when we urgently need more homes to rent.

It makes little sense to introduce a database that is not fit for purpose, driving up administrative costs, which will discourage the very investment that is needed to increase supply. I ask the Minister: why does the database not allow the bulk input of information? Why can apartment blocks not be registered where there is a single landlord? Why is there not API integration from day one? Why is the database not linked to other government databases? Why does the fee structure not reflect the different types of landlord? Why can agents not input information on behalf of their clients? Why is there not a longer transition period? Most importantly, has the database been piloted? If so, what were the lessons from those pilots? If not, when will it be piloted?

We support effective regulation, but regulation must also be proportionate, practical and properly implemented. The objective should not be to drive responsible landlords and investment out of the sector. When introducing a database, it must be practical, must work and must have been trialled. I hope that the Minister will consider these points.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all of the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this statutory instrument this afternoon.

First, I want to tackle an issue that has been raised many times: the testing of the database. In fact, we have been engaging with landlords, including organisational landlords, in user research and testing since 2023 on a database; as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, that was because his Government had considered doing this before. We have been formally testing since May this year. In testing with organisational landlords, almost 90% reported the service as easy or very easy to use, and 80% rated the registration guidance clear or very clear. We have taken note of all the comments that have been made as we have gone through this testing process. We have made improvements to the database according to those comments and, of course, we continue our dialogue with the sector. We have not just jumped into this in the past two weeks, as has been suggested by some contributors.

It is very important that we have transparency for both tenants and councils; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. We need to keep the database accurate and up to date, which is why we have asked for annual updates: some databases fail where you update them only if you have a change. This is an annual prompt to change it. Noble Lords will be very familiar with their registration of interests, which we have to update; we get a prompt to update that regularly. That is the point of having an annual update.

I will go through some of the issues that noble Lords have raised, some of which were raised by more than one Peer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that our department remains willing to discuss this with anybody who wants to how the database may operate, so, to pick up his question directly, we are of course willing to do that.

A number of noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Howard and Lord Jamieson—raised the fee and asked why it is higher than the initial £20 estimate that we gave. The £65 fee is needed to fund a national database that is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. All landlords will be required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. The fee is charged per property, so landlords will need to pay the fee each time they register a different property.

The fee has been set at a level that balances fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the database and tackling non-compliance in the private sector; that last point is equally important. The fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms. That includes funding to help councils have the staff and skills they need to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. When we talked to the many landlords to whom we spoke during the course of the then Renters’ Rights Bill, they were just as concerned as the rest of us about driving out those rogue landlords, because they do not do the sector any good at all and undercut some of the really decent and good landlords that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to take back that feedback. The point about paying in one go is fair. It was my understanding that that could happen, but I will take that back and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in writing, if that is okay.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, raised the security of the database. That is important. We are all concerned about cyber security. The database has been developed with security and privacy at its core, using established government and cyber security standards. The department is assessing the database against the National Cyber Security Centre’s cyber assessment framework, and the database will also be subject to penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before and during operation. We are working with the department’s data protection officer on the necessary data protection work, including an impact assessment, data-sharing arrangements and privacy arrangements for landlords, local councils and agent users. The database will also use monitoring tools to help identify potential vulnerabilities and support ongoing security assurance.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talked about the potential duplication with selective licensing. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licences, because the two systems have entirely different purposes. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement.

Selective licensing remains a targeted local tool used by councils to address specific local issues through more intensive proactive enforcement—for example, anti-social behaviour and those types of issues. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately, and we will continue to review how licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses. Organisational landlords will use the GOV.UK One Login service to log in and authenticate. This is a service widely used across government and is built in accordance with government technology standards.

The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Howard and Lord Jamieson, all asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability, and requiring landlords to initiate registration directly supports that by ensuring that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset. Letting and property agents will still be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy health and safety information to them.

Responsibility for ensuring that the registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through this database. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his response on the regulation of property agents and I will feed that back to my right honourable colleague in the other House.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about what data will be published. This instrument does not decide what information will be published; the public-facing database will be brought forward through secondary legislation once the initial rollout period is complete. At that point, tenants will be able to access necessary and proportionate information about landlords and rental properties, including some of the issues that the noble Baroness referred to about landlord enforcement actions that have been taken. We will carefully balance the benefits of transparency with landlords’ privacy rights, safety concerns and data protection requirements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also asked how to identify landlords who do not register. When the public-facing database is available, tenants and others will be able to tell the database that their rental property is not registered, as they will be able to check. That can be passed on to the local housing authority.

To conclude, this instrument is the practical next step in delivering the PRS database. It sets the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will need as regional rollout begins. By doing so, these regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

May I follow up on a couple of points that the Minister made? She talked about testing the database, and I appreciate the comments she made about how it was the Conservatives who started looking at a database. My point is to try to understand what testing has been done.

I know that a number of noble Lords on this side, and presumably the Minister herself, will have received a lot of emails from large landlords, various groupings of landlords and so forth, raising these sorts of issues. Clearly, they are not happy if they have been part of the testing system. Has this been testing where an individual person is trying to import a single property? I think that we largely acknowledge that the system could work reasonably well for that. It was different for multiple properties or for where a landlord was not very familiar with all the regulations and so forth and was reliant on their agents. It would be very interesting if the Minister could give a bit more information about whether this involved bulk-inputting of property.

The Minister slightly glossed over the key point here by saying, “You could cut and paste”. I know that we have all filled in forms by cutting and pasting, but that still means having to go individually into each form to cut and paste—and believe me, from past experience, that is where you get more errors.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

For an intervention at the end of a speech, this is getting a bit long now, so perhaps the noble Lord could conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am afraid that this is quite an important issue, and a number of issues have been raised. We are going to get a lot of data problems here.

My point about an apartment block, again, is that most of those apartments may not be the same or identical, and they have to be registered individually, but there needs to be an ability to provide bulk information and then have separate individual registrations. We do not disagree with that. Otherwise, as I have said before, the risk is that there will be hundreds of repeated entries. Could the Minister clarify that real question: why is this not being tested in the real world—not offline testing—where agents would have bulk entries and so forth?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There has been a lot of testing going on since 2023. If the noble Lord is happy with this, I will get some more information about how the testing has worked, what has been tested and so on. However, the figures were fairly outstanding —we had an 80% rating of “clear” or “very clear” on the registration guidance; and 90% reported that the service was “very easy” or “easy” to use—but I can give more detail about how this was tested, if that would help. I will get the noble Lord some more information on that.

It is not in the Government’s or landlords’ interest and certainly not in the tenant’s interest—at the heart of this is enabling tenants to have access to more transparent information—for this database not to work. So we have made sure that it works before its implementation in December, and we will continue to work with the sector to improve it as we go along.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

It may have had 90% acceptability among the people who used it, but my key point was: who?

Motion agreed.

Home Building Target

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are a number of issues that we need to address. One is the rural homes exception, which we have thought about. Local authorities need to make sure that they have enough rural housing in their local plans. We need to make sure that we have rural homes exception policies, so that local people can determine what housing is built where. There is also the issue of making sure the services are there to support rural housing. All these issues are important, and we must bring those together as we make sure there is sufficient housing in rural areas.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister frequently trumpets the Government’s £39 billion social homes programme as a means of accelerating housing delivery. Can she tell the House how many social homes will be completed and occupied by July 2029 through this grant? Would she categorise that figure as a firm commitment or a “slim chance” target, as the Secretary of State describes the commitment to 1.5 million new homes by July 2029?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I say it is a great investment, because it is an enormous investment in social and affordable housing. Significantly, the previous Government left us in a housing crisis, so I will not take any criticism from the other side about investing in social housing. The funding that Homes England is committing now will deliver 73,500 homes via strategic partnerships. The GLA intends to offer allocations of at least £8 billion and will set out shortly the number of homes it expects to achieve through the initial allocation. We will consider whether a national central government target or ambition is appropriate in this regard.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as usual I declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. There are positive aspects to this Bill, as outlined by my noble friend Lady O’Neill at the start. However, there are also many deficiencies, and I thank the many noble Lords who have raised such issues as the age of maturity, representation of British citizens abroad, the lack of true engagement, not addressing social media and the risk of bias in these donation rules. There is not time for me to debate all these issues today, so I am going to focus on some of the Bill’s contradictions.

The Minister has said the Bill will address loopholes in donations. However, it fails to address one of the most glaring loopholes. As confirmed by the Minister in a Written Answer, Chinese, Iranian and Russian citizens on the electoral roll in Scotland and Wales can make uncapped donations, whereas in England foreign nationals cannot donate, other than certain EU and Commonwealth citizens who are not entitled to vote. Is it right to limit the amount British nationals can donate while allowing Chinese, Iranian and Russian nationals living in Scotland and Wales on a temporary basis to make donations?

The Bill seeks to address unregistered voters through auto-enrolment and a modified reduced threshold. Have the Government truly thought through the implications of this? In an increasingly mobile society, the scope for errors is significant and the bureaucracy involved potentially huge. There is already an obligation for everyone contacted by an ERO to respond and verify their eligibility. Now we have the reverse situation. They will be on the electoral roll unless they prove that they are not eligible. Students or contractors who frequently move address could end up with multiple registrations and in many instances may not even be aware. You may say that this does not matter, but it does. The robustness of the electoral roll is fundamental to election integrity. The electoral roll is also used for other purposes, such as credit and fraud checks. The Bill is also not clear on what an ERO needs to do to find all these potential new voters, and I would appreciate the Minister giving clarity on this matter.

The Bill will also water down the integrity of voting. Photo ID is working. Why do we need to introduce a less secure form of ID? A bank card is not a secure form of ID, as the Electoral Commission has made clear. By way of an example, my father and I share the same name. How will a poll clerk differentiate us? Yet even the mildest scrutiny of a driving licence would establish that we are different people. In fact, there are an estimated 2,000 J Jamiesons in the UK. The Minister is not here at the moment, but she is even more popular than me, with an estimated 12,000 S Taylors in the UK. I would appreciate the Minister explaining how this improves integrity of voting.

Finally, I will address two issues this Bill is not addressing. First, the fragmented nature of electoral law causes significant issues of operation and interpretation, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has said today and previously many times. It is overly complex and conflicting. Do we really need another Bill that adds to that complexity? Secondly, according to the Electoral Commission, as has been mentioned by one or two other noble Lords, two-thirds of candidates faced abuse at this year’s local elections, which I can attest to from personal experience. We support robust debate, but if good people are unwilling to stand, if candidates are restricted in campaigning, if politicians are constrained in what they say from fear of abuse, it fundamentally undermines democracy and harms our country. We support the measures in this Bill to protect election officials and candidates, but much more needs to be done. In particular, why is online abuse and misuse of AI not a greater priority?

Home Owners and Home Ownership

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for bringing forward an essential debate on housing and home ownership. It has been quite an enlightening debate across the House. I think there has been quite a lot of agreement and I would not say disagreement but puzzlement because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly says, this is a very complex issue. It will require trade-offs and there is no simple solution. I do not think anyone knows what outcome we all desire. There are so many different outcomes, whether it is housing numbers, affordability, security of tenure and so forth.

However, I think we can identify the biggest problems. Housing is the single biggest cost facing most families. It puts enormous pressure on household budgets. Too many people are living in overcrowded accommodation, paying too much rent or mortgage and increasingly unable to live anywhere near where they work. My noble friend Lady Eaton gave some statistics about how many people would like to own their own home. I will not repeat them, but there are some other good statistics from that survey. Some 65% of people believe it is harder to buy or rent today than it was for their parents, and 62% believe that housing is on the wrong track.

Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Seccombe, the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, and the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, raised the benefits of being able to own their own home and how it helped them or people related to them in their lives. We are unashamedly the party of home ownership. We recognise that not everyone will want to buy—that is perfectly legitimate—but everybody should have the opportunity to do so. Those who rent should have access to affordable, secure alternatives.

Sadly, this situation has deteriorated since Labour came into power. One-year mortgage costs have risen from around 5% to 5.7% and average rents are up 10% to £1,450 a month. This is not simply a housing crisis; it is a growth crisis. Building homes creates jobs, investment and economic activity, but the wider economic benefit is even greater. If people can afford to live close to where they work, businesses can recruit more easily, productivity improves and our towns and cities become more vibrant.

Look at London, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Rents for a two-bedroom flat in central London are above £2,000 a month. Someone needs to earn close to £100,000 a year to be able to afford to live in the centre of our capital city. That is not realistic. Alternatively, people face a punishing daily commute or overcrowding. Is it any wonder that London is losing its appeal as a destination for graduates and skilled workers?

We have repeatedly debated housing in this House. Since Labour’s election, every time I speak on this subject the position appears to worsen. The Government talk about building 1.5 million homes, but this is an ambition; it is not delivery. Delivery fell again last year, by 3%, to around 200,000 homes. By contrast, the last Conservative Government delivered their target of 1 million homes in four and a half years. The pipeline is getting weaker, as others have mentioned. Only 1,220 sites for private housing received planning permission in England in the first quarter of this year, down from the 2,000 sites approved in 2022.

When I first became a councillor in 2009, my priorities were about improving services, rebuilding the local leisure centre, reducing costs and fixing potholes. Those things all matter, but I quickly learned that in the long term nothing is more important than planning, than building great communities, good housing, infrastructure, local jobs, schools, leisure, public services and beautiful homes, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne.

We have all seen the transformative effects of successful regeneration, whether it be King’s Cross, Brindleyplace in Birmingham or Kidbrooke Village in Greenwich. The Minister has on occasion suggested that I am a little too focused on London and brownfield development. I make no apology. Yes, there will be need for development on greenfield land, but our greatest missed opportunity is the failure to build enough homes in our towns and cities where there is the greatest demand. MHCLG’s own figures show that two-thirds of local authorities failing to meet the housing delivery test of 75% are essentially urban areas, and 21 of London’s 33 boroughs are also failing this test. The housing crisis is particularly acute in London. Since 2016, the number of households in temporary accommodation has increased by 50% to 76,000. There are more statistics, but we do not have the time.

The cost of building has also soared. It is not one regulation or levy: it is the cumulative effect of layer upon layer of additional costs, building levies, landfill tax, building safety requirements, Section 106, the future homes standard and others. That is not to say that any one of them is not valid in its own right, but the cumulative effect is clear: the Home Builders Federation estimates that the cost of building a low-rise home has increased by £76,000 since 2020. The Government argue that that will be reflected in lower land prices and so forth, but that ignores the reality. The problem is particularly acute on brownfield land, where remediation and build costs are often higher and the land value has higher alternative use. If we genuinely want to regenerate our cities, gentle densification of urban areas is essential. We must make brownfield land viable. We cannot load so many costs on to a development that the finished product costs more than people can afford. Manchester is an example: the council and the mayor recognised the need for compromise, including on affordable housing targets, and homes were built.

The principle is simple. If you want more affordable homes, the cost of building them must be below the price that people can afford to pay, whether to buy or to rent. The Government need to change direction. You cannot tax your way to growth, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. The Social Housing Bill will undermine the right to buy—one of the greatest engines of social mobility that we have seen. If the proceeds are reinvested, this will also drive more housing and more availability of social housing. The Renters’ Rights Act risks yet more landlords leaving the sector, reducing supply and putting upward pressure on rents while undermining the build-to-rent sector.

By contrast, the Conservatives have proposed positive measures, such as removing stamp duty on housing—as mentioned by my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Evans of Rainow—which would free up the market and reduce the cost of buying your home. It is not just the deposit; when you have to find another £20,000 for stamp duty, buying a home gets even more difficult. Removing stamp duty would allow people to do what we used to do: buy a very cheap one-bedroom studio somewhere that is maybe not the most salubrious location and move up the housing ladder. That is no longer possible with stamp duty.

Finally, the Government should stop distracting councils with top-down local government reorganisation. We warned that this would consume local authorities’ time and resources, and that the Government’s proposals would not work. I am sad to say that we have been proved right not once but twice—please do not prove us right a third time. Will the Government commit to reviewing the burdens placed on urban brownfield development? Will they look at what support they can give buyers, such as Help to Buy, and when will they publish the report they commissioned on Help to Buy?

On the grey belt, will they ensure that those commitments in the NPPF are held to by developers, and that they do not walk back from them on the basis of viability? The Minister committed to a shared ownership review, which—as we discussed during the debates on the Social Housing Bill—if done properly, is another great way to get on the housing ladder. When will the Government move forward with that review and publish it? Is there a timetable?

Britain does not need more targets—it needs delivery. It needs homes people can afford in places where they want to live and work. It needs a planning system that enables rather than obstructs development, and a Government prepared to remove the burdens that make new homes unaffordable. If we get housing right, we do more than solve the housing crisis; we unlock growth, improve productivity, strengthen communities and give the next generation something that too many are being denied today: the chance to call a home their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify a couple of things? First, there was a lot of discussion on planning and there was some recognition that some of the things in the NPPF—not necessarily all—are positive. The biggest issue now is not just getting planning permission but the viability of the site. The Minister did not address that issue, other than mentioning a temporary measure in London. If it is not viable to build in London, then it is not viable not just on a temporary basis. Will the Government consider extending that? What else will they do, as I mentioned in my contribution, to make sites viable, possibly by reducing these levies and regulations on sites?

Secondly, if the Minister wishes me to share with her the full calculations of how we would fund the stamp duty cut, then I would be happy to do so.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we continue to have active discussions with the sector on viability. There are elements in the National Policy Planning Framework that look at that, and we continue to debate this very important issue. The immediate crisis was in London, and we worked with the mayor and his team to introduce measures that we hope will help with that. Homes England is looking at it as well, so we continue to explore that.

We have to be careful about broad statements about how we are going to cut away at the welfare bill. It is easy to say we are going to chop the welfare bill and do this, that or the other with the money. It is when it comes to actually saying which bit of the welfare bill you are going to cut that the difficulties start to arise.

Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her introduction to these regulations and my noble friend Lord Roborough for his amendment and thoughtful words. I also thank other noble Lords who participated in this debate for their thoughtful words. I think there is universal agreement that these regulations do not work.

We all want to see our natural environment preserved, but people also need somewhere to live. There are 1.34 million people on council waiting lists. Homes in many parts of England are simply unaffordable, with the average home costing 10 times average London wages. For private renters, rent is taking an increasing proportion of household income, about 40% in England and nearly two-thirds for some of the lower-income households. The situation is worsening, with Pepper Money estimating that there are 220,000 fewer rental properties as landlords exit the market following the Government’s Renters’ Rights Act.

We have a housing crisis, but the Government continue to make the situation worse. Despite their commitment to build 1.5 million new homes, only 200,000 were delivered last year, down 4% on the previous year. By contrast, the Conservatives delivered 1 million homes, as promised, over the last Parliament, and that included the impact of Covid. The Government continue to increase the burdens on housebuilding, which ultimately increases the cost to home buyers and renters. It is not just any one regulation or levy but the continual layering of additional burdens: the building levy, landfill tax, high-rise building safety, Section 106 and the future homes standard, among others. The Home Builders Federation estimates that the cost of building a low-rise home has increased by 76,000 since 2020.

It is easy to say that this should be reflected in the price of land, but often the value is simply not there, particularly for brownfield land. With the poor economic outlook and increasing interest rates, people cannot afford higher house prices or rents. If the cost of building is greater than the sales price, homes will not be built, and I fear that in many areas of the country we are approaching that point.

We do not dispute that harm to nature must be managed, mitigated and compensated for. It is a crucial consideration for any planning application, but people also need somewhere to live. During debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, mitigation hierarchy, viability and mandation were discussed and assurances sought by this House. We need developments to provide infrastructure, whether it is schools, roads or health facilities, as well as affordable homes, but these regulations risk cuts to these in order to make sites viable.

My noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Roborough and Lady Coffey all raised the effectiveness and efficiency of Natural England. Do we really want it to be judge, jury and executioner, setting the policy, determining whether it has been met and then setting up its own schemes and levies with no accountability? Do we want it to be able to create its own monopoly and eliminate competition, as in the Solent, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter?

The Minister has said that Natural England will be accountable to the Secretary of State, but is it realistic that the Secretary of State will be able to evaluate fully the financial effectiveness of every EDP and all the potential competing schemes that are being eliminated for it, not to mention the needs of every single site that might be affected by it? I am not sure that this is realistic. The Minister has said that this will not be an obligation on developers. However, the regulations are littered with words such as “obligation”, “imposed”, “mandatory” and “enforcement”.

We must also reduce our reliance on major housing developers, yet it is the smaller developers which will be most exposed to the individual costs and levies of these regulations. What assurances can the Minister give that viability will be a core part of these regulations; that schools, infrastructure and affordable homes will not lose out; that Natural England will not be able to impose a mandate; and that consideration will be given to SME builders, with recognition of the need to prioritise brownfield? As my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge pointed out, when will we see the impact assessment of these regulations?

We need a balance between the need to preserve our environment and the need for housing. Regulators need to be accountable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I just clarify a couple of comments that she made? She was very clear that there would be an option as to whether one went with the Natural England EDP. Can we be absolutely clear that that will always be the case, particularly when Natural England is marking its own homework and deciding whether the mitigation put in place by a developer, whatever that is, is sufficient or not? Secondly, she said that it would be mandatory only in very specific situations and gave the example of an EDP that was specifically brought forward for a particular large development. Can she be clear that that is the only instance in which it would be mandatory? Thirdly, I think she said that developers cause pollution. I believe additional housing results in additional burdens on nutrient neutrality; it is not necessarily that the developer itself is polluting. The Minister might want to clarify that one.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will clarify that, in all but exceptional circumstances, EDPs are voluntary for developers. The Planning and Infrastructure Act establishes that Natural England can recommend that use of an EDP be mandatory only where it deems it to be necessary. This is a high legal bar, and it would ultimately be for the Secretary of State to consider whether an EDP is made. Given that the vast majority of EDPs will be voluntary, if an EDP is not a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers will continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits that the NRF is designed to achieve.

We want to make this process work better for nature while continuing to allow the growth we all want to see take place, particularly housing growth. There is no doubt in my mind that we could not carry on as we were. We have had to make some changes to make sure that we protect our natural environment and get the growth we want to see.

Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, to her new role. I look forward to working with her; I am sure that we will agree on some occasions, maybe more than most. Let me say right from the beginning that we Liberal Democrats accept the technical changes in this SI, because in effect that is what they are. The amendments are sensible, practical and entirely necessary to prevent any chaos following the levy’s coming into force in October.

The positive changes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has referred are important to remove the loophole of previously developed land. Developers are very good at finding loopholes, so that is important. The spot check and having a strict notification period are also important, as well as separating purpose-built student accommodation from being classed alongside residential. That is positive and we support it.

The Government have set a target of raising £3.4 billion, which is good. However, they are planning to raise this over 10 years. In the first year, the levy raises zero. In the second year, it raises—these are estimates I found from, I think, the Office for Budget Responsibility—just £55 million. By the fifth year, so in 2030-31, it will raise £395 million a year, so over the first five years it will raise just £1 billion of the £3.4 billion that it is estimated to raise. I guess there will be reasons for that, but it is unlikely to raise significant sums in the first couple of years.

Once you have in mind that that is how the funding is going to be and that it will be five years before anything significant comes into the coffers to support remediation, you say to yourself that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was nearly 10 years ago and the Government are still having to find ways of raising sufficient funds to pay for remediation on top of the £5.1 billion, I think, that they have put aside. About 50 major developers have signed up to a scheme to fund it. The Minister has just said that there is no justification for buildings to remain unsafe, but 46% of buildings have not even had work started on them.

Although the levy is important, and I accept the positive changes that are being made, the lack of urgency in all this is worrying, especially if you live as a leaseholder in one of those blighted apartments. I say “blighted” because, if you are a leaseholder waiting for flammable cladding to be removed or safety defects to be remedied, you are stuck in that flat because you cannot sell or remortgage. You are stuck. That is 10 long years, more so when this levy is coming to light.

I have some questions for the Minister. Considering that only £1 billion will be raised in the first five years, who will then fund any of the schemes that would be funded under this levy? How will they be funded? Presumably, nobody is going to say, “You can’t get on and do it because we haven’t got the money coming into the coffers just yet”. Is there any way that the Government could find to accelerate the scheme so that more funding comes in in the first five years? That would give leaseholders some hope. My next question is also about leaseholders. Despite the Government’s best efforts, which I support, some of them are still finding that freeholders and management companies are putting some of the costs on to service charges. How can the Government get the message out to leaseholders that that is not right and that they can go to First-tier Tribunals to challenge it?

I have said all along in this terrible situation that the one group of people who are completely innocent is the leaseholders. They do not even own the bricks and mortar; they lease the space in between the bricks and mortar. They should not be paying anything. Anything that the Government can do to protect them further would be welcome. Having said that, I support what is in the statutory instrument.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to her role on the Front Bench. It is great to see her. I remember the number of times that we stood on opposite sides in the LGA. We move on, and we are still in the same relative position.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations to make corrective amendments to the levy regulations introduced last year. We recognise the need to make buildings safe—it is important—and the role that the levy plays in that, and the need for clarity. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who rightly raised the time it is taking to make these buildings safe and that, in effect, people are trapped within them. Recently, on the Social Housing Bill, we raised the issue of shared ownership, which is in a particularly egregious position.

We welcome some of the changes: the earlier deadline for the authorities responsible for collecting and administering the levy to notify the person who is liable of an information check. But can the Minister confirm that authorities will have the capacity to meet these earlier deadlines? The Government have also made the decision not to take forward an extended exemption threshold for major residential development in the levy regulations. Can the Minister please expand on the rationale behind this decision?

I want to touch on something else, because we have a housing crisis and a shortage of housing, and we are not building enough. The regulations include amending the definition of a previously developed site, whereby 75% of the land has to be previously developed. The SI now clarifies the treatment of fixed-surface type infrastructure and unlawful operations and excludes wholly underground buildings from the definition, as well as underground parts of buildings, from the 75% calculation. As I understand it from the impact assessment, this will result in an increase in charges to developers, as less brownfield land comes within the scope of the 50% discount to the standard rate. I do not know how to interpret that, so I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify it and the level of the increase.

We have said on many occasions, and I believe that there is support across the House, that we should prioritise brownfield development. Ostensibly, this discount prioritises brownfield development. However, given that the levy relates to the value of property, its impact is greater on brownfield sites in urban areas of high value, such as London. While the revised impact assessment suggests that this will be taken off the land value, in practice, much of the additional cost will be factored into the sales price and borne by the purchaser. This is particularly so on brownfield land, where the existing use is obviously not subject to these costs. Indeed, many alternative uses, such as retail, care homes and data centres, would not be subject to this cost.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will add a Cross-Bench voice to the thanks due to the Minister and the Bill team, not just for listening in numerous meetings to the case made for a series of amendments that we proposed but for the actions being taken as a result. As I can testify from many years of trying to improve the housing Bills that come before us, change seldom follows directly from the adoption of an unaltered amendment accepted by, or imposed on, the Government. But change can be achieved none the less, and in this Bill, thanks to commitments made by the Minister, progress has been forthcoming on a range of important issues.

The value of these improvements, which will be embodied in better guidance from government, statutory instruments that contain the small print and, yes, some government amendments, should not be underestimated. They include better-defined exemptions for right-to-buy sales in rural areas, pressed for by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and me; additional protections for tenants in domestic abuse cases, championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and her supporters; better practice for those losing their social housing because police advice has been to leave accommodation targeted by violent gangs; a longer timescale for housing associations to notify local authorities before selling off precious social housing, achieved after several fruitful meetings involving the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Local Government Association and others; and clarification of the law to enable social landlords to gain access to properties to carry out safety checks, but only after meeting strict conditions for assessing vulnerability for tenants, giving adequate notice before entry and so on, as advocated by the tenant representatives of the G15 residents’ group.

The Bill has led to a whole range of significant changes, mostly non-legislative but effective none the less, thanks to the Minister listening and acting—not least in response to the Cross-Benchers’ representations. This is much appreciated.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I trust that everyone has had the opportunity to recharge their batteries over the summer, as I see that we have a rather busy schedule over the coming few months. The Recess provided an opportunity to reflect on the Bill. As mentioned by my friends in the Liberal Democrats, despite being named the Social Housing Bill, its real focus has been to restrict tenants’ rights to buy their own homes. We oppose that approach.

Right to buy has been one of the greatest drivers of social mobility this country has ever seen, enabling millions of families to build capital and stand on their own two feet. We are the party of opportunity, while it seems the party opposite and others favour increased state dependency. We on these Benches believe that combining right to buy with a one-for-one replacement policy with 100% retention of sale proceeds, as introduced by the last Conservative Government, would see increased availability of social homes and deliver the new homes that we all want to see.

With 1.34 million people on council housing waiting lists, we have also sought to address how the current stock of 5.3 million social homes is managed—cracking down on fraud, reducing underoccupation, encouraging those who can afford it to move on and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, looking at greater transparency. This move could free up hundreds of thousands of social homes for those British citizens truly in need.

We pursued amendments to address the problems within shared ownership. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for his work in this area. We appreciate the Minister’s commitment to look at this, but I am at one with my noble friend in saying that more needs to be done. This is a key area.

We strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling the issues that domestic abuse victims face in the social housing system. This House discussed its practical implementation.

Finally, I place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for the time she has taken to engage outside the Chamber and for the considerable work she has done in steering the Bill through the House. Her professionalism has been greatly appreciated across your Lordships’ House. I thank my noble friends for their support over the many hours in this Chamber and all noble Lords who have engaged generously throughout. In particular, I thank my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I also thank those not in the Chamber—Amrita, Richard, Hannah and Henry—who all provided considerable help. I thank all the staff and doorkeepers. Fortunately, this Bill was not quite as long and strenuous as some of the other Bills we have debated.

The Bill may not deliver the housing that our country needs, but our debates have shown that your Lordships’ House remains committed to addressing this issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in welcoming everyone back to the House. I omitted to do that when I stood up earlier. It is great to be back here. If the noble Lord thinks this Bill has been a bit less painful, I remind him that we have the elections Bill next; I look forward to those debates.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments. She is quite right that this is a very narrowly scoped Bill. The title might perhaps suggest otherwise, but the reason it has been so narrowly focused is that there is a complete review of the allocations process going on simultaneously, and those things can be changed without going through a primary legislation route.

The noble Baroness was right to refer to both shared ownership and rural issues; both are things that we are still debating. The noble Lord, Lord Young, also raised the issue of shared ownership. The department looks forward to further discussions with him as the Bill makes its progress through the Commons. I will be happy to meet him at any time to try to move this on.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all the work he did during the passage of the Bill, particularly around access for safety issues. It is key that our housing providers are able to access. We put a lot of stress on them in insisting that their properties are safe, and they need support to do that. There is more work to be done before we can move that forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I have fundamental differences about the purpose of this Bill. Our Government are not withdrawing right to buy—we do not think that is the right thing to do—but the fatal flaw in the right-to-buy process was not replacing those properties. There are towns such as mine where we went down from over 30,000 council homes to 8,000; that has been a big generator of some of the housing issues that we have seen over the years. This Bill aims to make sure that we get the balance right in giving people the opportunity to buy their own home without impacting unnecessarily on that housing supply. The issues around fraud and underoccupation that the noble Lord mentioned can be dealt with outside legislation; I know that councils are looking at that all the time as well. I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made.

Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I make the House aware of my potential interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which neighbours this area. I support my noble friend Lord Lansley in his amendment. I was going to say how important Cambridge is to the economy of the UK, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, has done a far better job than I can. It is an absolute critical part if this country is going to be successful and have the growth that it desperately needs. However, Cambridge is hamstrung by a lack of housing, infrastructure and commercial space for biolabs, technology and so forth. You have a town of around 150,000 which every day, according to the 2021 census, has 55,000 commuters coming in—bearing in mind that that was during Covid, the actual number is probably far higher—largely by car.

The Government are right that Cambridge needs to grow. That is why I was pleased that the last Government progressed with east-west rail, the A14 dualling and the A428 Caxton Gibbet to the A1, but there is much more to do. Cambridge, as I said, needs more housing, lab space and commercial space. It also needs to work with other areas of the wider geography. It is not just the Ox-Cam arc; it is the golden triangle, spanning Oxford to Cambridge to London, which is a global powerhouse in technology and biotech among others. It encompasses the Minister’s Stevenage, and it has central Bedfordshire at its geographic heart.

A DCO can be a useful delivery mechanism, but it needs to be one built on local support, functional geography and democratic accountability. It must have clear outcome-based objectives, with resources and powers linked to those outcomes. The Minister mentioned the negative instrument which is to come that will outline those, but I feel that is very much the cart coming before the horse. If you are going to look at the organisation, you need first to know what it will do and what its powers are. Then there is the question of local government reorganisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned. We may set up a geography here only for it to change completely in a few months’ time.

The issue of geography is very important. Major projects and developments just outside the proposed area could have huge impact. Tempsford new town is potentially almost as large as Cambridge itself. Around junction 13 of the M1, we have the new town in Milton Keynes, we have a large data centre, we have Universal and we have the Marston Vale development, which will have a huge impact, particularly on east-west rail, the M1 and east-west corridor travel. Then we have things such as the A1 realignment. That needs somehow to fit all together as a package.

Several noble Lords talked about planning powers. Clearly we need to know what the geography is when we look at the planning powers. If you are going to have a much bigger strategic overview, you should not have detailed planning powers. If you are going to have detailed planning powers, that raises the question: why can it not just be based on a council-led DCO rather than a centralised national DCO, or even a mayoral DCO?

I talked about resources. We have heard about a lack of water and we have talked about a lack of electricity. I know from my experience that development in Biggleswade could not go ahead until we had additional power, and there is a constant refrain of a lack of water. What powers will this DCO have over things such as Great British Railways, Anglian Water, highways and the electrical and power companies, not to mention east-west rail? Will it have defined outcomes and targets? Will it have a clear division of responsibilities between the DCO organisation, the local councils and others? I want to be clear on this because the Minister talked about strategic sites, and we discussed this during the passage of the planning Bill. Is “strategic” above nine houses? Is it above 500 houses? What size of development is it? I think many people have a different view of what strategic is.

Many have mentioned democratic oversight. How does central planning in government centralised body fit with the new Prime Minister’s promotion of devolution? I believe the answer will be the creation of so-called structured forums for local residents, but what are the details? What will their statutory status be? How will members be selected? What powers will they possess? How will their views influence decision-making? How will Ministers be held accountable if those views are ignored? It is for these reasons that I support my noble friend Lord Lansley in his amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.