Stamp Duty: Periodic Tenancies

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We had much discussion about this during the passage of the Act, and we are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to implement the reforms. Work is progressing well to ensure that the courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload that the reforms may generate. Work is also progressing on the new digital end-to-end service for resolving all possession claims in the county courts in England and Wales. Ultimately, the Act should reduce demand on the county courts, because possession claims will be able to be brought only where there is a valid reason for the landlord to do so.

The noble Baroness is quite right about local authorities. We are helping councils to build their enforcement capacity and get ready for implementation. We have provided new burdens funding, and we have funded the Operation Jigsaw network of local councils to deliver bespoke training on the Act.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, many noble Lords across the House raised concerns about its impact on the private rental market—with landlords leaving the market, seeking to raise rents and using Section 21 before the implementation of the Act, which does little to stop rogue landlords. Does the Minister consider the reports of Labour donor Asif Aziz’s company Criterion Capital issuing large numbers of Section 21 eviction notices, if true, a rational response to the Act or the action of a rogue landlord?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, the basis of the Renters’ Rights Act was made under the previous Government. We wanted to make sure that we tackle the issues in the housing market and have done so with a very effective piece of legislation. On mass evictions, the latest Ministry of Justice landlord possession action statistics published in February showed a 17% reduction in county court Section 21 landlord-accelerated possession claims in quarter 4 compared with the same quarter in 2024. We have given a strong message that responsible landlords have nothing to fear from the reforms; they will have access to a wide range of possession grounds where they are needed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the difficulty the public have with the word “consultation” is that they often dismiss it as being a mere sop by those who want to change the order of things, whatever that might be. Consultation is frequently used; it is a basic part of the planning process. Often, members of the public make representations based on planning law, the NPPF and local plans, but nevertheless the developers overcome those objections. It is the same with changes to the structure of local authorities. Consultation has become, “You can have your say, but in the end you’re going to be overruled”.

With something as serious as this, where land has been donated for public use for many years and held in trust—a word we need to reflect on—for public use, it should not be easy to remove that public trust, in effect removing the public from the trust. In my view, using a device called consultation is totally inadequate in those circumstances. There ought to be a different way of determining whether land should be taken out of that protection.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.

In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?

We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everybody for their patience while we have had to adjourn the Committee several times for voting. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his Amendment 222C and for his engagement on this matter. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank the noble Lord for his very careful consideration and constructive efforts to address the issue at hand. We need a mechanism to close this lacuna in the law, while ensuring balanced decisions can be made in the public interest. In my view, Amendment 222C does just that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, set out, and as we discussed during debates on what is now the Planning and Infrastructure Act, there is currently no way of releasing such statutory trust if the statutory advertisement procedure is not followed. This means that the land is bound by the trust in perpetuity, which can risk holding up important developments that may be in the public interest—for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The amendment would provide a practical solution to this issue, while still ensuring that balanced decisions are made in the public interest. The noble Lord helpfully set out the safeguards enshrined in the qualifying conditions, which the Secretary of State will have to consider to make a discharge order.

The issues around community rights are, of course, very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised this but the amendment would embed a robust public interest test and significant transparency safeguards. Before any statutory trust discharge order can be made, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all six of those qualifying conditions are met, including full compliance with the new publicity requirements and a broad public interest test. I remind the Committee that the conditions are: nature conservation, landscape conservation, public rights of access, features of historic interest or archaeological remains, development proposals, and economic, environmental or social benefits, which the order would facilitate, if made. This is a transparent, evidence-based process and it would ensure that trusts can be discharged only where it is demonstrably in the public interest to do so.

The purpose of Amendment 222C is to provide clarity for those who are already impacted by this lacuna in the law. It does not address past failures to follow the advertising procedure. However, it places additional requirements on local authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State to identify if this procedure has not been followed. Most importantly, the application process and advertising procedure in the amendment would maintain the core elements of the Local Government Act 1972 by ensuring that communities have opportunities to make representations, should they object to the release of the statutory trust held for public recreation.

The proposed amendment also provides that a statutory trust may be released only where this is in the public interest, which the advertised provision in the Local Government Act does not specify. I feel that, to some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has misunderstood the narrow focus and purpose of this amendment, and the rigorous guardrails that have been placed around it. We need a method of resolving an issue. This amendment effectively allows that public consultation to be responded to in a Secretary of State process where it has been omitted originally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I apologise for being a Johnny-come-lately, having left my noble friends to do all the heavy lifting on this Bill. I have come to raise only one issue: the concern that many of us have about the prevalence of gambling premises on our high streets.

In raising that issue, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and the chair of Action on Gambling. Many noble Lords will be aware of the serious concerns about the large number of gambling premises, particularly betting shops and adult gaming centres, on many of our high streets. Only a few weeks ago a Minister wrote in a Written Answer:

“Some high streets have become increasingly dominated by certain types of premises—including gambling establishments—which don’t always meet the needs of their communities. According to the Gambling Commission, the number of adult gaming centres (AGCs) rose by 7% between 2022 and 2024, with additional data showing that AGCs are most concentrated in areas of higher deprivation”.


That last point was confirmed by the NHS’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which confirmed that the most deprived local authorities have three times more gambling premises per head of population than the least deprived local authorities. Research shows not only very clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and all the problems that brings to the individuals, their families and their communities.

As a result, communities across the country have been demanding that local councils take action to stop the proliferation. But, as has been seen in many council areas—Peterborough, Brent and numerous others—they have come up against a stumbling block: Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. This is the so-called aim to permit section, under which the default position that councils have to take is that they must permit the use of premises for gambling unless there are specific reasons not to do so. Councils that have tried to stop new gambling venues have often had lawyers from the very powerful and wealthy gambling companies to contend with and have always ended up losing.

No wonder Brent Council, which has been leading a group of councils to try to bring about change to get more power, has come up with a little card pointing out that it is easier to block a fast food joint opening next door to a school than it is to stop a high street casino next door to a homeless shelter. Quite simply, planning and licensing authorities need additional powers to regulate the circumstances in which they authorise or reject premises being used for gambling.

On numerous occasions the Government have said that they wanted to do exactly this. The Pride in Place strategy, published on 25 September 2025, said:

“We … want to empower local authorities to curate healthy, vibrant public spaces that reflect the needs of their communities”.


It reaffirmed the Government’s commitment

“to strengthen councils’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets”.

That is a clear commitment and has been repeated by the Prime Minister and other Ministers time after time. Sadly, the answer has been not to rule out the aim to permit but to come up with another solution. This alternative way forward was based on the solution to a problem that used to exist when there was a growth in the number of premises selling alcohol, and it is the basis for my amendment today.

That solution enabled local authorities to review and consult on the number and impact of the existing relevant premises, including pubs, in a particular area. Are there too many? Are there enough, or could we have some more? That was called a cumulative impact assessment. If that CIA concluded that there were already enough pubs in an area and that an extra one would harm the well-being of the community, it could be used to reject a licence for an additional one.

That idea of a cumulative impact assessment being used for gambling premises was picked up by the Conservative Government when they were in power. Their White Paper on gambling said categorically:

“We will align the regimes for alcohol and gambling licensing by introducing cumulative impact assessments”,


for gambling licences,

“when Parliamentary time allows”.

The new Government have come to the same conclusion. The Prime Minister announced that it is the Government’s intention to introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows, and Ministers have used it time after time in answers to Written Questions.

During the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I argued that it provided the necessary parliamentary time, so I introduced an amendment that would have provided CIAs for gambling licences. The Government accepted that it was a great idea and they really wanted to do it, but told me that that was not the right Bill to do it in. I was confused at the time as to why that was but nevertheless accepted it. I am very much hoping that we have another Bill which is the right Bill in which to do it. My Amendment 235F would therefore bring forward, as I have done previously, the giving of the power to local councils to use cumulative impact assessments to address, where it is appropriate, concerns about additional gambling premises coming to a particular area.

I hope the Minister will agree at least in principle to the amendment. If she is in any way unhappy with any of the details, I hope she will agree to work with me and other interested parties so we can resolve them and bring back an amendment that is acceptable to all parties at a later stage in the Bill, therefore giving councils the additional powers they need to curb the proliferation of gambling venues with all the problems they can create on our high streets.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment. Having listened to his arguments, I believe he is right that local authorities should not only have the ability to but should take into account cumulative impact before deciding on planning applications for gambling premises.

This would not be an outright ban on premises being used for gambling, nor would it encourage local authorities to come to a particular conclusion or other. Rather, this would allow councillors to make a reference to cumulative impact assessments and adopt an evidenced-based approach on planning matters. Local authorities should be empowered to respond and make planning decisions according to their communities’ needs, and they are best placed to interpret the evidence and act proportionately. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his amendment, for all the work he continues to do on tackling gambling harms—it is much appreciated—and for raising this very important topic. I assure him the Government are committed to introducing cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing. Once introduced, these will help local authorities take evidence-based decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. They will also create a presumption against new gambling premises licences being granted in specific areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, this is not about banning gambling premises; it is about assessing the harms and being able to deal with those.

Anyone who has been a councillor will know the issue, how this works and how it can cause detriment to high streets, so I absolutely support the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. As drafted, it would introduce cumulative impact assessments to guide planning decisions. However, the cumulative impact assessments will be most effective for local authorities when specifically applied to the licensing process and licensing applications, rather than simultaneously applying to planning and licensing. This would match the approach already taken by licensing authorities when using cumulative impact assessments in relation to the licensing of alcohol premises, which the noble Lord mentioned. The planning and licensing regimes are separate legal frameworks. This amendment risks creating inconsistencies between a local authority’s planning process and licensing process.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would require the planning authority to consider a cumulative impact assessment published by the licensing authority during the planning process. By granting this power to the planning authority, the amendment risks conflating the licensing and planning regimes. The noble Lord is quite correct to say that licensing is in the scope of the Bill. However, this amendment would not allow local authorities to use cumulative impact assessments in the most suitable and effective way and risks creating conflict between the planning and licensing regimes. That is our concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the valuable contributions of noble Lords in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing this amendment forward. As has been highlighted, local area energy plans could be helpful in addressing how local energy infrastructure can cope with the pressure of increased housing and commercial targets from central government in the context of a changing energy environment in their local areas.

Paragraph (d) would also require that the Secretary of State’s report includes,

“proposals for funding, technical support, training, and capacity building initiatives”

to ensure that local authorities are capable and well-equipped to introduce local area energy plans. In addition, the amendment insists on clear evaluation, criteria and success metrics for any pilots carried out.

I commend the noble Lord on his amendment, which rightly recognises that authorities must have the means to ensure that the local energy infrastructure can meet the needs of economic and housing growth and provide resilient energy. However, I would hesitate before introducing a statutory requirement for local area energy plans. If we are serious about community empowerment and trusting local representatives to determine what is right for the areas, it should be up to individual local authorities to set targets for which local area energy plans might be needed. There is also the question of the resources and powers that would be given to local authorities, without which plans would be undeliverable.

Finally, and crucially, energy systems are part of a broader national energy system, where all parts must work together in an integrated manner. This cannot be looked at in isolation, although those plans will obviously be a hugely helpful contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for Amendment 241 and for meeting me to discuss his proposals. The Government continue to work in partnership with local government, recognising the important role that local authorities play in reaching net zero and achieving our clean power 2030 mission.

We recognise that in support of local and national net-zero targets some local authorities have developed local area energy plans and have found them very helpful. We also welcome the work that many local authorities have already undertaken to incorporate planning for future energy needs into work such as the development of local growth plans and their contribution to the development of regional energy strategic plans.

Perhaps there has been a slight misrepresentation of the fact that there is no co-ordination to this. It is being co-ordinated. In fact, NESO published the transitional regional energy strategic plan on 30 January 2026. These plan for energy needs over the next few years at a regional level but include a lot of energy-related data at a lower super output area—that is, neighbourhood level. This will influence business planning for distribution network operators across the country. NESO recently consulted on the methodology for enduring regional energy strategic plans, which will be developed in partnership with local communities and implemented by the end of 2028.

However, the amendment, as drafted, risks duplicating or constraining current activity in this area. For example, the recently published transitional regional energy strategic plans contain a wealth of data on energy at local authority level and neighbourhood level as well as an assessment of regional energy infrastructure need consistently across all regions.

The local net-zero hubs have also worked with Energy Systems Catapult on Ready for RESP to support local and regional stakeholders to help deliver energy system planning aligned with investment plans and planning needs. This work included updating which places have already developed local area energy plans. Local net-zero hubs’ most recent report, published on 5 February, sets out some of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to local decarbonisation plans. I welcome that as a very helpful approach to take. In parallel, the Government are aware of work undertaken by the Local Government Association to consider options for a statutory duty that we plan to discuss at a future, ministerially chaired, local net-zero delivery group.

We are sympathetic to the points raised in this debate and in previous debates on energy planning by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We are yet to be convinced that a national statutory requirement to produce local area energy plans would support local authorities rather than reducing their flexibility to produce plans that meet their needs. We continue to discuss with the Local Government Association and others the benefits of statutory duties on net zero, and we will continue current research in this area. I hope that, with these reasons and explanations, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

By opposing this clause and Schedule 34, Baroness Scott of Bybrook seeks to remove the ban on upward only rent reviews.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the stand-part notices and the amendment in the group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Our intention is to oppose Clause 85 and Schedule 34, which seek to abolish long-standing, upward-only commercial rent reviews, standing part of the Bill, while Amendment 254 proposes a review of the market impacts of rent review provisions. I speak with a deep concern for the stability, liquidity and long-term health of the commercial property market and for the businesses, pensions, investors and communities who depend on it.

Clause 85 and Schedule 34 would enact an outright ban on upward-only rent reviews in new and renewed commercial leases. This represents one of the most interventionist market reforms in modern commercial leasing, yet it arrives without the benefit of any industry consultation. The British Property Federation has been clear that it does not support the Government’s blanket ban and expresses its concern about the absence of proper consultation. Why are the Government not listening?

The existing evidence is clear. Upward-only rent reviews have long underpinned confidence in UK commercial property as an investment asset. These proposed changes have caused widespread concern in the sector. We have heard that upward-only rent reviews provide vital income certainty and support property valuations by ensuring that rental income cannot decline mid-lease—an important factor for institutional investors and particularly lenders assessing long-term risk. Lawrence Stephens, one of the main real estate lawyers, notes that outlawing upward-only rent reviews will undermine the perceived security of rental income and place developers at a disadvantage when seeking finance—a consequence that risks delaying regeneration projects and suppressing new commercial investment. There is a significant concern that the Government’s proposed changes will have a widespread impact on market stability and investment confidence, affecting everything from property values to regeneration projects. Can the Minister please tell us whether the Government have taken this analysis into account and how they plan to mitigate it?

The likely effects of these measures on business tenancies that the Government claim to support cannot be ignored. Landlords will inevitably respond to this change by front-loading rents and shortening lease terms to protect themselves against the prospect of downward-only risk exposure. This would most significantly impact the very businesses that the Bill says it aims to help, especially those that require stability over the long term.

My opposition to Clause 85 and Schedule 34 standing part of the Bill reflects several key concerns: reduced investment in liquidity, threatening regional development; shorter lease durations with fewer stable long-term tenancies; higher initial rents, counteracting the Government’s aim of supporting the high street; increased financing costs, making commercial development harder to deliver; and a slowing down of regeneration projects across the country, especially in areas dependent on external investment, thereby hampering growth, which the Government say is their number one priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for Amendment 234. I will start with the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34.

Upwards-only rent reviews have been a long-standing issue for businesses throughout England and Wales. The British Independent Retailers Association and UKHospitality gave evidence in the other place about just how damaging the practice is and why they have campaigned for decades for the Government to take action. The practice of upward-only rent reviews has an invidious effect on the efficiency and accessibility of the commercial property market—not to mention the impact on our high streets and town centres that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined. It is designed to ensure that landlords and investors are insured against market conditions, but there is a cost to this, which falls chiefly on the business tenants left paying excessive rents when they are already stretched to breaking point, unable to invest or improve their productivity, or, in times of hardship, to keep the lights on or pay their staff wages.

Ultimately, these clauses make running a business less viable, damaging the competitiveness of the economy. Alongside reform of business rates, banning these clauses will help make commercial rents fairer and more efficient, help businesses invest and give them greater resilience to economic conditions. In recognition that these clauses can provide some security to investors, we have committed to consult on how caps and collars could be used. I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to work carefully and closely with the property industry and others to implement this policy, help manage risk and maintain confidence in the market, without relying on one-sided mechanisms such as upwards-only rent review clauses.

I turn to Amendment 254. I understand the desire to consider the impacts of legislation once it has passed. However, 12 months is too limited a period to see the ban fully implemented and the market adjusted. The Bill’s impact assessment also finds that the ban is likely to have a net positive impact on the UK economy because it will make the commercial property market more efficient, reducing rents for tenants who can instead invest in their businesses and help keep consumer prices low. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. There may be a slight misunderstanding here. Our key point is that this is a very significant change to the commercial property market, and it has not been done with the industry. The Minister said that she would “work carefully and closely” to implement it. It would have been better to have worked closely and carefully with the industry in developing it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Our issue is with a blanket ban rather than looking at how we can come up with a potential system that works better for all parties. I am glad that she is more supportive of our amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am dreadfully sorry; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Can we have that officially minuted? I share those concerns. The key point is that we need something that works.

I wish to point out that upward-only rent reviews are nowhere near the biggest problem facing businesses up and down the high street. They are contending with devastating increases in business rates and are facing increased regulation, increases in national insurance charges and the effects of changes to the minimum wage. Although we would all like a higher minimum wage, it must be affordable.

The Government’s solution—tearing out a long-established market measure without proper consideration, without careful engagement with the sector and without understanding the consequences for investment and lending to commercial markets—is a high-risk strategy. The question today is not whether commercial tenants deserve fair terms—they do—but whether the proposal before us is the right one. There are too many uncertainties and risks that have been left unaddressed.

We will seek to revisit this issue on Report. I hope that, by then, the Government will have reflected on the concerns raised today and will come forward with proposals grounded not in assertion but in evidence, balance and economic reality. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my clause stand part notice.

Clause 85 agreed.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

As noble Lords can see, there are lots of questions here. I appreciate that there will not be any answers but, for me, bigger does not equal better—there is no evidence for that. I emphasise the value of enabling the link between the elected and the electors to remain a vibrant part of our democracy. Every other part of western Europe has a better ratio of electors to elected than this country does. The United States, despite everything that goes on there, has a much better ratio at various levels. In my view, this is an error on its own. Given that, and given the difficulties that this will create, I hope the Minister will be able to respond to some of my questions, in particular by telling us the debt levels of the councils that are being absorbed into both unitaries.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.

There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.

Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?

I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?

The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?

Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.

We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.

More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?

This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?

Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.

We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.

Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No, I did not say that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord asked me some questions around local elections going ahead outside Surrey, and I understand why he keeps pressing me on the point about the changes to the legal advice. The legal advice did change and that advice is privileged; I cannot give him the detail of what has changed in the advice, because that would mean that it is not privileged anymore. I am sorry not to be able to do that but, as he will be aware, following legal advice, the Government withdrew their original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May, and an order revoking the local authorities SI has now been laid in Parliament, as of 17 February. All local elections will now go ahead in May 2026.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.

On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.

On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.

This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.

New Housing: Flood Risk

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that Flood Re has provided cover for 346,000 household policies and 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, so I agree with the noble Earl that it has been a very valuable scheme. We know that all homes built since 2009 are excluded from Flood Re, as that would be inconsistent with current policy. With the planning policy, we are trying to make it clear that inappropriate development in flood plains should be avoided and, where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it should be made flood resistant, resilient and safe for the lifetime of the development.

Build Back Better is the UK home insurance sector initiative, which I am sure the noble Earl is aware of, and is designed to help home owners recover from flooding in a smarter way. It enables eligible policyholders to access £10,000 to install flood measures during repairs over and above the usual cost. We are looking at supporting those who have been at risk of flooding and, through the National Planning Policy Framework, making sure that we absolutely reduce that risk to a minimum.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, flood risk management is a complex issue that requires co-operation and collaboration between developers, local authorities, insurers and home owners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that institutional knowledge and specialist risk management expertise is not lost during local government reorganisation?

New Homes Target

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that as we go through this process of building more homes, we also create the jobs to go alongside that. We have been working very closely with the sector and particularly with the developer skills group to make sure that we invest in skills as we go along this path of building. It has been very supportive, to the extent of investing £140 million in skills alongside the skills funding that the Government have put in. It is very much committed to this. We welcome the Home Builders Federation statement in July 2024 looking to rapidly increase the pace at which homes are built, deliver the high-quality affordable homes that the country needs and provide the skilled jobs that we know we need to deliver that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, only a little over 300,000 additional homes have been delivered in the first 18 months of this Government. Given their target of 1.5 million homes, they will have to deliver at the rate of 342,000 homes a year. Previously, in response to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, the Minister said that they would achieve this by speeding up existing planning permissions. Given that housing starts continue to run at well below the average rate under the previous Conservative Government, can the Minister say when this will happen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It ill behoves the Government who caused the housing crisis to be pressing us on this. We have already taken very significant steps, which I have outlined, to move this forward. We updated the National Planning Policy Framework. It is early yet to see an impact from those changes. We expect to see the effects feeding through into a higher number of homes being granted permission later in the year. However, new figures show that already we are seeing some green shoots of recovery, with a 29% increase in housing starts compared with 2024. It will take time to turn the tide after decades of underinvestment and a failure to build the homes and infrastructure that we needed to keep up with demand. We expect housebuilding to ramp up, particularly in the later years of the Parliament, as our reforms take effect. We will continue on our mission to deliver those 1.5 million homes.

Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure landlords, tenants and local authorities are prepared for each phase of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, including funding allocated; and what plans they have for communicating changes ahead of the tenancy reforms this spring.

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

My Lords, we have given the sector a clear timeline for reform in our implementation road map. Ahead of phase 1 of implementation in May, we have already published guidance for landlords and local councils, and launched our communications campaign using social and main- stream media and partners to raise awareness. We have also allocated £18.2 million in new burdens funding to local councils in 2025-26, alongside funding for the justice system and Shelter’s expert housing advice line.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her response. Unfortunately, landlords are voting with their feet, exiting the market in ever higher numbers: 93,000 in 2025 and a forecast 110,000 this year, according to the Black & White Bridging report. The English Private Landlord Survey reports that 31% of landlords are looking to reduce their portfolio and 16% to exit completely. Can the Minister explain how this helps those desperately looking for a home to rent?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that landlords need time ahead of the implementation to make sure they are compliant with the reforms, and that is why we have published a full package of landlord guidance on GOV.UK to support the first phase of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May this year, including a draft written statement of terms so landlords know what information must be included in new tenancy agreements.

We continue to work constructively with the landlord sector. Officials recently spoke to over 1,000 landlords and letting agents at a webinar organised by Rightmove and attended the National Residential Landlords Association conference to speak directly to landlords impacted by the reforms.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for speaking. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular. I strongly support the stand part notices on Clause 59 and Schedule 27. The reason has been explained. This is a devolution Bill about community empowerment, but the Government are removing the right of local people to decide for themselves what system of governance they want.

We have this devolution Bill, but the Government decide the form of local governance and say that there will not be a committee system. Where are we now? We are in Parliament, operating as a Committee. I have spoken on this issue many times in recent years. The reason why I believe that we should encourage committee systems is that they decentralise power but, more importantly, they enable scrutiny to take place at the point of decision-making. All too often, scrutiny in local government takes place after the decision. We will debate this further on our eighth day in Committee but I think that this is a fundamental right. I just want to keep the right of a community to create the structure that it wants. That right lies in the Localism Act 2011.

I very much hope that we will come back to this issue on Report. However, there are rumours that we may not get a Report stage and may end up in wash-up prior to Prorogation, because there are not many weeks left. We have a further day in Committee on 5 March and we have to leave an interval to reach Report. Can the Minister tell us whether we are going to have a Report stage? Also, if we are going to have a Report stage, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will bring this back, because that would give us the power to say to the Government, “You have to think again on this issue. Do not tell local people in all local authorities what model they are required to adopt”.

In the Explanatory Notes, there are explanations for why the Government are undertaking this, but, frankly, they are spurious. They claim that there is evidence, but I do not know what the evidence is. In the end, why do we not just trust local people to make decisions? Otherwise, 56 million people in England will continue to be run out of London and Whitehall.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to continue what seems to be an emerging consensus and a Sheffield love-in. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was the leader in Sheffield when I was at Sheffield University and I will always be grateful for the 10p bus rides that I was able to take.

As we have discussed, these amendments concern the committee system. Let us be frank: this is a devolution Bill. I reiterate yet again that this side of the Committee and these Benches believe in democracy and in devolution. If you believe in those two things, this is about allowing and empowering local communities to decide what is best for them.

I was leader of Central Bedfordshire and operated under the strong-leader model, which worked well for Central Bedfordshire. I am sure it will work well in many other places but, if local communities believe that the committee system is best for them, they should be given that opportunity. Does the Minister believe in devolution and local democracy and will she allow local communities to decide the governance model that best meets their needs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I turn first to my noble friend’s intention to oppose the clause and Schedule 27 standing part of the Bill.

This clause and the related schedule will bring further consistency to local authority governance arrangements across England. As your Lordships may know, the Government still have a strong preference for executive models of governance. We believe, and I believe because I have operated in both, that the leader-and-cabinet model, already operated by over 80% of councils, provides a clearer and more easily understood governance structure and can support more efficient decision-making.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meeting-intensive, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving 78 out of 82 councillors. Co-ordination across individual committees is a persistent challenge. The same peer challenge for Cheshire East flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments, contributing towards challenges of service delivery and communication.

Several councils that have tried committees have later reverted to the leader-and-cabinet model, for example Brighton and Hove in 2024. This is wasteful of both time and resources. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge. Councils that return to the leader-and-cabinet model, such as Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, have judged it to be more transparent, agile and accountable.

At the same time, we recognise the genuinely held concerns of those councils that have adopted the committee system following a public referendum or a council resolution. That is important and I take seriously the words of noble Lords who have raised that. The Government’s amendments made in the other place to these provisions were intended to allow some councils that have recently adopted the committee system, following either a council resolution or a public referendum, to continue operating that governance model until the end of their moratorium period. At that point, the local authority will be required to undertake and publish a review of whether it should move to the leader-and-cabinet executive model or retain its committee system. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent governance model for local authorities across England and respecting local democratic mandates and voter expectations where councils are currently operating a committee system and are within their current moratorium periods. With these points in mind, I invite my noble friend to support these measures.

I turn to the government amendments in this group. As I have set out, the Government introduced an amendment in the other place to allow certain councils operating the committee system to continue to do so where they were within their statutory moratorium periods. The Government are now bringing forward additional amendments to clarify the circumstances in which a local authority’s committee system may be protected from the requirement to adopt the leader-and-cabinet executive model. This will mean that the protection period applies only where the council has previously adopted the committee system following either a council resolution or a public referendum and is within its statutory moratorium period at the point this provision is commenced.

The amendments clarify that the prior resolution to change governance must be made under Part 1A of the 2000 Act. This will ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England and respecting more recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations. It will also reduce disruption where councils are operating a committee system within their statutory moratorium period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. The Minister and I corresponded on many calls. Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Some councillors fell asleep live on YouTube—not in my council, I hasten to add. Others went to the toilet, got undressed or got out of the shower. Children bumbled in. There was that famous meeting where a woman had no authority but managed to cut the other chap out; I cannot remember her name, but we all know the one. So, yes, it can work, and there are safeguards.

I completely disagree with proxy voting, so I have no truck with Amendment 219. However, I am broadly sympathetic with Amendments 218 and 220, which are trying to ask how we can participate remotely, although I find it difficult to support them as they are currently constructed.

This is complicated. There are different types of meeting, and each has different consequences. There is the full council meeting, in which everyone gets together. It is important that everyone gets together to cast their vote as a council rather than as a set of individuals sitting at home—in their underpants, let us say. There are executive meetings and cabinet meetings. They are really important, and people want to see them; there are rights of attendance, and people will want to lobby. There are scrutiny meetings, but that is not an executive function. Then there are policy-formation committees, which are not for decision-making but are part of scrutiny. So we have the distinction between what are and are not decision-making committees. Then there are quasi-judicial meetings, such as those on planning or licensing; in-person attendance is really important for those. None of this fine-grained texture is in the amendments but, if they are to progress, it should be.

Local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly a need to travel more, particularly in the larger authorities such as North Yorkshire. The answer to that is not to have something quite as big as North Yorkshire, but we are where we are. There are going to be more combined meetings under these combined county authorities. There are also more trading companies involved in local authorities now. They are at arm’s length from the council—they may be owned by the council but they are not of the council—and we have to take them into consideration, too. There are significantly more partnerships, some of which are joint committees of more than one council. We would have to work out, if two councils came together and one had the freedom to do online meetings and the other did not, how that would mesh in joint committees, of which we are seeing a lot more. We have development corporations as well. There is a lot of public money there, so will they be meeting in private or in public?

We have to sort out some of the ground rules. It is not quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh said. I am interested in taking this forward, but it will need a lot more work before Report before any of it could really be considered a realistic proposal, rather than just a good idea for probing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate and wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments. They address fundamental questions about how local democracy is conducted, how local councillors discharge their duties and how we maintain the integrity of local decision-making. These amendments are well intentioned—we have certainly heard about the difficulties that there can be in arriving at meetings, particularly where significant distances are involved—but I fear that they do not sit easily with the principles of genuine devolution and open, accountable, transparent government where you can see where the decision is being made.

Amendment 218 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would allow for remote meetings or remote participation in meetings. A cornerstone of our democratic life is the principle that significant decisions should be taken in person and in public, where elected representatives can be directly observed, challenged and held to account, and where the debate is in the room. During the pandemic, remote arrangements became an unavoidable necessity, yet many of us witnessed—my noble friend Lord Fuller alluded to some of the issues we saw—how public engagement was diminished, the debate became thinner and the essential character of our democratic exchanges was damaged.

I do not believe that we should return to arrangements that bring back that distance, both literally and figuratively and in terms of participation, between elected representatives and the people they serve. The default expectation of democratic office ought to remain that in decision-making councillors come together, face to face, to deliberate in the public view. Any move to the contrary, even in limited circumstances, would, I fear, be a slippery slope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, with my other hat on, as the Whip, I just want to say that the next group is pretty long. We may not finish it by 9.15 pm so we may end up having to split the group. We may get to the single amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I cannot guarantee that. I am in noble Lords’ hands, but we have to stop at 9.15 pm.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We are definitely finishing the debate.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are definitely finishing at that time. If we can get through this big group, we will, I hope, be able to do the eighth group, but we must finish at 9.15 pm.

Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just repeat the final comment I had to make. When the Minister referenced how the constituent authorities would be able to vote in decision-making mode, she referenced the fact that if a mayor was not able to be there, the deputy mayor could take their place and vote. Either that means the deputy mayor is an elected councillor who is nominated to be the deputy mayor in a constituent authority, or it may mean, as it does in my mayoral authority, that the deputy mayor is an appointee. I have a problem if they are an appointee, because they are not democratically accountable. Decisions should be made by people who are democratically accountable to the electorate., I would love that to be clarified. I wish I had finished before the Division, but with those remarks, I hope the Minister will be able to put me right on all the issues I have raised.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these orders, which establish mayoral combined authorities for Cheshire and Warrington and for Cumbria.

As we have made clear in the discussions on the devolution Bill, we support the principle of English devolution and promoted this while we were in government. We support the creation of combined authorities where they have genuine local support, are properly funded and are designed to reflect the identities and needs of their areas. However, that support for devolution in principle does not absolve the Government of their responsibility to demonstrate that these proposals meet the statutory tests as set out in the 2009 Act, nor does it remove the need for proper scrutiny.

The question of funding remains unresolved and frankly a little bit troubling. The Government have indicated that these new authorities will receive additional funding over a 30-year period. How such long-term funding commitments will be guaranteed in practice is not clear. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to provide genuine certainty to these combined authorities? They will need that if they are going to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, skills and transport planning. That requires predictable funding going forward. Also, as an aside, will mayors in future combined authorities receive similar levels of funding?

Linked to this is the mayoral precept. These orders enable the new mayors to levy an additional charge on council tax to fund these functions. While that power may be appropriate in some circumstances, it raises legitimate concerns about local accountability and affordability. We would welcome clarification from the Minister on the detail of central government funding expected to support local devolved functions and on to what extent the Government anticipate or indeed rely upon the use of the mayoral precept to bridge any funding gap. That also raises the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was moving towards of how we ensure scrutiny and holding the mayor to account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue of size. Given the powers that the Secretary of State will have in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to push through potential mergers, what is the Government’s intention here?

Finally, I raise a specific concern about Cheshire and Warrington, which is the financial position of Warrington Borough Council. The estimated £1.8 billion of debt carried by the council is concerning, and it is not at all clear how the creation of a mayoral combined authority interacts with that reality. We ask for further detail: what special measures will be put in place to ensure that the debt does not undermine the financial stability of the new authority as a whole? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the creation of a combined authority will not directly or indirectly place additional burdens on neighbouring councils or local taxpayers?

Devolution done well can be transformative, but devolution done poorly risks creating new layers of governance without the trust, clarity or resources required to make them effective. We urge the Government to consider seriously the concerns raised by local communities, the scrutiny committee and this House. We will continue to support devolution that is consensual, properly funded and genuinely local, and we will continue to challenge proposals that fall short of these principles.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments on this statutory instrument. I will try to answer all their questions, but, as usual, I will check Hansard and make sure I have replied to the issues that they have raised.

The noble Baroness raised the issue around the differing sizes of the authorities. I appreciate the points she makes on that. Of course, she will know—as I do, since I worked extensively with my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—that Cumbria is a very sparse rural area. When the Government look at the sizes for these local authorities, we need to agree sensible devolution geographies. The Government consider the scale, the economy, the contiguity, making sure we have no devolution islands, how we are going to deal with delivery, the alignment and the identity. It is not possible to meet all the principles. We prefer these combined authorities to have a population of around 1.2 million to 1.5 million, but that is not possible in all areas. We recognise that with Cumbria. It is important that we take account of local circumstances, so we work with the authorities to make sure we find optimal solutions to their issues.

On the constituent members, they are agreed with the constituent authorities concerned. They will vary because the areas vary, but it is important that constituent members play an important role in those local authorities. We set them up as bespoke arrangements depending on local circumstances.

On the noble Baroness’s question about commissioners, we will have a system where all mayoral combined authorities can appoint up to seven commissioners. Some may choose not to do that if it is not appropriate for their area, but we want the flexibility for those who wish to do it.

The noble Baroness asked about the assessment of effectiveness. There is an ongoing evaluation programme for the devolution programme. It is important that we do that. We have a number of authorities at different levels of devolution, including some established mayoral combined authorities. We continue to look at the programme, but the evaluation so far has told us that it is genuinely delivering for the communities involved. I am sorry if the noble Baroness does not feel that that is the case in her area; there may be people who have a different view on that locally.

The noble Baroness also asked me about the public responses to the consultation process. I take her point, but the purpose of the consultations is to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over the proposed geography. A range of views was provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some of the concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation very much formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State—it needed to do so because it must meet the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 110 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. For both Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria, the tests were met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies; I did not write that down because we were called out of the Room. A deputy mayor is there to do exactly what it says on the tin: deputising for the mayor. The deputy mayor can deputise for the mayor. It is not an elected position, and I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about that, but all those mayors will need a deputy, so the deputy mayor can stand in for the mayor at meetings and cast the mayor’s vote. That is the situation.

In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister kindly answered my question on the investment fund. The two issues I had with it included that it is 30-year funding. If you are going to come up with a programme of infrastructure funding over 10 or 15 years, you need certainty that you will get that £27 million or that £11 million every year. I know it is a difficult question to answer, but what assurance or certainty will the new mayor have that that funding will be available for those 30 years? I appreciate the intention, but is there certainty? The second part of that question was: will a similar level of funding be available for all the other combined mayoral authorities as they go forward, accepting the point that the Minister made about population?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The purpose of devolution is, of course, to get the powers and funding out to local areas to do the investment they need. I am not going to guarantee exact amounts for funding settlements that we have yet not agreed with local areas, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, but it is the Government’s intention that all the new areas will have investment funds, and of course they also have powers to borrow. Provided they meet the prudential requirements that all local government borrowing has to meet, they will have those powers as well.

In conclusion, these instruments deliver the commitment made to Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria to establish combined authorities in their areas, and I hope that the Committee will welcome these orders.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

For me, it would be good to have this, but it needs to be on important strategic matters—if the Olympics was coming back to London, or something of that ilk—so that we have that overarching view. So I support these amendments. I am new here, so I am waiting to see whether other things come in secondary legislation or something underneath, but we have the broad strokes here.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the Minister’s name would insert a new provision into the Licensing Act 2003 for additional powers for the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. We are not opposed to a greater strategic role for the GLA and the mayor, particularly where that role helps to identify key applications and promote consistency across London.

However, we harbour significant concerns about Amendment 179A, which would establish a London-wide strategic licensing oversight system. We are not persuaded that the mayor should be granted such extensive powers to intervene in and potentially overrule decisions taken by local licensing authorities. Although applicants will have the right of appeal, these provisions introduce a new layer of bureaucracy and uncertainty into what is already a complex licensing regime. We struggle to see why the mayor should be given such a decisive and potentially determinative role in local licensing decisions, particularly where those decisions are currently taken by local authorities with detailed knowledge of their communities, as my noble friend Lady O’Neill made clear. The mayor will not have that, and we are overriding local accountability. I am concerned by the provision that allows certain applications to be deemed “of potential strategic importance” when the definition of that term is to be set out not by the GLA or the mayor but through regulations by the Secretary of State.

I have similar scepticism to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether this actually is a devolution Bill. It is supposed to be about local democracy and trusting local people to make the right decisions for their local area. It should not be about transferring powers upward to mayors and Whitehall. Why is London again being put on a pedestal and treated differently to the rest of the UK? I appreciate that the Minister said that this could be extended to the rest of the UK. Again, I very much defer to what my noble friend Lady O’Neill said: it would make a lot of sense for this to be part of a broader review of the governance of London.

Moreover, it is not clear why the Government have chosen to introduce these provisions at such a late stage, or how they interact with existing licensing frameworks. At the very least, the Committee needs more time to consider the implications of these amendments, alongside fuller guidance from the Minister about how these powers would operate in practice.

At present, I do not believe that the justification for these amendments has been made, so I look forward to the Minister’s response and to further explanation of the rationale behind the operation of these amendments. However, we cannot support any of these amendments being made at this stage.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments. I will be very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss the proposals further and in more detail. I will give a little more information now and, I hope, answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked.

On why we feel that the new call-in power is needed, there is evidence of unmet potential for London’s night-time economy. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they had ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wanting to stay out later—I never do but, obviously, there are people who do. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022-25. London also has a lower premises licence approval rate than the rest of England and Wales. Of course, the reasons for that are multifaceted but, through the establishment of a new mayoral call-in power, intended to be used only in specific circumstances, as a measure of last resort, we would hope to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to premises licensing that unleashes the full potential of London’s cultural hospitality and night-time economy sectors. I know we have talked many times in your Lordships’ House about the restaurant and pubs business, and so on. We particularly want to encourage that sector in London—and everywhere else, but it is important to do that for the capital’s tourism and other trades.

In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government support the principle of localism in licensing decisions, but we are committed to putting the right powers at the right levels to drive economic growth that we want to see. Local licensing authorities are often, or in fact nearly always, best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge and in consultation with other responsible authorities, including the police and enforcement authorities. But where the licensing system affects sectors with a strategic economic role—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, mentioned that aspect—it is important that city-wide considerations can be taken into account. The new strategic licensing role of the Mayor of London would enable this and provide an opportunity to adopt a similar approach to those that have worked effectively in New York, Amsterdam and Sydney.

To pick up on some specific points about how this is going to work—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a couple of questions about this—the mayor will draw his strategic licensing policy by consultation on it before it is published. The mayor will be required to consult each London licensing authority, which will be able to make representations about its local circumstances. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds of what that

“potential strategic importance to Greater London”

actually means in regulations. That will provide further detail on the types of licence applications that will potentially fall within the scope of the mayor’s call-in power.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why this issue has not come forward before, that is a fair point. Further time is required to develop the new mayoral call-in process, including how it would interact with existing licensing legislation. In thinking about bringing this forward, the Government have considered that sometimes the best way in which to deliver devolution across the country is to test out new powers or approaches in one or two places first. As a globally renowned centre for culture and nightlife, London represents an ideal location to test new strategic licensing powers and duties. Nevertheless, it is very much our intention to ensure that it will be possible to roll these out to other mayors across the country, subject to the provision of appropriate evidence via provisions in the Bill. Piloting things is a very good way in which to see how effective they are, and whether they get the balance right between the local decision-making to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred and what we might think of as a strategic call-in power—so it is very important to do that.

I thank my noble friend Lady Dacres for her comments about licensing. She and I had an informal meeting with some London leaders on Saturday. They were not all London leaders, so I will not use that as evidence because that would not be fair, but, broadly, their view was similar to that of my noble friend Lady Dacres: although you would not want this to be used all the time, it is an important power to have in a key city such as London. However, a call for evidence is out and is currently being reviewed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had extensive discussions of the agent of change; it is a slightly different proposal. I know it could potentially be linked to this, so if the noble Baroness wants to get involved in the discussions on this, I am happy to include her.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s very positive response to our comments. She said that this is a pilot. You would normally have a review at the end of a pilot to work out whether it has worked and the consequences thereof. I appreciate that she intends to withdraw her amendment, but it would be helpful, if these amendments were to come back on Report, to be clear about what the pilot means and what the review process is.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a very fair point. I was indicating that we will have some further discussions about it. If I bring further amendments back on Report, we will need to be clear about putting some flexible powers into the Bill so that we can extend it if we need to. If we look at the London project and it has not worked, clearly that does not mean that it will be extended. But we need the powers because, as all noble Lords will be aware, getting primary legislation on to the statute book is quite a process. We would rather have a permissive power that enables it, if it is needed, and then we are able to do that if necessary.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Or it could be withdrawn.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, it could be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in the previous debates on this Bill due to the pressure of work. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has spoken eloquently to his amendments, and I agree with nearly everything he has said. I will speak to Amendment 184 in my name, as I am extremely concerned about the long-term implications of Clause 54(3).

Clause 54 begins with subsection (1):

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision for the purposes of”—


it then it goes into the detail. My concern is with subsection (3), which, for the benefit of the doubt, I will read:

“Regulations under this section may (in particular) amend any Act of Parliament (whenever passed), including by amending this Act”.


This is an amazing power to hand to the Secretary of State in the future, whoever he or she might be. The ability to amend any Act of Parliament, which may not even be a twinkle in the eye of any future government at this stage, is breathtaking.

Until the end of January, I had the privilege to sit on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The council that advises the DPRRC was extremely concerned about the number of delegated powers in the Bill that we are currently debating. There are 92 delegated powers, and a further 42 not covered in the memorandum, due to the fact that the Bill is likely to interact with existing enactments.

Similar powers were brought forward in 2015, at which point the committee felt that the powers were too broad. However, we now have a new Government and a new philosophy. I can understand that the Government want to be able to change past and current legislation in future, but they are asking for the power to change legislation that is yet to be drafted—a power that bypasses the role of Parliament completely.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke at length on his amendments, which relate to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s concerns about the Bill. He set out his arguments extremely clearly and referred to the committee’s 45th report, which was published on 16 January. That report details the committee’s concerns; it is extensive and raises significant issues around the way in which the Henry VIII powers will be executed. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already ready out the committee’s recommendation concerning this particular power, which is as follows:

“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71, and those in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 24 and paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.


I apologise for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said word for word, but it is really important to stress this point.

Considering this strong recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee, as well as the concerns raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment and amend the Bill accordingly. This is an unjustifiable abuse of power, bypassing Parliament to seek to amend future Acts of Parliament and legislation that is not even in the initial stages of being drafted.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to repeat what has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

The issue is quite simple. This is supposed to be a devolution Bill about local empowerment; it is not supposed to be about giving the Secretary of State huge powers, in particular to amend things that have not even been thought of yet. On restricting things in the way that has been suggested, there are some flexibilities in this Bill, historical Bills and Bills for the current Session, but having the power to amend something that is not even a twinkle in the eye of a new Minister— whoever they may be—is just going too far. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also said this.

This matter needs very deep thought on the part of the Government. We will come back to it if the Government do not seek to address this issue of a Secretary of State having the ability to amend something that has not been thought of yet. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you would want to amend a law you have not written yet, because you could always bring in powers that are relevant to that law as part of any legislation you then bring forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their proposed amendments to the delegated powers in the Bill. I also thank the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report and its recommendations regarding the delegated powers in the Bill, to which these amendments relate. I will consider its report ahead of Report and will make sure that all noble Lords who have joined this debate on delegated powers have sight of that response.

I turn to Amendment 180A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which seeks to limit the ability to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provisions that would follow a decision to repeal the strategic licensing regime. This amendment would prevent such provisions being made to future legislation. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing pilot in London is clear: to trial a more strategic approach to licensing in London.

However, we recognise that any significant change to long-established arrangements may, in practice, give rise to operational or policy difficulties that could not have been fully foreseen at the point of legislating—I referred to that on an earlier group. It is for that reason that we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to amend the new strategic licensing measures within the first five years of them coming into effect. This will ensure that the Government can act swiftly and proportionately to protect the effectiveness of the wider licensing framework if necessary. The Secretary of State must be able to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision that repeals or revokes legislation made at a later date, if necessary, in the event that the strategic licensing measures are repealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a most interesting group of amendments, and there is deep food for thought in what should come back to the House when we get to Report.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I must say that I had not understood the figure of 50,000, but at the very end he clarified that that could be a matter of discussion. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has covered that issue as well. A difference between my party and that of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Gascoigne, is that they are both trying to give excess power to the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked at the very beginning of this group why we had not supported his previous amendment a few weeks ago on the power of the Secretary of State to make a decision on whether an authority was fit to undertake additional powers. Our concern was that these matters should not lie with the Secretary of State, who would have power to make these decisions without necessarily having the right degree of accountability for it. It is better to give the power to local electorates.

In the end, I am not sure that local communities need to be protected by the Secretary of State from the level of tax to be paid. I think that the local ballot box is the protection at that stage—so I hope that, when the noble Lord thinks about bringing this amendment back on Report, he bears in mind that the major power lies with the local electorate.

My noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lady Janke both raised issues around fiscal power and the understandability and accessibility of financial matters for local people. This is of fundamental importance; it is about devolution. We need to have a transparent negotiation of fiscal powers of government. I accept totally that this is a process—it does not happen overnight—but I hope that the Government’s consultation on powers over tourism tax will be positive. Local areas are going to have to be more responsible for the level and nature of the taxes that they raise to pay for local services. We look forward to an outcome of the negotiation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised a very interesting question about the business rate supplement. I want to think further about that, because it is a very interesting suggestion. We have to have the detail right. One thing I have noticed about raising taxes locally is that, if people know what it is that the extra money that they are paying is going to be spent on, there is a direct relationship, which you tend to get with parish and town councils and with some kinds of business rate supplements. I think there is potential here for further thought.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we will take this away and think further about the possibilities for driving ahead on a system of business rate supplements supported or underpinned by clear consultation with local areas and a clear attachment to a specific project. Then, the general public will be more amenable to what councils are trying to do and how the funding is going to be provided.

My name, alongside that of my noble friend Lady Janke is on Amendment 190. I hope that the Minister will be positive about thinking through bringing forward proposals for fiscal devolution because, for devolution to work, you have to give greater powers over fiscal policy to the constituent parts of England. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to this group of amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this group of amendments. We keep coming back to the same sorts of issues as in the previous group. We were talking about devolution in relation to health, and fiscal devolution and trying to extract money out of the NHS.

Now we come to a different level of fiscal devolution, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne raised the point that a lot of people outside the London bubble are frustrated. I emphasise that it is not just in the north; I was on the south coast in Southampton this weekend, where there are lots of frustrated people. I can assure you that if you drove along the pothole-encrusted roads of Bedfordshire, there are lots of frustrated people there as well.

This is important because people care about their communities and they want their communities to be better. They care about place, and you cannot create great places by diktat from Whitehall. I recall saying that two or three times earlier in this Committee. That means you need real devolution and real powers. It also means real fiscal devolution; we have a number of suggestions on fiscal devolution here.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Scott made the point that parish councils, particularly small parish councils, are very close to their communities. People can easily see what that extra £10 or £20 or £50 is being spent on—such as extra grass cutting or improvements to the village hall—and they are quite amenable to it. As you start moving away from that and you start breaking that relationship, it becomes much more difficult.

One of the great dangers with fiscal devolution, much as I believe in it, is that central government—I am not making a political point here, but I am blaming Whitehall and the Treasury—see that as an opportunity to raise tax by the back door. We have seen government regularly passing additional responsibilities to local government with a short-term grant and then expecting the council tax payer to fund that burden.

One of the big issues that we have in local government at the moment is that a lot of responsibilities have been passed down; responsibilities are then growing quicker than the tax base, which means many of these issues of place are facing a fiscal squeeze. We have this dichotomy or dilemma: we may want fiscal devolution, but how do we avoid central government cost shunting?

My noble friend Lord Fuller was implying the same thing. It is great to have fiscal freedoms for parish and town councils, but we do not want cost shunting from overpressed district, unitary and county authorities. How do we protect against that cost shunting, where people see higher tax bills but no benefits? Place is important. I am desperately keen for genuine fiscal devolution, but how do we protect our residents from, in effect, cost shunting from Whitehall down the line?

I will talk briefly about some of these amendments. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment is really important, because it is not just about the Secretary of State making a judgment—that is what the Secretary of State would do anyway, if he were to devolve powers—but placing a burden on him to say that he genuinely believes that a council has the financial resources, financial capacity and management resources to do what is being entrusted upon it. It is not just a case of going, “Get on with it. Bye. It is not my fault; it is your fault”, then, a year later, not giving it the money that it needs to deliver those things.

Forgive me, because I cannot remember whether it was from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but I accept his point. However, the contra argument is that it places a burden on the Secretary of State to make sure that it is feasible. We need to think about that very important distinction.

The other point to make is that we are going through reorganisation here and we need to ensure that this is not shuffling the deckchairs on the “Titanic”. It has to be about meaningfully improving services for our residents and about better value for money. We should not have reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake, which is why I think this amendment is the right approach.

We have had a number of amendments on fiscal devolution, but I will not go through them all. I have a concern about cost shunting and we have to protect against that. We need to give people real fiscal powers in order to deliver better services for their residents. What we do not need—some of the announcements that have been made today are like this and our Government were the same—is to have to appeal to the Government to get funding to do something. That means the Secretary of State is still in charge and that you are not determining your local priorities but, by the way, all the councils will do it because they want as much money as they can for their residents to deliver as best they can.

This must be underpinned by a real understanding that there are both costs and benefits from devolution, and that the funding arrangements are fair and transparent to local government. One of the biggest fears I have in local government is that the resident and local taxpayer does not see what their funding goes on, because far too much of it is dictated by the Government. These are responsibilities and duties with no funding and no powers, which is something that I might come back to on the next group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Wallace and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their amendments in this group.

I will comment briefly on the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, made. It does not happen as rarely as one might expect, but I do agree with some of what he said. Nobody much cares about the architecture of local government; when I knock on people’s doors, they do not say, “Can you change the structure of local government, Sharon?” That does not happen. They do care, however, about their public services being delivered effectively. They want to see new homes built, their streets cleaned, their potholes fixed—as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, pointed out—fly-tipping sorted and work being done to tackle the decline of our high streets. The current system was just not sustainable. It was not working in terms of either finance or efficiency, so we have to make some changes to tackle that issue. Both making the structures work better and devolving power to local authorities are needed to make sure that they can tackle the things that are important at the local level.

Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, seeks to place barriers on conferring new functions on strategic authorities. As per paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 25, the Secretary of State cannot confer a new function on a strategic authority unless they are

“satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the need to secure the effective exercise of the function concerned”.

That provides an adequate test to ensure that, when functions are conferred, it is with the effective delivery of that function in mind. It also enables the Government to pilot new functions with strategic authorities. We talked about some of that earlier. In these instances, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will use to help decide whether to confer the function on a permanent basis.

The pilot process provides an adequate opportunity to test devolution before rolling it out more widely. We believe that requiring each strategic authority to have a specific plan for each function effectively signed off by the Secretary of State runs counter to the principles of devolution that underpin the Bill. It risks micromanagement of strategic authorities from Whitehall and slowing down the progress of devolution. I do not say “micromanagement” with any political side because, the last time that my party was in power, we ended up with about 160 performance indicators for local authorities. I am not in favour of that either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for their comments on this group. It places me in a bit of a dilemma, because I have a lot of sympathy for the objects of these amendments: we agree that the environment is important, and we like community wealth building and so forth.

I refer back to my comments on the previous group. I have a big issue with placing duties on a local or strategic authority without the means and resources for them. This is very much a half-amendment, because it would place the duty without the means to deliver it. I think the noble Baroness commented that the LGA backs this, but the LGA actually said

“local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action”,

which is a lot more than just having the duty. So, to progress on these, we need to recognise that you cannot just place a duty. I say that quite seriously because, when I was running my council, around 85% of our expenditure was on statutory duties and we had very little room for manoeuvre on any choice-based things. Given the pressures on adult social care, SEND and so forth, I am sure that if I redid the numbers now, that figure would be way over 90%, and we end up compromising on statutory duties. So I am very wary of placing lots of statutory duties without providing the means to deliver them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about support. I am 100% behind providing support to do something, but that is not quite the same as saying, “You must have a duty as well as support”.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Quite a lot of local authorities are doing well on this. Many of the things that they are delivering do not require additional funding but are about making the right decisions on their day-to-day routine responsibilities for planning, regeneration, growth, urban development and all sorts of things. They are making these decisions in a way that is good for the environment, climate change, biodiversity, air quality, people and sustainability, rather than making them without thinking about these things. So a duty is not a huge imposition; it is about a mindset, not a set of expenses.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I beg to disagree. Once you place a duty on an authority, all its decision-making needs to have that in mind. The authority can be challenged for not doing X, and X could involve significant expenditure, or it could be something that it has very little power over. To take a local example, my local council has a statutory duty on pollution in certain areas, such as Ampthill, which is just down the road from me, but it does not have the ability to stop cars going into Ampthill, and they are the cause of the pollution. So you end up with these dilemmas, and that needs thinking through. That is why I am wary. I do not disagree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness is trying to do, but we need to do it in a practical and deliverable way. All good councils will try to seek to do the right thing wherever they can.

As certain Peers have alluded to, in the future there may be somebody who might not be as keen as some of us are on the environment, well-being or anything else. That brings me to my second point: I am a huge believer in democracy. We have a very serious question to ask ourselves: do we believe in democracy? That means local decision-making and devolution, and, at times, it may mean that people do not do what we would choose to be our priority. That is a dilemma that we face and have to accept. If you believe in democracy and devolution, you cannot always seek to bind the hand of people to do what you want, because that is not devolution and democracy but centralisation and state control, which may be the right thing—

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

Can I ask a question of clarification? I agree on democracy and the point that the noble Lord is making, but these are legally binding targets that we have agreed in the law through these Acts, so do we ignore the law through devolution?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As the noble Baroness rightly says, they are legally binding targets that people need to take into account. We do not necessarily need to do it again. But I come back to my central point: do not place a duty on somebody if you do not provide the capacity for them to deliver it.

My second point is on devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made some interesting points about local wealth building and it probably is a very good model, but it may not be the only model. There may be other models and there may be other models that work locally, so why are we doing a one size fits all? We should trust people to deliver for their residents; that is why they get elected and re-elected. Sometimes we will make mistakes, and we do it differently the next time because we made a mistake the first time.

Those are my two key concerns that we need to focus on. First, if you provide a duty to somebody, you need to provide the means and capacity to do it. Secondly, on the issue of democracy, if we are genuine about devolution, we should be very careful about providing a centralised diktat about what we should do. That has nothing to do with the proposed areas of concern, which I have a huge amount of sympathy with.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, for Amendments 192, 193, 194 and 241B. I will respond to Amendments 192 and 241B together, as their aims are somewhat shared.

During the Bill’s passage, the Government have consistently made the point that many local authorities have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring.

The Government offer net-zero support for local government. That includes through Great British Energy, which will work with local government to help to increase the rollout of renewable energy projects. Furthermore, the Government will also partner with strategic authorities and local authorities to roll out the ambitious warm homes plan, which will upgrade 5 million homes over this Parliament to help them to save money on their bills and benefit from cleaner, cheaper heating. To strengthen our engagement with local government on net-zero strategy, policy and delivery, and to support local government to drive forward net-zero action at the local level, the Government also run the Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which last met on 9 December last year.

Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central government, air quality in the UK has improved. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects. It is worth noting that in London, as the noble Baroness will know, the air quality target, which it was estimated would take 193 years to achieve, was accomplished in nine years. Concerted effort and clear decision-making can make a real difference.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October last year, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.   

I will respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the mayor not abiding the climate change duty. There is a specific competency on environmental climate change in the Bill. A mayor of a strategic authority, as well as having the overview and scrutiny powers that the body has, could be subject to a challenge by way of a judicial review for failure to meet an existing duty. There is significant power there already. The issues around local democracy and the prioritisation given to an issue is and must be subject to democratic accountability. It is difficult; we have to get that balance right. But as there is an existing legal duty, there is enough power for local citizens to be able to push their locally elected representatives. Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling environmental decline and climate change, we do not think that this particular duty is needed.

Amendment 193 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual poverty data for their authority. We recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have an impact on reducing poverty and alleviating its impacts. As set out in the Government’s strategy, Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty, a broad and dedicated range of partners play a role in reducing poverty, and we will continue to do this work in partnership with local, regional, national, private and third sector partners.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, we need something, and I hope that the Government will take this back and come up with something on Report that will tell us what the Mayoral Council for England is intended to take over, how it will relate to central government and—this the reason why the amendment says something different for a local council in England—how the 35 mayors that we may well end up with will interact with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. They will not want to be swamped by 35 English mayors when they are trying to negotiate the governance of the United Kingdom, the fiscal arrangements for the United Kingdom and a whole set of other issues that will involve—particularly if we have a reset with the European Union—a set of arguments about the interaction between domestic legislation and international obligations. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his amendment. I was initially a little confused, having read the amendment and then listened to his speech, but after his final comment I understand that this is a probing amendment to get the Minister and the Government to be clear about how they see the structure of the Mayoral Council, the regional devolved Governments and, potentially, councils. It is about how to create some kind of structure or how it will be structured. In that sense, I am a lot clearer and happier.

I had more concerns about an English local government council, because that would be largely duplicating the role of the LGA. As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I would be deeply unhappy and my colleague the noble Baroness would also be deeply unhappy as a fellow ex-chair. We would both agree that enhancing the LGA would be a good idea, but I am not sure that we would want an English local government council. As a probing amendment, I understand the purpose of it. The noble Lord raises some valid points about what the role of the Mayoral Council is, how it will all fit in and where the pieces of the jigsaw are. That is a good question, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for Amendment 195, and hope that he will take my regards back to John Denham, for whom I have the greatest respect. I have often worked with John on English devolution, so I respect what he says.

This amendment seeks to create an obligation to establish a national body called the English local government council. Membership of the council would comprise a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority and the Mayor of London. Members of the council would also be required to pay a membership fee, placing a new financial burden on authorities. Functions of the council would include working with the Government to agree a framework for the further devolution of powers; to agree funding for local and strategic authorities; and to identify a representative to participate in the Council of the Nations and Regions.

I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I believe that proper representation of local government into central government is incredibly important. We have worked very hard on that as a Government since we came into power in July 2024. When local leaders work together with the Government, it benefits our whole country. That is why the English devolution White Paper sets out three forums for engagement: the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council. Across these councils, all levels of devolved government are represented, from First Ministers to mayors to the leaders of local authorities. These forums have all met a number of times—I have been to the Leaders Council three times, I think. I can assure noble Lords that funding and furthering devolution is rarely not on the agenda for discussion, but they also discuss thematic issues as well.

It is therefore not necessary for a new council to create a framework for further devolution. The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen devolution through the mayoral right to request process. While funding is discussed at all these councils, it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the finance settlement process, which carefully allocates needs-based funding across the country. The current council structures we have in place are working well, and the flexibility afforded to them as non-statutory bodies allows us to work with the sector to adapt the forums as the needs of local leaders change. The current structures place no new burdens on authorities, with no membership fees required, as this amendment would create. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment requires local planning authorities, separately or jointly, to appoint one qualified and experienced person to be chief planner. It would give due recognition to the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute—I declare that I am an honorary member of the institute. A very similar amendment was debated in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last October. At the conclusion of that debate, the Minister said that she would

“keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. 1199.]

Our hope is that she will now be able to accept this proposition.

The case for a chief planner seems an excellent one. It would be a boost to the morale of those working in local planning authorities. It would represent an acknowledgement by the Government that planning needs to be recognised, as it once was, as a very prominent part of local government. When we debated this matter last year, it was noted that identifying the chief planner role is now more significant than it was following the Government’s action to achieve a national planning scheme of delegation for planning decision-making. Decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by officers alone will depend on the judgment of two individuals: the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This important responsibility underlines the need for an enhanced status for the planning officer at the helm.

In preparation for the debate on this issue during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I spoke to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, where legislation already confers a statutory status on the chief planning officer, accompanied by guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. Glasgow’s chief planner told me of the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. Indeed, events are now being organised that bring together chief planners from across Scotland, now that it is clear who shares this common identity. I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales who told me of hopes for a similar measure for Wales to that addressed by this arrangement. I strongly support this amendment as part of the devolution package for England.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—it is great to see her back here on her two feet. I shall speak first to Amendment 130 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that greenfield land should not be designated for development unless the relevant authority

“is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area”.

There appears to be universal agreement that building on brownfield first is the right thing to do. It provides a number of advantages. Not only does it save greenfield land, but it helps regeneration, utilises existing infra- structure and minimises transport distances, whether that is to work or to employment. It creates a better environment and promotes growth. While this is recognised, what does not appear to be recognised is the difficulty of building on brownfield land, particularly in high-cost areas such as London, due not only to the remediation costs but to high existing land use values.

When it comes to financing, if you are building an apartment block, you cannot generally sell an apartment until you have built the whole block, whereas if you are building on a green field, you can virtually sell house by house. Time scales tend to be longer and costs higher, due to the complexity of building in urban areas. Because of the high and early capital outlays, return on capital is often the determining factor, meaning that delays inevitably make projects unviable. In urban areas, it is all too easy to find grounds for objection, delaying the process. While a committed applicant may get through all these hoops, it can take years, by which time the project is no longer viable. Many do not even try, or they seek to build with lower quality in order to recoup their costs.

That is a particular problem in London. Last year only around 5,000 new private homes were started, against a target of 88,000 new homes. That has real-world consequences. London Councils estimates that more than 200,000 people in London are living in temporary accommodation or are homeless, of whom around 100,000 are children. That is more than 50% of the UK total. The previous Government introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has proved to be a very effective tool in delivering development in rural areas because the relatively low upfront costs and the potentially sudden significant uplift in land values where there is not a five-year supply mean that landowners and developers can profitably challenge the planning system and regularly do so. Local planning authorities generally recognise this and tend to be much more reasonable with applications because they do not want planning by appeal and the risk of unplanned and poor-quality developments. This does not appear to work in urban brownfield areas, where, as I outlined earlier, high upfront costs and the complexity of development militate against challenging planning decisions, with developers often taking the easier route of seeking greenfield development opportunities elsewhere.

If we are to get more brownfield development, the balance between brownfield and greenfield needs to be tilted more in favour of brownfield. That is why the previous Conservative Government proposed a strong material presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. The purpose of this amendment is to oblige planning authorities to look at brownfield first, to recognise the potential additional costs and timescales of brownfield development and, through the strategic spatial plan, to seek to address them. With greater certainty and speed in the planning process, we will get the homes that this country needs with more on brownfield, helping urban regeneration and protecting greenfield sites. While the Minister may say that this is already in guidance, that has been the case for many years and it is simply not delivering. It needs to be stepped up; it needs to be in legislation.

I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reflect a shared concern that strategic planning powers must be accompanied by safeguards, transparency and engagement with local communities. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, would extend this to national parks in a similar vein. My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 131 relates to a chief planner. We believe it has considerable merit, and I have heard similar from both the industry and the planning profession, as he outlined. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering rightly raised again the issue of flooding and the role and benefits of SUDS. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response on all these issues and, in particular, on whether this Government are prepared to take the necessary step of legislating for brownfield development.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment 132. Local planning authorities already carry out flood assessments as part of their duties, just as with conservation assessments, tree assessments or bat assessments. Flooding is already part of the routine of planning authorities’ assessments. SUDS are constantly being put in. The number of SUDS is constantly changing, and I fear that a statutory duty would cost money that could be put to better use. A local authority is best placed to assess which flooding remediation is best for an area. We have to remember that regional flooding bodies also review flooding in catchment areas as part of their duties. I fear that this amendment would cause duplication and put an excess financial burden on local authorities and the Government.

Regarding Amendment 241E, I would have thought that the national parks were protected land in a similar way to metropolitan open land, which is highly protected. As it is part of a planning authority’s duties, it should consult with all relevant parties already.

I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward Amendment 130, but I believe it would delay the building of the homes that, as he eloquently said, we desperately need across the country. Planning authorities can look only at developments that come before them; they cannot force a developer to bring an application for brownfield land, or any land. They can judge only the applications that come before them. I fear that this amendment would cause delay in delivering the houses that we so desperately need in this country.

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

My Lords, I also welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is very nice to see her back in her place, and I hope her leg is recovering speedily.

I thank noble Lords for these amendments relating to planning and housing. I understand the spirit of Amendment 126, which seeks to restrict the use of strategic planning powers. It is important that the right checks and balances are in place in the governance of strategic authorities. However, we believe that the Bill already puts the right procedures in place. Combined authorities and combined county authorities already have to make decisions collectively. Constituent councils each have at least one voting member and, thanks to Clause 6, decisions will require a majority to be taken forward.

Even then, there are some circumstances where we go further. For example, mayors and their authorities must consult the relevant constituent councils and local planning authorities before using compulsory purchase powers in their area. Non-mayoral strategic authorities cannot acquire land in this way without consent. I can assure the noble Baroness that when a mayor exercises their powers on mayoral development orders, there will be consultation with local communities and local planning authorities. That will be set out in secondary legislation.

Where the mayor exercises strategic planning functions directly, there are appropriate checks and balances. For example, the mayor’s spatial development strategy cannot be adopted until the combined authority or combined county authority has passed a motion to do so. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for sharing her experience of the planning process. Introducing a requirement that every use of a strategic planning power requires the consent of every constituent council would be excessive and fetter the ability of strategic authorities and their mayors to make strategic decisions for the benefit of their whole area.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127. We have often had discussions about parish and town councils, and I know how strongly she feels about them. Schedules 16 and 17 already place requirements on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils and local planning authorities, such as national park authorities, before seeking to use compulsory purchase powers on land in their area. The types of organisations they must consult or get the consent of are the same as those from which existing strategic authorities already must seek consent. Extending these requirements to parish councils would, I believe, take this too far. There are over 10,000 parish councils in England.

This amendment as written would give parish councils the ability to veto compulsory acquisitions of land. It cannot be right for a parish council to unilaterally block a strategic purchase by a strategic authority—on which all the constituent councils have agreed—that may have benefits beyond that parish. While it is of course right that strategic authorities consider the views of local communities, including parish councils, in their decisions, individual parish councils should not be able to block those decisions.

I turn to Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, which seeks to require mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities to prioritise brownfield over greenfield land when they designate land for development. Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Spatial development strategies will guide local plans in their area; identify broad locations for development and key infrastructure requirements; and set housing targets for local authorities. They will not themselves allocate specific parcels of land for development. When preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with national policy.

The promotion and reuse of brownfield land is a central part of the current National Planning Policy Framework. Authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the benefits of using suitable brownfield land within existing settlements to maximise density. The framework particularly emphasises the importance of appropriate uses in town centres, although, of course, it will not be appropriate in all cases for development to be situated on previously developed land and town centres.

We aim to go even further to cement this approach in the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, on which we are currently consulting. New policies on development inside and outside of development boundaries promote a sustainable pattern of development by steering proposals to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable land in urban areas and taking a more selective approach to the types and locations of development outside settlements. Mayors will also be able to grant upfront planning permission for specific types of development on specific sites through mayoral development orders. We want to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough to allow mayors to use these orders for a range of different uses across different types of land, reflecting the mayor’s plans to support the growth of their area.

Paragraph 125 of the current National Planning Policy Framework states:

“Planning policies and decisions should … give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs”.


Following the revision in December 2024, this paragraph has been strengthened further. It now states that proposals for such brownfield sites

“should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused”.

It is of course right that we promote the effective use of previously developed land, but we should avoid creating overly inflexible legal requirements that may not work in every situation and would serve only to inhibit the growth that this country needs; my noble friend Lady Dacres referred to these issues. Although I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, I do not think that it is necessary or proportionate.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. The key issue here is the one to which I referred. We have had guidance for many years. I appreciate that there is potentially to be some mild strengthening of that guidance but the fact is that it is not working, as I illustrated with the very low number of houses that are being built in the large urban area of London. We therefore need to step up. This is not about preventing development elsewhere or slowing development down. This is a strategic plan. It is about facilitating development and putting a greater onus on mayors to find brownfield land because we know that, as we have illustrated, it is more difficult to develop on brownfield land, whether or not it is contaminated. This is not a slowing mechanism but a mechanism that will create more sites and get more development done—and with more of it being in urban and brownfield areas, protecting some of our greenfield land. It is not about slowing; it is actually about the reverse.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand what the noble Lord says. I do not have the statistics in front of me but I have visited a number of very good brownfield sites in London. The issue of building on brownfield is not the only issue preventing building in London; there are viability issues that are quite unrelated to that. I accept that viability can be an issue on brownfield land. Indeed, we are very much taking into account some of the issues around viability in the new packages that we are developing with London in order to encourage London boroughs and the Mayor of London to think about how we can work further to deliver against the housing demand in London.

This is a key issue, but it is not as simple as a lack of use of brownfield sites. Nearly all the housing sites that I have visited right across the country have been, to one extent or another, developments on brownfield sites. That is the right way to go. We will of course continue to monitor this, but I do not want to create an inflexible requirement that will mean that people who are in a situation where they cannot use brownfield sites cannot develop anything. We must be very careful about this, but I understand the points being made.

I turn to Amendment 131. I am glad to see that the House of Lords is taking our environmental responsibilities very seriously, because we have a number of amendments to this Bill that have been recycled from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, of which Amendment 131 is an early contender. However, I appreciate that this amendment is slightly different in that it relates specifically to strategic development strategies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. His amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment. As we discussed during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I share the view that it is very important for planners to have a presence within the leadership structures of local authorities. As I have said previously, it is our mission to try and make sure that we highlight the role and importance of planning for all local authorities, whichever level of planning they are operating at.

However, I do not believe that this is an issue that should be addressed through legislation at this stage. The Government consider it essential that each authority should retain the flexibility to determine the most effective way to organise its own planning functions, particularly because, in England, they vary widely in scale and nature. In practice, many already operate with a chief planner, as I think the noble Lord said, or the equivalent senior role, although what that role entails varies widely between, for example, a county authority focused mainly on minerals and waste, a small district council and a large London borough.

As I promised to do during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I will continue to keep this matter under review as we take forward further reforms to the planning system. This is something that I am happy to explore further with local authorities and the sector as part of that work. I will aim to expedite that work, but it would not be appropriate to introduce this into legislation without doing that first. I therefore want to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 132, which would require strategic authorities to prepare sustainable drainage assessments. I admire her persistence on the issue of sustainable drainage systems; she has a great deal of knowledge on this that I greatly appreciate her bringing to planning matters. I reassure her that the Government are committed to taking a systemic approach to tackling drainage issues and , in particular, improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Through this Bill, we are giving mayors of strategic authorities outside London the ability to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance. Where a planning application is called in, the mayor must consider the application in accordance with the development plan for the area and national planning policy.

In December 2024, we revised the National Planning Policy Framework to require all developments that may have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are proposing to go further through the current consultation on the new framework, which proposes that all sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with new national standards introduced by the Government last year. The consultation also includes proposals for clearer engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies when plans are being made, taking into account the impacts of planned growth. This is to provide a clearer understanding of capacity and any additional infrastructure needs.

Against this background, I am concerned that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose a burden on strategic authorities without being effective. Mayors of strategic authorities will deal with only a small number of planning applications themselves, so it would be disproportionate to expect them to produce a statutory drainage assessment, which would likely be very partial, as they would not be able to look holistically at all potential development coming forward in their area. Nor should this amendment be necessary, given the steps that we are taking to improve the assessment of drainage needs and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems and the clear requirement for drainage matters to be addressed when individual development proposals are being considered.

I will take back the issue that the noble Baroness raised on the specific legal case. That is as a relatively new court decision, so I am sure that the MHCLG team are reviewing any impact on the Bill. I will respond in writing to her and other Members of the Committee on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.

I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing

“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.

This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.

First, Amendment 133

“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.

Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.

I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?

If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,

“including when disposing of it”,

in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his keen interest in and support for the Government’s intentions on mayoral development corporations. I can announce that earlier today, Minister Pennycook announced a consultation on a development corporation for Greater Cambridgeshire.

I begin with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Clause 37 and Schedule 18 extend the ability to establish mayoral development corporations to all mayoral strategic authorities. They are powerful delivery vehicles that let mayors bring together private and public sector expertise to tackle strategic spatial challenges in their area. However, it remains the decision of each mayoral strategic authority as to whether a mayoral development corporation is the right vehicle in its area and for each challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

There is an issue. As I said last week, I do not want to see upwards drift in either powers or responsibilities for matters that would be better held at existing local authority level. That is what I want to achieve. I fully accept that there are places and occasions when you need to think bigger than a single local authority, but the worst outcome from all of this is that local authorities will say that the mayor is doing culture now, and that there are financial implications in that. I just hope that local council tax payers, business rate payers and so on will understand the need to ensure that local government maintains the key responsibility that it has always had for the development of cultural assets in its area. When I was a councillor, that was one of the things we did which we knew drove growth. That is why Amendment 147 is so important, because it provides the cultural ecosystem plan, and I can see that being really very helpful.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments that relate to culture. I again welcome the good work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on culture, and we welcome the spirit of Amendment 147, which seeks to have a cultural ecosystem plan and to protect cultural assets.

Culture is not always easily defined, and decisions about the forms or expression of culture that should be prioritised can be the subject of significant debate. Nevertheless, we often recognise culture when we encounter it. It is the old adage, “Try describing an elephant, but you sure as hell know what it is when you see it”. Much of it is often taken for granted, whether that is historic buildings, works of art, cultural events or long-standing traditions, such as choral music in our churches. Mayoral combined authorities and local councils should recognise the cultural assets that exist in their communities and do what they can to support them. That said, I have some reservations about this amendment as currently drafted; it needs careful thought on that drafting just to ensure that it does not end up encouraging either vanity projects or leading to a more rigid and formalised definition of a cultural asset. That potentially risks some limiting. It is drafting that we feel we need to think through. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his commitment and for this amendment.

Amendments 141 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering seek to ensure that local growth plans make provision for cultural venues. My noble friend raises several important points, and I hope the Minister will address them directly.

Finally, Amendment 222 would place a duty on local authorities to have regard to the agent of change principle, and I will not recycle all the arguments we went through in the last session of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. While the drafting may need a little refining, I hope that this amendment serves as a useful nudge to the Government to reflect further on how best to protect cultural venues from unintended consequences of development.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering —who never tests my patience, she has so much knowledge and experience—and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their amendments on the role of culture in local growth plans and on the agent of change principle.

On Amendments 141, 146 and 147, the Government are committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country. In January, the Government announced an investment package of £1.5 billion, of which £1.2 billion is new, to support arts, culture, museums, libraries and heritage. Noble Lords have made a very powerful case for the inclusion of culture, heritage and arts to be included in mayoral competences, which is still under active consideration. We have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector.

We know that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities recognise the role of culture and the creative sector in supporting thriving communities. I also mention the cohesion role that they play, which was mentioned so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in an earlier debate on this subject. Indeed, many of them are raising culture in their local growth plans. Many places are taking this further, such as Greater Manchester with its dedicated culture strategy and the West Midlands—for the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin—establishing a partnership programme with the industry. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave other powerful examples. I take this opportunity to congratulate those two absolutely brilliant young women from the BRIT School who won Grammy awards. They absolutely stormed it at the Grammy awards the other day—so congratulations to them.

Introducing an additional duty would be burdensome and, as demonstrated, is not necessary to achieve the desired effect. In December, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, published her independent review of Arts Council England. Following that, the Government are considering how to ensure that culture is supported by strategic authorities. As part of this, we are considering how it relates to all strategic authorities, not just the mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities that are developing local growth plans.

Specifically on the amendments from noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relate to the pipeline of investment projects that must be set out as part of local growth plans, I point out that our guidance sets an expectation that this pipeline should be a shortlist of projects that are critical for unlocking growth, with the potential to crowd in private investment, and capable of unlocking significant returns. It is our view that, ultimately, it must be up to local areas to determine which projects fit that bill. These amendments would run counter to that principle and would require a one-size-fits-all approach that I know many Members are wary of. Rather than being mutually reinforcing for local growth, and the arts and culture, these amendments could cause confusion over the types of projects to include as part of that investment pipeline.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her Amendment 222, and share her desire to ensure that new housing does not constrain the operation of existing facilities in the surrounding area. I think that the music trust makes a very powerful case in this regard. However, new legislation would be duplicative of existing policy and is also less flexible, as it gives authorities less ability to weigh important considerations when making planning decisions. The agent of change principle is firmly established in the planning system as a relevant policy consideration. The current National Planning Policy Framework is clear that businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established.

Local planning authorities can request noise impact assessments when they consider it necessary; when making decisions, they have the ability to consider factors such as the type of development and how close it is to major sources of noise. The planning process can help to reduce adverse impacts by using measures such as careful layout and good design to limit noise transmission. The licensing regime also already enables local authorities to consider the agent of change principle when making decisions. The legislation is designed to recognise that different communities face different challenges, and local licensing authorities are able to incorporate the principle into their statements of licensing policy if they consider it necessary or useful to do so.

Furthermore, local authorities can consider a range of factors when deciding whether a complaint amounts to a statutory nuisance. They have a legal duty to investigate each case individually, taking into account relevant circumstances and their knowledge of the local area. I recognise the importance of safeguarding key cultural establishments from new residential development, and we are already taking a number of steps to improve the implementation of the agent of change principle. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about this being in place. We want to toughen it up, and I will talk now about some of those steps.

In planning, we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses, such as licensed music and cultural venues. As I pointed out before, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself—it cannot be because it needs to be flexible as circumstances change—it sits in the statutory planning process and carries substantial weight because of that.

In licensing, we recently conducted a call for evidence as part of the licensing reforms programme, which included a question on the application of the agent of change principle within the licensing regime. Detailed analysis covering responses to this will be published in due course.

For all these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will feel able not to press their amendments.