Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. On these Benches, several of us have run unitary councils. We recognise the potential for improved efficiencies and better delivery for residents. However, that must be done on the basis of genuine communities and geographies, at a scale capable of delivering meaningful efficiencies and with the true consent of residents.

The Government set out clear principles at the beginning of this process: a scale of around half a million people, respect for existing boundaries and local consent. Yet looking at the proposals before us today, it is difficult to conclude that those principles have been applied in practice, with populations ranging from nearly 700,000 down to 170,000, the breaking up of existing district councils, and a lack of local support and consent.

Rather, the common thread that seems to run through the proposals is a focus on the needs of largely Labour-run city councils to the detriment of the rest of those counties. The Government have accepted the proposals of Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth and Exeter, among others, despite unanimous opposition from the remaining councils in those areas. Is this just about rescuing badly run Labour councils and facilitating cities shifting their housebuilding to the neighbouring green fields?

I highlight Devon, where the expansion of Exeter and Plymouth is necessitating the break-up of several district councils and will leave what can best be described as an orphan Devon coast and countryside council. This will be a unitary for a population of only 260,000 but spread over a vast rural area, stretching from Kingsbridge on the north coast to Sidmouth on the south coast—a journey of two hours or so by car, and a similar journey from east to west. This is setting up a council to fail. The situation is similar in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire. As my honourable friend in the other place, the shadow Secretary of State, said, this appears to be gerrymandering for political benefit, not delivering for residents.

Ministers have repeatedly stated that councils should meet the standards of transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision-making. Yet many communities and councils are asking themselves, have the Government applied those standards to themselves in reaching these decisions?

Having run a unitary council with a population of just under 300,000, I know that scale truly matters in key services such as adults’ and children’s social care and services such as highways, which will represent nearly 80% of the expenditure of these new unitary councils. We succeeded because we were well-run, but it was a struggle. No doubt my noble friend Lady Scott will tell Members here about the success of Wiltshire Council, which had the benefit of being substantially larger.

Breaking up counties into smaller units of 300,000 or less will cause significant dis-synergies, particularly following government funding cuts for many councils. How many more councils does the Minister expect will require exceptional financial support as a result of these changes? And that is before the impact of the disruption, as councillors and officers focus on the uphill of reorganisation, exacerbated by the break-up of district councils, rather than doing the day job of focusing on delivering for their residents.

It is particularly striking that these concerns are not confined to this side of the House. In the other place, Liberal Democrat Members have complained about things being “done to” and not “done with”. Even Labour Members themselves have objected to decisions affecting their own areas. Others have questioned why coherent communities were being split, why some selected proposals appeared not to meet the Government’s own criteria and why areas with such strong local identities are being carved up to fit the new structures.

Devolution should be about empowering local communities, not imposing structures from Whitehall. Reorganisation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. If local government reform is to command public confidence, at the very least it should be transparent, consistent and demonstrably fair.

Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government departed from their original principles on population size, retaining boundaries and financial sustainability? What objective criteria were applied when choosing between competing local proposals? Why were proposals that split established communities or transferred areas into expanded city authorities preferred over alternatives? Have the Government truly examined the impact on the delivery and viability of those essential social care services that support some of the most vulnerable in our communities? What steps will the Government now take to reassure communities that these decisions have been taken in the interests of effective local government rather than political convenience? Can the Minister assure the House that these proposals are financially viable and will not result in the need for more exceptional financial support? Lastly, what will be the impact of the almost inevitable issuance of JRs?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are some deeply worrying elements in the Statement. First, it was issued on the final day before the Commons Recess. A momentous decision of that purport should be the subject of detailed scrutiny but that has been deliberately avoided. Secondly, the announcement has been made by a Minister who then resigned from the Government—it was his final throw of the dice. So this announcement is discredited before the details are even considered.

I trust that the new Minister for Local Government will make it her first task to reconsider the implications of these decisions. It is imperative that Angela Rayner does so, because the decisions that have been announced fail to meet the test of enhancing devolution and democracy or of creating new local authorities that will be financially sustainable. The claim is that creating unitary authorities will put an end to two-tier councils, but, at the same time, the Government intend to create an additional tier of local governance in the shape of mayoral authorities, so two tiers will remain.

The decisions that the Minister made about the boundaries are controversial. Some have described them as gerrymandering, and there seems to be no other explanation in some instances. For example, Devon, which has already been referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has been divided into four authorities—three are relatively small councils in geographical terms, based on Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, each with a population of around 300,000, and the fourth is the rest of rural Devon, with a scattered rural population with no obvious centre—but Gloucestershire is to have one council serving a population of 670,000 people. Can the Minister explain how this huge range of population sizes is consistent with the parameters that were set by the Government or with creating genuine local democracy?

The argument made in the Minister’s Statement is that there will be 3,000 fewer councillors. From my perspective, it is shameful to be proud of reducing the number of elected representatives. Democracy has to enable electors to feel that they have access to local decision-makers and can influence local decisions. Reducing the number of councillors means increasing the size of wards and making councillors more remote from the people they represent, so, on the test of enhancing democracy and enhancing devolution, these decisions have failed.

Then there is the claim that there will be cost savings by having fewer councillors and fewer council officers. That is a claim that government always makes, but it is not supported by facts. For example, in Devon, the previously single social care model for the whole country will be required to divide into four units, and financial benefits of the model will drop sharply. Very large councils of over 400,000 population see costs per head rise and the financial benefits lost, yet the Government have created several councils way above the 400,000-population size.

The Minister may be able to explain the financial argument with details omitted from the Statement, and I look forward to that if she has those details. In the Statement, the Government have admitted that they have failed in the task of making decisions on Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Sussex. When will those decisions be made? Meanwhile, the timetable for electing councillors for the new unitaries is set for May next year, while in some cases ward boundaries will have to be reviewed because of the way the boundaries for the new unitaries have been drawn.

Democratic representation is vital for communities. In England, each councillor will on average represent 3,000 electors. In France, that number is nearer 200 and in Germany it is 400. This Statement represents a retrograde step and a lost opportunity to revitalise local democracy.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will start with where I think we have slightly more consensus and agreement. I believe my noble friend Lord Fuller made persuasive arguments on the importance of making best use of adapted properties. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is correct and his amendment is not needed, that is fine, but I would far rather have the ability to do something if it is needed, so this is something that we should be looking at.

We have also heard a very persuasive case from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for reviewing whether former members of our Armed Forces are able to access social housing effectively. I very much agree with this. One of the first instances I dealt with in my time as a councillor was that of a military family who were unable to access social housing. I was pleased that we were able to change the rules locally to make sure that they were able to access it.

My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment raises questions on local accountability, the relationship between housing associations and the communities they serve and, in particular, councillor representation. When I first became a councillor, I was a councillor representative on our local housing association. That was quite normal; it all changed because of Treasury rules, as my noble friend alluded to, which meant that we could no longer sit on housing associations. My understanding is that those rules have changed slightly and we should take that opportunity to revisit this. Clearly, having somebody local who understands the local issues on housing boards is critical, particularly as some housing associations are getting very large and remote—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made that point. Certainly, if you have somebody in Stevenage and the housing association is being run out of Manchester—I do not know whether that is the case—they will not have that local knowledge, so getting it is important.

Finally, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill all centre on the already much-discussed issue of the shortage of suitable social housing stock, and our need to deliver and manage that stock efficiently for the maximum benefit of our communities. I turn first to Amendment 84, which is about greater transparency and local connection. We know that local authorities already possess these powers to take local connection into account when determining allocation. The question raised by this amendment is whether those powers are used consistently and transparently.

Amendment 85 would simply require the Government to consider how social housing can remain focused on those with the greatest housing need. It does not prescribe a particular outcome; rather, it asks whether, at a time of acute housing pressures, we are making the best use of limited housing stock, and whether there are ways of helping those whose circumstances have changed and improved towards alternatives, such as home ownership or right to buy, or helping them move into other options. It is not about divisiveness. It is about helping everybody into the best option that suits them.

Finally, on Amendment 83, we need the public’s support and their trust that this is a fair and open country. Social housing is supported by substantial subsidy or grant when it is built, and the public, rightly, deserve and need to understand that it is fair. That is at the heart of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook highlighted at Second Reading, we continue to see high-profile cases that raise public concern: whether it is the First Lady of Sierra Leone or asylum seekers moving straight into brand new social housing, this raises concerns.

Now, that is not to deny the obligations that councils have to house those in need, but we believe that social housing exists to support those with the strongest connection to this country and their local communities. It is not about divisiveness; it is about being a single community. As we have heard in earlier debates, with many families spending years on waiting lists and local authorities facing ever-increasing pressures, it is entirely legitimate for this House to consider whether existing allocation rules command public confidence. For that reason, Amendment 83 gives priority for the allocation of scarce social housing to British citizens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say but, if I am not assuaged, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather, Lady Thornhill and Lady Coffey.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for moving Amendment 79. I very much support the intention behind it. Home adaptations can make a significant difference to disabled people, helping them live safely and independently in homes that meet their needs. I also agree that local authorities should make the best possible use of the homes available to them, particularly properties that have already been adapted.

Local housing authorities are responsible for setting their own allocation schemes, within the framework of legislation and statutory guidance. They will take different approaches to identifying and allocating accessible accommodation. Some may hold a separate register for applicants who need adapted housing, while others may record that information within their main housing register.

We will underline the importance of making the best use of existing stock, including adapted homes, in our updated statutory guidance on allocations. We will draw on evidence from the guidance review and the department’s wider work on stock management to share best practice with local authorities and registered providers. I would very much welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that work and I hope that, on that basis, he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her amendment to review access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces. I know this is a very important issue for the noble Baroness, as it is for me. This Government are committed to ensuring that those who have served, and their families, can access social housing when they need it. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections within the social housing allocations framework, including receiving the highest priority where they have urgent need and the exemption from the local connection rules introduced by this Government.

Op FORTITUDE, for example, is a single referral pathway to connect veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness with help and support. As of 28 June, Op FORTITUDE has received more than 5,100 referrals and supported 1,150 veterans into temporary or supported housing. I take on board the noble Baroness’s point that very often these two things—the issue from the previous amendment and that in her own amendment—are often linked together in veterans who have disabilities.

My department already collects, assesses and publishes a range of data to understand the access of veterans to social housing, the details of which I have indeed shared with the noble Baroness. I suspect that the numbers we have in the department are low. I think the noble Baroness was quoting from the information I gave her. My department asks authorities to report households that both are members of the Armed Forces community and have been awarded additional preference under the allocation scheme. From this we can see that, in 2024-25, local authorities reported 2,649 households on housing registers that were members of the Armed Forces community and had been given additional preference. That is around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers.

As I say, I suspect that that number is low. We rely on veterans to report this to housing authorities. I have discussed this with one of my local veterans’ charities, The Muster Point, which is working very hard to promote this fact, but it says that there is a multitude of reasons why sometimes veterans do not wish to disclose to the housing authority. They do not always understand that this is going to help them in their housing application, so we need to make sure that we get that message out there. I will talk to the noble Baroness and consider how we can do more on that, because it is very important that we get that message out there—that they need to disclose this at the point of their application.

--- Later in debate ---

For all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I think we have a slight misunderstanding. The whole point of Amendment 85 is how we best manage that stock, not just on the point of application but the stock in its entirety, to ensure that social housing is targeted to those with the greatest need. The point I am making is that it goes beyond application.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

83: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to social housing: British citizenship(1) Where a dwelling is social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Regulation of Social Housing), the landlord must be satisfied that the lead tenant is a British citizen.(2) Where the landlord is not a local authority, the relevant local authority should take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that those who are not British citizens cannot access social housing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that we have the confidence of the public in our housing system. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

A six-month threshold is a proportionate response to the scale of housing need we face. Two years is a long time for a house to stand empty while waiting lists grow and homelessness rises. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned, earlier intervention would allow councils to act before properties fall further into disrepair, reducing costs and helping to bring homes back into use more quickly. This challenge requires a national response. Wales and Scotland have already shown the value of a strategic approach to empty homes. A national strategy would give local authorities the ability to bring more properties back into use, turning empty buildings into homes. Amendment 89 offers a practical response to housing need while helping to sustain community belonging and participation, and I am very pleased to support it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have a new Prime Minister and I worry there may be unfortunate changes, so before I speak to these amendments I place on record that I have thoroughly enjoyed my 18 months with the Minister and sincerely hope I shall enjoy many more months opposite her. As a fellow ex-council leader, she brings local government knowledge to a very important part of government.

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. As we move into the night, we seem to be breaking out in harmony. I turn first to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As ever, he is a passionate advocate for addressing homelessness and rough sleeping, and for better utilising housing stock—something that we have been pushing for, certainly as regards social housing stock.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, I worked really hard to try to get empty housing back into use. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: EDMOs are a very difficult way of getting housing stock back. In the end, we moved to a CPO strategy. The noble Baroness is right: looking at how we make that more effective and efficient, not just for empty homes but for other matters to do with councils, would be important.

That brings me on to the issue of six months or two years. I know that six months sounds a long time, but I completely agree that trying to find the owners and going through the processes in six months is very difficult. It also raises a number of issues regarding probate. Probate homes, and other examples, are frequently empty for more than six months. That is not because the owners do not want to do something with their home; it is just going through the legal process.

However, it is absolutely right to highlight this issue and look at how we can make better use of property that is empty for extended periods. When a property is empty for two years or more, you will frequently find that there are other issues with that housing to address, and it can often end up being a blight on the neighbouring community. In defence of the previous Conservative Government, they introduced other measures that were very helpful. Having a double new homes bonus for bringing an empty home back into use was a very helpful additional resource while it lasted. The additional council tax for empty homes was also an incentive not to leave them empty.

I would say that my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment is thoughtful and inspirational rather than quirky. She is absolutely right to look at the role that Homes England could play in accelerating social housing delivery by making publicly owned land available to local authorities. Whatever view noble Lords may have about the specific mechanisms proposed, the amendment raises an important question about how public land can be best used to support the delivery of affordable homes and homes in general.

The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley reflects a principle that has long been associated with these Benches: a “brownfield first” approach. I do not think there has been any disagreement in the House about the idea of prioritising brownfield land. There is underused urban land across the country, and there are former industrial sites, vacant plots, and existing social housing estates that are ripe for regeneration. These sites offer an opportunity to deliver much-needed new homes while revitalising communities and reducing pressure on greenfield land.

Yet we need to recognise that building on brownfield is often more difficult, and it is not surprising that developers often take the easy option and seek to build on greenfield. Many Governments of all stripes and colours—this is not a partisan comment—have talked about a “brownfield first” approach, and there is a presumption in favour of brownfield. However, in the planning hierarchy, that is clearly insufficient because it is not working. It is all too easy for objectors to cite numerous planning grounds that delay and frustrate developments to the extent that brownfield sites become too high risk for developers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned that the planning inspector should do this, but when you have only a presumption in favour and not a strong material presumption in favour, that means that you have to take into account many other factors and objections. It is only if we raise brownfield above that level that we will see a step change, which we have not seen to date. Frankly, the proof is in the pudding: we are not seeing enough brownfield developments, so we have to do something.

As I said, this requires that increase in the planning weight given to brownfield land, which is the purpose of our amendment: not just a presumption but a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development. We believe that that is a practical and balanced approach. It would support the delivery of new homes, would align with the principle of regeneration and would help to ensure that social housing is built in locations of greatest need and where the infrastructure and services often already exist. Too often, debates about housing become polarised between those who want more homes and those who wish to protect local environments. A “brownfield first” approach would help to reconcile those objectives. Conservatives have long championed this approach, which we believe remains the right way forward.

The common thread running through this debate is the need to be more ambitious in how we use the assets already available to us, whether that is empty homes, brownfield land or publicly owned land. On these Benches, we believe that increasing housing supply requires not only investment but a willingness to remove barriers to development where it delivers clear public benefit. Amendment 91 seeks to do precisely that. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Jamieson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Before I respond to the amendments, I want to welcome our new Secretary of State, Angela Rayner. She was an absolute powerhouse when she was in the department before, and I am sure she will be again. I hope I get the opportunity to work with her again there. Honestly, if the combination of Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham cannot tackle the housing crisis, nothing will, especially if they are advised by our formidable noble Lord, Lord Bird. That will create the fire and the passion that we need to sort this out once and for all.

Turning to Amendment 89, the Government are clear that, if we want to see more empty homes brought back into use, we absolutely must ensure that that is a focus. I am sympathetic to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to reduce the time that a property must be empty before a local authority can apply for an empty dwelling management order. We all know that there are many and various reasons why properties are left empty, and many of them have already been mentioned. Sometimes there are probate cases and there can be disrepair and insurance cases: if you have subsidence in a property, the insurance company will insist that you leave it empty while it measures the impact of the subsidence. There can be adaptation or tenancy issues, ownership disputes, and abandonment and lender reclamation for properties where the bank or building society needs to reclaim the property. When I was a council leader, there was nothing more frustrating to me than seeing not only properties left empty but then the expense and time that councils had to go to to bring them back into use—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that process.

As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes, and the Government will confirm further details of how we will deliver this in due course. I do not believe it is necessary to legislate in this Bill to deliver the stated aims of the amendment, because we can already deliver the changes needed by secondary legislation. We already have those powers and we intend to bring forward this secondary legislation as quickly as possible.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would place an obligation on the Government to create a national strategy and to provide a loan scheme to bring long-term empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation. It would also require the Government to provide an annual update on progress under the strategy. I fully understand the aims of the amendment to support local authorities with investment and tools to acquire and renovate empty homes and to analyse the progress on tackling empty homes.

On funding, including the amendment’s proposed loans programme, I note that local authorities can already access grant funding to acquire empty homes through a number of existing programmes designed to support the building and acquisition of social housing. This includes the existing affordable homes programme, the new social and affordable homes programme and the local authority housing fund; the Public Works Loan Board also offers lending to local authorities to support housing objectives, including to acquire empty homes. Setting up a new ring-fenced loans programme for empty homes could overlap with and complicate the funding picture for local authorities, requiring them to bid to multiple different funds to deliver projects involving empty homes in their areas, so I am not persuaded of the value of this part of the amendment.

I am also not convinced that a national strategy is the most effective approach. As I have said, the Government are already committed to strengthening the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but to be successful it is vital that each local authority creates a plan to tackle empty homes tailored to its own local circumstances. The scale of and reasons for empty homes can vary hugely, requiring a tailored local action plan, not a nationally prescribed plan. I therefore request that Amendments 89 and 90 are not pressed, but I invite the noble Lord to discuss further how we are progressing commitments to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over empty homes and how we can ensure that existing funding programmes are supporting his intended outcomes. I fully expect that he will be called into No. 10 to do that, but if he has any spare time, perhaps he can come and talk to us in the department as well. That would be wonderful.

Turning to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach. We discussed it many times in this Chamber during the passage of the planning Act, including the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land must be the first port of call. To support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include large areas of hard standing, better reflecting land that is already developed, and made clear that plans should deliver greater density in urban areas. The Government are committed to prioritising the building of new social rent homes, and to reflect this we amended the definition of “affordable housing” in the framework to provide a separate definition of social rent, rather than referring to it as just one thing.

We are clear that local authorities should set out the minimum proportion of homes for social rent that should be delivered on new developments. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land in the framework, including introducing a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. The consultation included proposals to encourage local authorities to identify sites for estate regeneration in their local plans. This will give residents a formal opportunity to comment on such proposals through the plan-making process.

All this demonstrates the strong support for brownfield development and the building of new social rent homes that already exists in the National Planning Policy Framework and in emerging policy. This addresses what I believe to be the intention of the noble Baroness’s amendment. As such, in our view a strong presumption, as proposed by this amendment, is unnecessary and duplicative as existing and emerging policy already sufficiently seeks to achieve this aim. We will shortly be publishing the new National Planning Policy Framework that resulted from the amendments and the consultation we have done.

Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to require Homes England to transfer its land free of charge to local authorities where a local authority requests the land for social housing. The noble Baroness reminded me of our first Housing First scheme in Stevenage, for which we used a patch of council-owned land and modular buildings to deliver a supported housing scheme of 18 homes for homeless people with complex needs. We delivered that within 12 months, so the noble Baroness is right; it can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

I would be happy to continue the conversation with the noble Baroness on how we make better use of public land to support social housing, including the role that Homes England should play in achieving those objectives. In the meantime, I hope that she will not press her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We have discussed brownfield many times, and I think that we are both in agreement that that should be the preferred option. The issue that I am seeking to address is that, while we all agree it should be the preferred option, in reality that is not happening. I use London as an example with very low housing delivery. The problem is that, as the Minister said, if substantial harm were to occur, a proposal will not get approval, but substantial harm is based on the weighting given to the different factors in the planning hierarchy in the planning regime. To use the example of a recent planning application whose rejection was upheld on appeal, a dilapidated shopping centre in Peckham was going to be converted into 800 or so housing units, but the planning inspector deemed that the view of a historic clock tower outweighed the benefit of housing in that area. I do not know enough details about that, but my point is that the weight given to that was greater. The point of our amendment is to increase the weight relative to other weights in the planning system such that a proposal is more likely to go through rather than less likely to go through. I appreciate the changes that are coming to the NPPF, but can the Minister confirm or agree that, if we do not see a material improvement in brownfield development, the Government would reconsider the various weightings given within the NPPF?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on individual planning cases—it would be very unwise to do so from the Dispatch Box. But he will know that there has been, as I said, this recent consultation on the NPPF. It has a different rules-based policy approach and that has been out for widespread consultation. We had 20,000 responses to that. The new NPPF would introduce an expectation that local authorities plan to meet as much of their development needs as possible on brownfield land, and that is supported by a whole series of policies which will increase housing supply on brownfield, include providing strong policy support for the intensification of brownfield to provide those additional homes.

It would be fair to say that, whenever we introduce a new NPPF—and we certainly did last time when we introduced one in December 2024—we have monitored it and made some changes to it. We are constantly looking at the NPPF, and that is the benefit of the way our planning works. We can be flexible in the way we approach these things. I am sure that officials will continue to keep that under review once the new NPPF is published.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after second “years” insert “subject to subsection (A2)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness O’Neill of Bexley, seeks to extend the transition period for the commencement of provisions in clause 1 in relation to secure tenancies.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we begin with the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we discussed in Committee, the right to buy has brought transformational benefits for 2 million families across the country. I do not wish to focus on the benefits to those who access right to buy, as I believe that case is inarguable, but rather I wish to debunk the argument against right to buy, which has focused on the loss of social housing.

Let me first be clear that we believe in one-for-one replacement or better, which was why I was pleased that the last Conservative Government introduced 100% retention of right-to-buy proceeds, which enabled councils, including my own, Central Bedfordshire, to deliver more council housing than was lost through right to buy. If this could spread across the country, there would be no loss of social housing. This should be the focus of the Government: delivering one-for-one replacement, not seeking to deny the opportunity to some of our most disadvantaged families to own their own home, which has proven to be one of the greatest mechanisms for social mobility in this country.

I turn to why right to buy can increase access to social housing. Some might find this counterintuitive, so forgive me if I get a little into the weeds. I refer to the Government’s impact statement, in particular to table four on page 24, which shows that, in 2026-27, the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales supporting some 5,450 replacement homes. That is the “do nothing” scenario. It also shows that, once the restrictions are fully in place from this Bill and the legacy impacts wind down in the period 2031 to 2035, annual right-to-buy sales are projected to fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes.

I applaud the Government’s ambition for one-for-one replacement—in fact, rather better than that—but, despite that, by the Government’s own analysis, there will be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year, or 6,600 if there were a one-for-one replacement. The Minister has argued that more social homes will be retained and, yes, there will be around 3,000 per year. Notwithstanding that this assumes a failure to deliver one-for-one replacement, I would like to examine the impact of this figure, because it ignores a critical factor. Retaining a social home does not mean that it is available for a new tenant. The family still live there; it is just that they have been denied the opportunity to own their own home.

Based on figures from the House of Lords Library, around a net 3% of social homes become available each year for new tenancies, so, of the 3,000 additional homes that are retained, only around 90 would be available each year for a new tenant. Compare that with the 4,000 new social homes if the current right to buy were to continue. The cumulative impact over 10 years would be 35,000 fewer families having the opportunity to own their own social home and, if the Government focused on one-for-one replacement, 65,000 families. As we discussed in Committee, when we are having a housing crisis, this will result in 4,000 fewer homes being delivered every year. Can the Minister explain how denying a home to 4,000 families a year fits with the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon about eliminating homelessness?

That is why we have tabled amendments which seek to retain important features of the existing framework, including qualifying arrangements, discount provisions and other safeguards that have formed part of the scheme for many years. Amendments 1 and 2 would protect those who are already secure tenants when the legislation comes into force. The principle is straightforward: existing tenants accepted their tenancy with a legitimate expectation that, after three years, they would become eligible for right to buy under current arrangements. It is one thing to change arrangements for future tenants; it is quite another to make retrospective changes for existing tenants. This is about fairness and a fair transition.

Finally, Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. The Government are proposing to retain a right of first refusal in perpetuity for the local council whenever a right-to-buy property is sold by the owner. The current position is 10 years, which seems proportionate. Perpetuity is a very long time. This raises multiple questions about inheritance, redevelopment, long-term blight and evidencing many years after the event that you actually did offer it. This is bad law and risks inevitable problems for the future.

There is a simple choice before us. Do we support aspiration? Do we support the opportunity for families to own their own home? Do we support increasing the availability of social housing for those on council waiting lists? Do we support building more homes in a period of housing crisis? Or, for ideological reasons, will the Members opposite deny tenants the opportunity of home ownership? Will they deny those on council waiting lists the opportunity of a secure and affordable social home, while cutting housebuilding? We should not seek to stop right to buy. The better approach would be to strengthen replacement, reinvestment and local delivery. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and must once again refer to my interests as a retired member of a Somerset farming family which lets some houses on the farm.

During the passage of this Bill, I have explained how the shortage of affordable housing to rent in rural areas has had and continues to have long-term social and economic consequences for our communities. It has led to school, shop and pub closures and reductions in transport and other services—quite apart from the effect on the viability of local businesses. Traditional family and social networks have collapsed, and all this has been caused by a lack of affordable housing to rent in our countryside. We must protect this stock, both where it remains and where, hopefully, it is soon to be added to. I will not say any more about all this because your Lordships have heard it all before and I have had support from noble Lords on all sides of the House.

I thank the Minister and her team for meeting to discuss our concerns about how the strict interpretation in how Section 157 of the 1985 Housing Act was implemented resulted in over 60% of rural parishes being excluded from the exemption to the right to buy. Thus 60% of all rural parishes remained exposed to the near certainty of losing their council houses—and they did. We must not let this happen again. The problem was, and remains, that in the 1985 Act, Section 157 regulations require that local authorities apply to the Secretary of State for rural area designation of their rural parishes: that is, parishes that have a population below 3,000, with less than two persons per hectare. The problem was and is that few local authorities applied. Most local authorities did not realise that this was a requirement, had transferred their stock to a registered provider or did not have the resources to put together the necessary evidence. The point is that they did not apply and therefore we lost 60% of conforming rural parishes.

At our meeting with the Minister and her team, we all agreed that this must not happen again—hence my amendment, which I tabled in Committee and repeat here. We also agreed that it was not strictly necessary for the definition of a designated rural area to be in the Bill. Therefore, I agreed not to press my amendment to a vote, provided we had some sort of undertaking that, at least in the short term, all parishes that fitted the criteria could be included, whether or not their local authority had made an application following the 1985 Act. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the Government merely rolled over the post-1985 list of parishes with designated rural area status. I am counting on the Minister to reassure me on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

On the basis of the reasons that I have set out and the reassurances I have given, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I should have declared at the outset that I am still a council member in Central Bedfordshire.

This debate has highlighted a number of important issues concerning the future of right to buy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for raising the issue of access to rural housing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for raising the issue of transparency, which is important, and my noble friend Lord Fuller for raising the issue of retention of local receipts.

However, I return to my main theme, which I discussed earlier. Right to buy and recycling the receipts from it gives an opportunity for people to own their own home. It enables the building of more social housing and reduces the housing list, because a new home is 100% available: you do not have to wait, on average, 30 years for that house to become available. It also increases the housing stock of this country. That is win-win-win. Stopping right to buy is lose-lose-lose. It stops aspiration. It will mean longer council housing waiting lists and fewer homes being built. It is particularly egregious that those who are already secure tenants will be denied the opportunity to buy their own home after three years, something that they could reasonably expect to do.

I am therefore still minded to press my Amendment 1 and its consequential Amendment 2, because this is about fairness and opportunity. On these Benches, we think this is an important issue and we wish to protect it. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, for once I rise to oppose—at least in part—an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: Amendment 77. I want to defend the concept of providing secure social housing tenancies for life. The review proposed in Amendment 77 envisages five-yearly reviews of whether a tenancy should continue, with the possibility of a consequent requirement for a tenant to move elsewhere if their circumstances have changed sufficiently. This would engender a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity for every social housing tenant.

Apart from the administrative overload, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has drawn attention, I suggest there are some powerful reasons why denying social housing tenants a secure lifetime tenancy is likely to have undesirable consequences. First, the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that has not been introduced to date, and which the Bill intends to repeal, would have required social housing tenants to pay a higher rent if their income improves. In theory, this would pressurise tenants to move on into the private rented sector or, less probably, to buy their own home elsewhere. I maintain that no regime should penalise tenants in social housing who improve their position in life by working hard and earning more. They should not be expected to pay for their success by facing higher rents. A system of rising rents for rising incomes brings disincentives to work longer hours, or even to work at all.

Secondly, if a tenant leaves subsidised housing because their improved financial position has meant a penalty in their rent, what happens if they have a reversal of their fortunes? The PRS property to which they have moved will no longer be affordable on their now reduced income, but it would be virtually impossible for them to regain a social home lost in this way.

Thirdly, if tenants are pressurised to move out of social housing and into private renting when their personal circumstances improve, they are likely to encounter the problem that their income will drop on retirement. A market rent that was affordable when they were working can swiftly become unaffordable when they are retired. The taxpayer will then get lumbered with a further increase in the housing benefit bill.

Fourthly, keeping households on an estate of social rented housing, despite their circumstances improving, has social and community advantages. A mixed-income estate that includes some tenants on rather higher incomes means successful neighbours providing role models for other families, often demonstrating community leadership for resident-led activity.

Fifthly, if tenants are encouraged or compelled to move out when they do well, those who remain could be stigmatised as losers and failures. This stigma can seriously affect children’s life chances, as American research into concentrated poverty has revealed.

Finally, there is the argument that tenants should be compelled to move on if they no longer need the space they are occupying—for example, if they have a spare bedroom. For this, the bedroom tax presents a case study. This reduction in housing benefit was intended to incentivise underoccupying tenants to move out but, in reality, very few of those facing the bedroom tax proved willing or able to move. Rather, the withdrawal of benefit from those with a spare room has served only to reduce the incomes of those affected. It has seldom been possible for the downsizing tenant to find a suitable home elsewhere. They have simply been made poorer through losing some of the housing benefit that previously covered their rent.

Instead, carrots rather than sticks have been shown to work in persuading older tenants to downsize into later living homes, such as a cluster of smart new apartments that replaced redundant garages on a council estate. Rather than pressurising elderly tenants to downsize, the incentive of a more suitable home—nearby accommodation that is more accessible and manageable —produces better results for everyone.

For all these reasons, I caution against a review that considers alternatives to secure-for-life social housing tenancies. These alternatives are likely to diminish the quality of life for tenants, especially measures that pressurise tenants unwillingly into an enforced move. Like most of us who are home owners, tenants in social housing thrive on the knowledge that they are secure in their own homes for as long as they choose.

On Amendment 78, I do not support the unhelpful provision in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to terminate fixed-term secure tenancies, which has never been implemented. This Bill is right to repeal that measure and preserve long-term security of tenure for social housing renters.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to elaborate on the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case that, where we have an asset with a finite supply and excessive demand, we need to look at how we can use it effectively.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke about the impact on the tenant: what about that person who is not able to access social housing because it is occupied by somebody who could comfortably afford their own private rented home or could afford a higher rent? I am not suggesting that everyone can but, where we have a finite resource, we need to use it efficiently. Ultimately, that is about fairness, not just to the existing tenant but to families, often in difficult circumstances, for whom the opportunity of a social home could turn their lives around—as it has turned around the life of somebody who has moved on and been successful. It is also about fairness to taxpayers. Why should someone who is struggling to pay their private rent see their taxes fund a subsidised home for someone earning more than they are? Again, I am not saying that they all are. This is about moving on.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of incentives and carrots, so I was surprised that, earlier on, he did not support the incentive of the ability to buy your own home under the right to buy. Surely that is a tremendous incentive for anyone who could afford to do it, thereby creating, through building, another social home for somebody in tremendous need.

With that, I very much support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment and the retention of the previous Conservative measure, because it is about fairness. It is about using stock wisely and about ensuring that it does the maximum amount of good for the maximum number of people.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 77. I recognise that the intention is to ensure that social housing stock is being used as effectively as possible by requiring local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies at least every five years. But the Government’s position is clear: we support secure tenancies because they provide stability and certainty for social housing tenants in the long term, and for the communities in which they live. This is especially important for families, older people, disabled people and other vulnerable households, who need a stable and secure home and the ability to put down roots in their communities that comes with the certainty that lifetime secure tenancies offer.

Local housing authorities already have tools to manage their housing stock and to support tenants who wish to move to accommodation that better meets their needs. Local authorities can carry out checks to assure themselves that tenants are meeting the terms of their tenancies. I agree that social homes should be used as effectively as possible to support housing need and that we should support landlords to ensure that this is the case. That is why the Government have launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are using their properties. This work is considering how landlords understand tenants’ changing needs and support tenant movement, including where changes result in tenants underoccupying homes. I wrote to all noble Lords ahead of Report with further details of this review. It will report later this year and will be used to help inform future policy development. It is important that we let this work conclude to better understand current practices and challenges before taking action.

On the extensive social housebuilding programme, the answer to lack of supply and to the people on the waiting list is: build more social housing. We have an extensive social housebuilding programme. Inevitably, it had a lead-in time but, now that funding is being allocated, it will quickly accelerate—and I suspect it might accelerate even more quickly now we have new management in place, but that is to be seen later.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I feel it is important to comment on that. That programme was announced over a year ago—I am pleased that the Minister has told me now that the allocations are available—and it will be interesting to see when the cash is out of the door. It will not deliver housing for at least another 18 months to two years. That is not making the step change that we need now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings.

Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they will retain this flexibility. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.

Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I think I ought to declare a tangential interest, as my brother-in-law is a boat dweller. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward this Bill and for how eloquently she raised the issues faced by boat dwellers, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.

I do not think there is any doubt that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed. It is only fair and right that everyone in this country should have access to public services, whether it is medical or having the ability to vote, and so forth. Boat dwellers are a diverse community. For some, living afloat is a lifestyle choice but, for others, as has been mentioned, it is an affordable housing option in an increasingly expensive housing market—and we have discussed the housing crisis many times. Whatever their circumstances, many boat dwellers undoubtedly face practical challenges in accessing services. The principle that people should not be denied access to public services, mainly because they live on a boat, is one I think we can all get behind across the House.

However—and I am sorry that there is a however—sympathy for the object of the Bill is not necessarily the same as support for the legislation before us. This House must ask not only whether a problem exists but whether the proposed solution is proportionate, workable and compatible with existing law. In that context, a number of provisions in this Bill raise concerns.

Clause 2 defines “boat dwellers” as those

“for whom a boat … is their primary residence”.

The term “permanent mooring” in the Bill risks confusion and, in our view, would be better replaced with “residential mooring”. In the case of the Canal & River Trust inland waterways, where a person chooses to make their boat their primary residence, they are required to have either a residential mooring or a continuous cruiser licence and to abide by the conditions of those licences. Where boaters fail to comply with licence conditions or moorings’ anchorage regulations, the relevant authorities must be able to take appropriate enforcement action, but many of the provisions in this Bill would impede their ability to do so.

The Bill also seeks to elevate a boat dweller’s right to secure a home above many existing statutory responsibilities relating to the management of the waterways. In doing so, it risks creating considerable legal uncertainty. The Bill requires authorities to refrain from enforcement action wherever such an action might affect a person’s right to a secure home, yet it provides little clarity on how competing rights and responsibilities are to be balanced in practice. Inevitably, this will risk litigation and uncertainty for both authorities and boat dwellers alike. Nobody wishes to see vulnerable residents lose their homes, whether that is on land or water, but we must consider the wider implications for creditors, navigation authorities and the rule of law. The Bill appears to create protections that go considerably beyond those available to homeowners or tenants on land. This House must be cautious before establishing a category of property that becomes effectively immune from certain forms of law enforcement.

Perhaps the Bill’s most striking provision is that which requires relevant authorities to give greater weight to the rights and interests of boat dwellers than to those of commercial, sporting and leisure users or riparian owners, including homeowners, whenever the rights of boat dwellers may be affected. That is a very far-reaching proposition. Britain’s waterways are shared spaces: they support economic activity, recreation, tourism, environmental purposes and residential use. Good governance requires fair balancing between all legitimate interests. Whatever one’s views on the current enforcement practices, we should recognise that mooring space is a finite resource. Navigation authorities already struggle to enforce these essential regulations, particularly in premium sites. If authorities are deprived of the ability to manage that resource effectively, there is a risk of congestion, tension between different users and unintended consequences for the very communities this Bill seeks to assist.

There are also questions about whether this Bill inadvertently imports concepts from the housing law into circumstances for which they were never designed. In previous debates, as has been mentioned on related matters, concerns were rightly raised about whether concepts such as dwelling house, tenure and residential occupation can simply be transposed into a waterways context.

Finally, I raise the issue of council tax, as the Bill potentially raises a number of issues of when a boat is a home or not. Currently, a boat with a permanent mooring on which you reside is subject to council tax, but not if you do not permanently reside there. If, in effect, all boats have a right of residence, would they all be subject to council tax or second home tax? I do not have the answer, but it is a question that needs answering.

None of this is to dismiss the concerns that have motivated the Bill. We should continue to examine whether barriers to public service can be reduced and whether existing protections are operating fairly. But legislation must be carefully targeted and evidence based. In its current form, the Bill risks upsetting long-established legal frameworks, constraining the legitimate functions of navigation authorities and creating uncertainty for all users of our waterways. For those reasons, while I respect the intentions behind the Bill and we believe that something needs to be done, I remain unconvinced at this stage that it provides the right legislative answer. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Minister and whether she is able to answer some of those flummoxing questions.

Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for bringing forward this Bill, and for the clarity of its purpose, which he spoke about.

This is a thoughtful and timely proposal for addressing an issue that other noble Lords have raised, which is clearly important. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Not unsurprisingly, space in cemeteries is a key issue. In one of my villages, Westoning, there are six spaces left in a village of around 2,000 souls. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, said that he is in the waiting room; we are all in the waiting room—some of us just wish to wait a little bit longer than maybe he does. That point is very pertinent for some of my residents, who are very conscious that they want to be buried in their local village. For the 17 years I have been there, I have been helping them try to find a site, but it is not necessarily easy. You would have thought that in a village in the middle of the green belt there would be space, but when you take account of land ownership and in my area the risk of flooding in particular—obviously, you have to have a water table well below the depth at which you bury people—it is not simple. However, it is very important, and I recognise that.

Responsibility for burial provision rests primarily with local authorities. I am not quite sure of the case in London but, in many rural areas, the actual delivery is done by parish councils, religious bodies and churches. With the pressures due to land use, demographic change and different faith and cultural communities, the current framework is frankly increasingly stretched. The Law Commission’s ongoing review of the death management system has highlighted the complexity of existing arrangements and the need for a more coherent and long-term view.

I also want to highlight what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised. As he said, in the 17th and 18th centuries, this was a commercial opportunity. He mentioned the seven major cemeteries in London, one of which is Highgate Cemetery, which I had the pleasure of visiting about a year ago. That was set up as a private enterprise and made a lot of money, until it went bust. Running cemeteries is a long-term business. They are costly to set up and there are ongoing costs for a long period of time.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, mentioned the price of £24,000. For many people, that is way out of reach. I would not like to go back to the 17th-century provision where the nobility can have themselves buried nicely and the paupers cannot. It is very important that we look at this in the round. I take his suggestion that maybe we should look at extending the Bill to look at how we can reuse existing facilities, bearing in mind that that would also raise the whole issue of the ownership of those facilities.

We recognise the challenges and the sensitivities, but ensuring that all communities have access to dignified, appropriate burial space is a basic matter of respect. The Bill’s emphasis on consultation with faith groups, burial authorities and neighbouring councils is very welcome. We also note the context of the Law Commission’s work on grave reuse. Although the Government have yet to publish their full response, the commission’s proposals on strengthening safeguards, extending powers beyond London and protecting war graves demonstrate the scale of reform that may be required in the years ahead. The Bill does not pre-empt that work but provides a practical interim framework for local planning.

There will clearly be questions in Committee. One that I will focus on is the resource implications. As I mentioned, it is not just about the cost of setting up a cemetery but of looking after it for not five, 10 or 20 years but potentially over 100. That cumulative cost is significant, and many local authorities are severely stretched. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, implied that it would not necessarily be a burden on local councils but, as I understand it, as the Bill is written ultimately they are the backstop—if you are the backstop for anything, you need to make sure that you can afford it.

Given the stretched finances of local government, particularly after some recent cuts for some councils, what is the Government’s position on new burdens? This will be a new burden for local councils. Also, we need to look at the interaction between existing planning duties, the balance between local discretion and national prescription and the responsibilities for existing sites and how they will be managed. However, the principle that burial space should be planned for transparently, consistently and with due regard to community need is one that we support. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the House as we move forward on this Bill. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill and we welcome the opportunity to scrutinise it further.

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

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or a significant planning matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am aware of the time.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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