Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for initiating this important debate. Abuse of local councillors is not new; I am afraid it goes back a long time. I was a local councillor for over 25 years—I chaired various committees and was leader of the council for 19 years—so I will talk about a few personal examples. From the moment there was a change of control, there were demonstrations at the town hall. People ran a gauntlet of abuse and threats, and many council meetings were disrupted by order papers flying through the air from the public gallery, which was usually subdued only when demonstrators were removed by the police. For a long period, the police kept crash barriers at the town hall, as they were there so much.

For individual councillors, demonstrations outside their homes and threats through the letterbox were common. At that time I had small children, and I had to contend with being burned in effigy outside my home on many occasions. Of course, I was not there—I was at the town hall—so it was my young children and my wife who had to suffer it. One particular demonstration comes to mind: when it was finished and they had taken their photographs—this shows my influence—the people in the wheelchairs were all able to get up and push their wheelchairs away. Obviously, I had some effect: the power of a councillor.

I am using my own examples, but even today much of this is organised by people in mainstream political parties, so I slightly feel that we are also reaping a bit of what our own political parties have sowed in the past. Now it is so much worse with social media, because they do not even have to show a bit of courage by showing up outside your house and shouting at you; now they can just do it online under a fictitious name and you will never know who they are.

Public anger over policies is often driven by government policies coming down to councils to implement. For most people, the layers of government are totally opaque. Making hard decisions goes with the job of being a councillor—except, of course, when councils do not do that and we have poor councils as a result. We have all seen the result of those poor councils that do not make decisions. The police and judiciary must take seriously the threats, they must take action and they must penalise as necessary. It is not, and never can be, normal politics to abuse someone. This has to be treated with seriousness and there has to be a price for that kind of behaviour.

Finally, much of this will be much better with local government reform, greater fiscal freedoms and real transparent powers, which I believe would create clarity. If, at the same time, we get robust action by the law, this problem will decline. It will also decline because people will start to believe that councils are actually a little more relevant.

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

I remind noble Lords of the advisory speaking time limit. If speakers run over, that will simply reduce the amount of time the Minister has to respond, because this is a time-limited debate. I would be grateful if speakers could stick to three minutes.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Lemos Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, my Lords, that has started the debate on this important Bill in a rather polarised way. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who used some of the rhetoric of pointing fingers of blame at minorities, when we should be talking about people in need of decent housing. I hope that we can do the reverse and think about people who need social housing rather than who they might be.

I have both a practical and a direct interest in this Bill, as a councillor serving on Kirklees council, dare I say? I concur with much of what the Minister said in her introduction to this Second Reading; I too spent all my childhood benefiting from the dignity, stability and quality of a council home.

Liberal Democrats largely welcome this Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. That is not to give it a complete stamp of approval but rather to acknowledge that fundamental reform of the provision of housing—at social rents, I emphasise—is long overdue. The provision of good-quality housing at a rent that is affordable—not affordable rents—is a basic human right that has been sorely neglected over the past 40 years. There is a direct link between quality of housing, educational outcomes and long-term health needs. It is in the interests of society as well as of individual families to provide good-quality housing that is available at a cost that everyone can afford.

The Liberal Democrats’ solution is the building of 150,000 homes for social rent every year to meet the needs of the 1.34 million households in England on local housing registers. That is likely to equate to over 4 million adults and children hoping and wishing to be allocated a property at a social rent.

The Government’s estimate is that, for larger family homes of four bedrooms, the wait to be rehoused can be as much as 18 years and that 28% of new lets are for families who are statutorily homeless. In my council, there are 19,000 households on the housing register and the number of new lets each year is around 1,700. Some 2.4 million council houses have been sold under right to buy. In Kirklees, there were 46,000 council houses in 1980; now, there are fewer than 22,000, with 19,000 households on the housing register. That alone puts into stark relief the acute problem of social housing provision. The fundamental failure of right to buy was that it was never accompanied by a right to build using the income from sales. The result is the scandalous lack of genuinely affordable housing for so many families.

The Bill begins to address the lack of supply of social housing. First, it introduces a 35-year exemption for new builds, which provides certainty that a council investing in building new homes is financially sustainable, as the capital borrowed to build can be paid back from rental income over that period. Increasing the qualifying period for the right to buy to 10 years will further protect the much-reduced stock that remains. Those are positive changes in our view, but what the Bill fails to do is substantially increase the supply of social housing.

The Government will point to the £39 billion allocated for the construction of houses in the social rent and mixed tenure sector. However, the aim is for just 180,000 new homes for social rent in a decade, when the need is so great. Measured against the scale of the challenge, that is a paltry response. Increasing the supply of housing at social rents benefits families who are in receipt of housing benefit. Their low income can then be spent on essentials for their family. The lack of social housing has resulted in many families entering the private rented sector, where rents are not equivalent to housing benefit. For example, in my own town a two-bedroom back-to-back house for rent in a Victorian terrace will cost around £750 a month—I know noble Lords who live in London think that that is peanuts, but where I live it is a lot of money—whereas the local housing allowance for claimants for a two-bed property is under £650 a month. There is a gap of £100 a month for a family claiming benefits, which makes a huge impact on their being able to afford basics.

There is also an impact on the cost to government, which the Minister pointed to. This year, spending on support for housing will reach £37 billion. The provision of housing at a social rent would reduce that revenue demand on government. It makes good sense to invest in more provision of social housing.

The other good thing in the Bill is the indefinite right of first refusal to purchase a former council house, in Clause 6, which provides a new route to increasing the supply of social housing. An additional benefit of this clause will be to provide greater stability in some council housing estates where private landlords have taken over houses that were formerly for social rent, having been bought under the right to buy and then sold on to private landlords. Often, these private landlords are distant—with some living in South Africa, in my experience—and in these situations do not provide the same support and management as that provided by council housing providers and registered social landlords.

There are other important changes in the Bill—for instance, on responding to domestic violence, as well as the proposal to streamline housing consents. There is therefore much to support. However, the gaping hole in the Bill is a more ambitious plan to meet the need for genuinely affordable housing at a social rent—not affordable housing, which is very different and often not affordable. Doing so would transform the immediate lives and future prospects of so many of our fellow citizens. Against the magnitude of the need, the Bill provides important first steps but falls mightily short of the real challenge, which is a greater supply of social housing.

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

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but, as we embark on the Back-Bench speeches, I invite noble Lords to note the advisory speaking time of seven minutes. If we can stick to that, all speakers will get a fair crack of the whip, especially the later ones, and we can achieve a reasonable finish time. I would be grateful for your Lordships’ co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interests in property and as a past chair of three housing associations. I am fully supportive of this Bill. It is very rare that you find a Bill that you are so enthusiastic about, but I am because it supports my current thinking.

I certainly appreciated the intellectual arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the right to buy is not itself responsible for the diminution of our public housing stock; I accept that. But the fact is that it has led to a huge decline in public housing stock as politicians did not use the money that should have been used, and now we see the big social need for more social and public housing. It has also had unintended consequences. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, did hint at those. There is a housing estate in Winchester, in Hampshire, where I live, which is now dominated by student rented accommodation, because 40% of the stock is now back in the private rented sector. That actually makes it more difficult to keep the appearance and the pride of the estate as they should be. So, it has had unintended consequences.

I also support the extra protection for victims of abuse in this Bill; that is long overdue.

One has to see this Bill in the context of the Government’s Delivering a Decade of Renewal for Social and Affordable Housing document. The first thing that is of benefit in that is the recognition that it is a 10-year plan. Five-year plans barely get off the ground before the five years are over. I think that is important, although it puts into question whether the Government are going to achieve 1.5 million homes in five years—I do not believe they will. A 10-year plan is much more sensible. Secondly, securing a firm, stable rental income increase policy to encourage investment is very important. I supported the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that. It provides the opportunity for alternative capital sources. Thirdly, the Government’s boost to housing numbers is not enough yet but, given the financial constraints, it is a start. The other important thing in the Government’s policy is the recognition that, to get housing numbers up, you need a big contribution from the public sector and from housing associations.

In the limited time I have, I want to concentrate on three issues, which I think are important in social housing and what is needed now in the social housing sector. The first thing is to recognise that the housing market is in the doldrums, and the Government’s policy depends on half the social houses coming through the work of developers. But there is the current state of the market; in London in the last financial year, only 6,325 homes were completed. They need over 80,000. Everywhere there are unviable housing schemes because of the big increase in housing costs, the uncertainty in the market and the dominance of the six major developers, whose business models still depend on house prices rising. It is not surprising the housing market is in the doldrums.

Are the Government looking at a contingency plan if the doldrums continue? Will they be prepared to step in and buy houses from the private sector if any of the private sector builders go into administration? Would they be prepared to accelerate investment? This does not necessarily mean the total spending over 10 years but, to get the housing market moving, they may need to accelerate the investment in social housing in the short term.

I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who cautioned against concentrating solely on new build; improving stock is just as important. We have to remember that the tenants are actually helping to fund investment in the associations and through the council housing revenue accounts through their rents. They need to see some benefit in the stock they are living in, and we need to make sure that resources are going into this. What plans do the Government have for keeping housing providers up to the mark in improving their stock?

One final issue I would like to comment on, which is a concern to me, is the well-being of tenants and the sense of pride of community. Anyone who has been canvassing in social housing stock in recent years knows that they are also part of the alienated electorate. That is the strongest feeling you get when you go around social housing. Why is that? It is not surprising that a lot of these people are struggling to make ends meet. They are the most vulnerable in the jobs market and they are cynical of the management they experience. I have spent time in housing associations countering the view “It’s good enough for them”; it is not. They have to have the best quality of repair work and the best environment on their estates, which private estates could look up to. They also need some help and service: encouragement, through housing associations, with job training and training on IT and the use of facilities. That would actually help their housing management as well.

There is a danger in our social housing that alienation leads to non-participation and to people wanting to vote Reform. Regeneration is absolutely critical in some of these estates. So investment in improving estates must be made to show that the housing managers care. This can be done through improving landscaping, sorting out parking and reinstating support services, all of which we have accepted in the private sector but are not in public housing.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Can I invite the noble Lord to finish?

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I am just finishing. What plans will the Government bring forward to improve sink estates generally and restore the confidence, commitment and involvement of social tenants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and to hear his contribution on the housing problems in his area.

I endorse our Front Bench particularly and the opening speech we heard on some of the problems with this Bill. In passing, I will take up my noble friend’s reference to veterans and the importance of helping them. Some time ago at King’s Cross station, I was sitting on a bench waiting for my train. A man came up and sat beside me, and we got chatting. He was a veteran. He had served in the Royal Marines for more than 11 years, including in Afghanistan, and had been shot in the back. He lived in social housing with his daughter. Shortly afterwards, before we spoke, his daughter had been killed in a taxi accident; the driver was found guilty of reckless driving and sent to prison. The man lost not only his daughter but his home and never knew where he was going to spend the night, at which station, but I have not seen him since at King’s Cross. I feel that this is a very important priority and should be given the same protection in law as the other categories that this Bill addresses.

One of the central premises of the Bill is that there should be more state housing and that the more social housing there is, the better. This is to be promoted by restricting the right to buy and putting more obstacles in the way of tenants trying to buy their own homes. These obstacles include increasing the number of years, as we have heard, from three to 10 and making it expensive, as we have also heard, for tenants to buy by amending the percentage discounts, so cutting the value of the tenant’s stake in the home they may have lived in over decades. They include reducing the stock of right to buy homes as a proportion of overall council housing; for instance, no newly built homes will be available to buy for the first 35 years, so you may, if you are a tenant there, in your working life, never be able to aspire to buy that home if you settle in that area. Another obstacle is creating delay and uncertainty for applicants by increasing the time landlords can take to respond to them, both on eligibility—from four to eight weeks or from eight to 12, depending on the sort of tenancy they have—and on giving information on the price and details: from eight to 12 weeks for freehold or from 12 to 16 for leasehold. In the light of these changes, can the Minister please let us know whether the Government consider that the increase we have seen in right to buy sales will continue or decline as a result of this measure, and what the estimated figures are over the first five years after the Bill becomes law?

The Bill will have further damaging effects. First, in terms of cost, it will increase the stock of housing owned, managed and run by local councils or those registered by them, thus augmenting the power of the state over men, women and their families and augmenting the costs for taxpayers. The DWP estimates that this year, the housing bill will be almost £39 billion, a rise of £913 million on last year—the highest, in today’s prices, since 1970, measured on similar data. By contrast, the taxpayer receives a significant, as things stand, return from social housing sales receipts. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham what is done with these housing receipts, which can alleviate the tax burden on taxpayers, who might have to meet other needs, or perhaps they might even help to lower taxes. In the financial year ending March 2025 alone, local authorities received £798 million from a reported 7,494 eligible sales, an increase of 7% compared to 2023-24. I ask the Minister, on a per annum basis for the first five years of the operation of this Bill, in respect of the decline in sales and the maintenance and overheads that must now be borne by councils and taxpayers, what is the estimated additional cost?

Secondly—this is a very serious problem, and we have heard about it today from noble Lords— the Bill will undermine the incentive for working people to be independent and support themselves and their family, preventing dependency on benefits not only during working life but well into old age and retirement. As we have heard, already in 2026, across England, Wales and Scotland, almost 6 million people—a record 5.95 million people—will receive housing support from the taxpayer this year. That is 1.2 million more than in 2019-20. In Cambridge, where I live, around 65% of tenants receive some form of benefit, with 55% on maximum housing benefit or universal credit.

Thirdly, the Bill will undermine overall economic growth and increase overall the ever-growing burden of taxation. This is an attack on property rights by taxing the earnings of working men and women to subsidise the unproductive public sector and a benefits culture. I therefore do not share the Government’s enthusiasm for increasing the size and power of the state over people’s lives, turning individual men and women into supplicants dependent on the state, potentially for the rest of their lives, without the incentive—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I must ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

—to earn enough to pay a market rent and take responsibility for themselves and their families. State housing, subsidised by the taxpayer and owned and managed by the state, is not home ownership. It is state dependency.

Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords—

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

We will hear from the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, to build on the Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of course the Minister will be aware that the previous Government back in 2016—I know because I was instrumental in that—brought in the specific crime of anti-Muslim hatred, but the approach they took was one of inclusivity; that is, it was not just for one faith but for ensuring that all religious hate crime could be reported. Indeed, the statistics we have now reflect that. I respect very much Dominic Grieve, who I worked with very closely. How will this definition fit in specifically? The second element is on education and ensuring that hate crimes are reported and accurately recorded.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

Amendment 243 withdrawn.

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

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I am conscious of the time; a number of us on all sides of this Committee will have a hard stop at 6 pm. We all want to use our best endeavours to complete these last two groups by 6 pm, I think, but we will stop then. I say this just so that noble Lords know that our intention is to try to finish this stage tonight; I know that the Minister and others will take that into account.

Clause 74 agreed.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lord Lemos Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken today in what has been a very important and interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for his work in sponsoring the Bill not just in your Lordships’ House but, as he noted, in the other place. I admire his determination and resolution to get the job done.

The Bill, as all noble Lords have noted, addresses a clear and pressing issue: the growing problem of unauthorised access to football matches, particularly at high-profile fixtures. It proposes a new football specific offence of unauthorised entry to designate matches to address this, capturing a broad range of behaviours from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents and impersonation of matchday staff. I want to emphasise how important, as other noble Lords have acknowledged, this new offence of unauthorised entry is.

My noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have referred to ingenious measures used in the past for entering football grounds. My noble friend Lord Mann said that, once he had his school dinners, he could not he could not be lifted over the turnstiles anymore. We have breakfast clubs now, so it will be even more difficult.

Crucially, this measure enables courts to impose football banning orders on convictions for the offences, which is very important. These are civil orders that provide a strong deterrent and are a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and protect public safety. A number of noble Lords asked what grounds we have for believing that these measures will be effective. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the evidence shows that football banning orders of the sort we are discussing are highly effective in transforming behaviour. The large majority of individuals whose orders have expired are assessed by police as no longer posing any significant threat of football-related violence or disorder. We know these orders are effective in deterring banned fans from attempting to enter stadiums, have strong rehabilitative impact and are regarded as a serious consequence by those considering unlawful behaviour. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Shamash, stressed the importance of enforcement, and of course I agree. But they will know that enforcement is a matter for local police forces on these matters.

On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about resources being available, the Home Office remains committed to exploring ways to support policing in recovering a greater share of special police services costs. This is an important issue and requires careful consideration. To better understand the options and potential impact of any changes, we are conducting further engagement and analysis over the coming months and are grateful for policing’s continued engagement on this. So this matter is under very active consideration.

The Bill responds directly, as noble Lords have noted, to the recommendations of the independent review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final. I am sure that noble Lords recall those events vividly and therefore understand the importance of these measures. Thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through mass forced entry or tailgating, and this problem is reoccurring. We saw further evidence of this at the 2024 UEFA Champions League final, again at Wembley, where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where away allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern, not a one-off event, and therefore we must address it. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but dangerous. It places enormous strain on stadium security, creates serious risks to public safety and undermines the experience of law-abiding fans, and it can be very expensive for clubs. This measure will help with that too.

The Government are clear that this cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we are actively supporting this Bill. Forced entry, tailgating and so-called jibbing are not victimless acts. Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exits and frightening conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempted to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will also be captured by the new offence. The offence will additionally apply to those who knowingly attempt to use a ticket, whether physical or digital, that has already been used. This is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The Bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority, such as emergency workers or stadium staff, are not caught by the offence when going about their business. It will also not apply to those who unwittingly purchase counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket.

I will clarify a couple of other matters that noble Lords raised. Although this Bill does not directly cover those who facilitate unauthorised entry, this conduct would be covered under the Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968, depending on the facts of the case. I note, for my noble friend Lord Mann, that political agitators or anyone else entering the pitch without authorisation is committing an offence under Section 4 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.

This is a proportionate, targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football, which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the Football (Offences) Act.

As this was raised by noble friend Lord Mann, I reaffirm comments made in the other place about the Maccabi Tel Aviv game. As I think everyone knows from statements made in the other place, the Government fought hard to ensure that tickets would be made available for this game. However, Maccabi Tel Aviv ultimately took the difficult decision to reject the allocation, stating that it could not guarantee the safety of its supporters for the entire journey to the UK. Following the decision by Birmingham City Council last week, the Government worked closely with West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council to support them to consider all the options available and to tell us what resources would be needed to manage the risks. The Culture Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Community Secretary were all involved in these extensive discussions and, although the ultimate decision regarding the admittance of away fans is for the local authority to make, we were clear that resources should not be the determining factor in deciding whether to admit Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. We are disappointed that the allocation will not be taken up.

This Bill enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage through the other place, and rightly so. It has been welcomed by both the Football Association and the police as a timely and effective response to a growing problem. This is a fan-friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority. It will help to ensure that football remains a safe and welcoming environment for all and such an important part of our national life. Therefore, I reiterate the Government’s support for this measure and thank my noble friend for this important debate, which I am sure will be continued as the Bill makes progress.