Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I hope the Minister will be in a frame of mind to accept the amendment that I too have signed. The case has been very amply made by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, and I will seek to be brief as I possibly can. I believe that the Government will not deliver the objectives of the Bill unless they raise the status of planning within local authorities, and I believe it should be a statutory requirement, as it has been in Scotland since April 2024, for there to be chief planning officers in each local planning authority reporting directly to chief executives.

The reasons have been clearly stated both now and in Committee: good decision-making in planning requires well-qualified and professional planning officers at a very senior level who can integrate development management and development planning.

As we have heard, given that more decisions are going to be delegated to officers, the public interest, I think, requires that the quality of decision-making be sound and must generate great confidence within the general public. I think that this amendment would actually deliver that objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said a moment ago, a chief planning officer would be an authoritative source of advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just said, there is a new recognition of the value of planning in local government, which will deliver this Bill—it can deliver this Bill—but only if the status of planning has been enhanced. The key way to do it is to have a statutory chief planning officer in each local planning authority.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I support this very sensible amendment. We need to ensure that every local authority has the support of a professional, well-qualified head of planning—a chief planner. If we are going to have sensible planning, we need this. I recall a comment earlier—but I do not remember who said it—about the hydra of planning; it becomes more and more complex, and this Bill, frankly, is not helping particularly. Having a qualified head of planning, a chief planner, is critical if we are going to maintain and develop planning, as other noble Lords have said. I do not think I need to say any more—I am just puzzled why the Government are not accepting this.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I note his concerns and hope the Minister will respond to them, but this is such a fundamental issue that it is important that I state that we support the substance of the levy as set out. Indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that there is a general acceptance by the industry, despite some of the problems that the Minister will need to address.

I support entirely every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the conclusions that he has reached. I share his concerns about the speed of action—it has been too slow—and the fact that for many leaseholders, nothing in practice has changed. As we have heard, there are deadlines, of 2029 and 2031, which are not far off. However, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the Treasury might be willing to increase the level of loans to the department. I very much hope that that will prove to be the case.

I have two specific questions for the Minister before I say a few further words. First, I have not understood from the Explanatory Memorandum why there is a three-year review period, as opposed to a shorter one. In the context of what the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, said about speed, reviewing after three years seems to be too long a period. Secondly, why does the purpose-built student accommodation have a threshold of 30 bed spaces for exemptions, as opposed to some other number? Why was the figure of 30 decided on?

These are vital regulations, as they implement one of the cornerstones of the Building Safety Act that was the response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As we know, the purpose of the levy is to provide funding for remediation that is essential in many residential properties in order to assure the safety of residents. This statutory instrument provides the considerable detail needed, including, for example, exemptions for small developments and social housing, which seem to us to be reasonable.

It also seems right that the levy is based on square metres of floor space, that brownfield sites will have a levy at a lower rate, and that the levy varies according to general property values in a local authority area. The Government broadly have the approach right. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, so rightly identified, the problem is that many leaseholders are still being penalised by freeholders and managing agents where properties have not yet been remediated. The penalties imposed are via the substantial increases in service charges and, on top of this, innocent leaseholders are paying huge household insurance costs. Will the Government review their approach to defining those buildings at risk? These are not the same as the assessment made by the insurance market, and it is leaseholders who then pay the price, as well as finding that the value of their property has plummeted.

In conclusion, will the Government commit to a review of at-risk properties and the external wall system assessment to provide some hope for leaseholders caught up in a nightmare that is not of their making?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Fortunately, we do not have many high-rise buildings in rural areas.

In response to the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025, the principle is absolutely right that those who have profited from residential development should contribute to the cost of making homes safe. It is both fair and necessary. This levy was set up by the Building Safety Act 2022 under the previous Conservative Administration, and it is an important part of wider efforts. I make very clear that we support this, but some issues need addressing.

The Government anticipate that the levy will raise approximately £3.4 billion over the next decade to help fund remediation of historic safety defects, including dangerous cladding. For too long, thousands of residents have lived in buildings that they know are unsafe. They suffer the stress and emotional toil of being in an unsafe building and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, they are unable to sell and to move on with their lives. The situation is not of their making. My noble friend made a number of points, and it is crucial that this is done faster and better. I would very much like to know whether the Minister believes that the two deadlines of 2029 and 2031 will be achieved given that, as my noble friend pointed out, around half have not even started. I cannot remember the exact phrase—

Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It may be that RPI is the right way of doing it. I do not know why he took RPI there and not CPI. However, the issue is: why, in fact, are the Government not going to peg the £15 million to inflation? At what point will that figure then be adjusted because inflation continues to rise? We have to have a debate about that fact, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for explaining the RPI figures since 2014. Clearly, it may be that £15 million is the correct figure, but I would like to know what assessment the department has made of the implications of that figure on the number of local authorities that will be taken out of the full audit requirement?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, again, I raise my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which, just being slightly boastful, is a council that for the 10 years I was leader had its accounts audited and signed off every year within the deadline and was one of the few councils to do so.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The instrument raises the threshold, as has been discussed, to £15 million in annual income or expenditure. Public bodies below this will no longer need to have the full audit and can follow the streamlined annual governance and accountability return—AGAR—process.

This reform is in response to the long-standing and well documented challenges that England’s local audit system faces. It is worth noting that this is not a new policy initiative. The foundations were laid under the previous Conservative Government, who published the consultation in December 2024, setting out proposals to overhaul the local audit framework. The consultation highlighted widespread concerns around audit capacity proportionality and long-term sustainability. A formal response was subsequently published on 9 April 2025. I ask the Minister to update the Committee on progress towards implementing the remaining elements of this broader strategy.

We believe that the instrument before us is a pragmatic and proportionate reform. It recognises that many smaller authorities do not carry the same level of financial risk as larger bodies and should not be burdened with audit requirements that are both costly and unnecessary where they are unnecessary.

The Government have suggested that this change will ease the financial and administrative burden on smaller authorities, reduce the pressure on the over- stretched audit market and allow scarce audit resources to be better focused on higher-risk councils where scrutiny is most urgently needed. We note that 55% of the consultation respondents supported raising the threshold, indicating that the proposal carries a degree of support from within the sector itself.

In closing, I would be grateful if the Minister could address a few further points. First, what safeguards are in place to ensure that smaller authorities, no longer subject to the full audit, continue to operate with high standards of financial transparency and sound governance, which I think addresses the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was raising? While £15 million is a sensible threshold, will other factors be taken into account, such as the debt levels of councils? A council that is heavily in debt, even if it is just below the £15 million threshold, is clearly at much higher risk than one that is just above it and has no debt.

Secondly, will the department be issuing updated guidance to support these authorities as they continue using the AGAR framework? As my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, are there other consequences that are not in this paper, and that are coming as a change to this definition, that we are not considering today and should be considered?

Finally, can the Minister provide an update on the progress of the wider local audit reform programme, as set out in December 2024? In particular, will she address the issues of proportionality, risk-based accounting and focusing that limited resource on higher-risk areas and not on low-risk, bureaucratic processes?

I have one other question; I apologise. Can the Minister update the Committee on how the Government are addressing the shortage of local government audit practitioners?

These are my last few sentences. We support this instrument in principle. It is a sensible step forward towards a more proportionate, risk-based local audit regime. However, I raise those various issues. We need to ensure that there is robust oversight, transparency and regular review, to ensure that public accountability is not diminished in the process.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this.

The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome.

I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions.

As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.

These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.

As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.

Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely supportive of these three statutory instruments and thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The consultation that took place on the three proposals supported what the council in Cornwall and the combined authorities of East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire proposed, so it is right to transfer responsibilities to those bodies.

As the Minister said, it will mean that decisions on adult education provision, including skills training, reflect the needs of the combined authority or council areas. However, I would like the Minister to clarify two issues. In the consultation in the east Midlands on the transfer of functions, 1,534 people were against the proposals, with 2,504 in favour. Can the Minister explain, if only for the record, why so many people were opposed to something that seems entirely sensible? Was there a problem or had there been some misunderstanding about what was being proposed?

More importantly, there is going to be an issue, given that these three proposed transfers of functions are adding to quite a number that are already in existence. How will the Government assess outcomes and success? Devolution is supposed to improve services and outcomes. There are tests that the Government could apply: I would like to think that one of those is a reduction in the rate of NEETs—young people who are not in employment, education or training. Do the Government identify a reduction in the NEET level as something that devolution should deliver, given that local people are best positioned to assess how skills, training and educational opportunity can be improved?

A second test might be about the number of young people with disabilities who are employed. That is important, because we should use all the talents of young people that we can, and the NEET figures are simply too high.

The third test I suggest to Ministers is to reassure Parliament in future, first, that the structure that will be put in place will link effectively with employers in identifying future skills needs; and, secondly, that the providers of adult and further education—and, indeed, those of mainstream education in the school system—are all talking to each other, as well as with the council and the combined authorities, to ensure that effective decision-making is happening. This is because it is very difficult to identify future skills needs. It is comparatively easy to identify current skills needs, but identifying skills needs five or 10 years from now, say, is a great deal more complicated. I am interested in what feedback systems the Government have in order to enable all the bodies with devolved powers and responsibilities to teach each other and learn from each other, so that we do not have skills shortages and so that future planning for our skills needs is as effective as it possibly could be. Will there be a regular report to Parliament on outcomes?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a current Central Bedfordshire councillor. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these important statutory instruments. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I, as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, am always supportive of further devolution to local government. His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the principle of devolved adult education functions; indeed, we were the architect of many of these devolution arrangements when in government.

Local authorities, with their proximity to learners and communities, are often better placed than central government to identify and meet local needs—and, in particular, to tailor them to local circumstances. With the necessary support and funding, this policy, when implemented, can play a vital role in promoting economic growth, social mobility and lifelong learning. However, we must scrutinise not just the principle but the practice. It is around the practice—particularly the funding, as well as the accountability arrangements that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned—where there are some serious concerns.

These instruments will enable the named authorities to assume responsibility for adult education provision funded through the adult skills fund. We are told that this is a step forward for localism; that this will mean the tailoring of provision to local priorities; and that, although 62% of the ASF is already devolved to mayoral combined authorities in Greater London, this extension will now bring the same arrangements to new areas. On paper, this looks really positive. However, in reality, it contains some troubling contradictions. The Government are promoting local empowerment while simultaneously cutting the very funding that underpins it—something that, unfortunately, we see all too often, with the passing on of responsibilities but not of full funding.

It is important to be clear: there is a 3% reduction in the devolved adult skills fund. That is not an abstract number; it is a reduction in actual spending power in adult education for the very communities that these authorities serve. As Dr Susan Pember, the policy director for HOLEX, rightly noted, this move is short-sighted and risks dismantling the sector at a time when adult education should be playing a central role in driving economic recovery and personal resilience.

There are three areas where I believe the Government owe the Committee greater clarity. First, on funding transparency, what proportion of the devolved adult skills fund will be available for local decision-making, and how much is already earmarked for nationally set statutory entitlements? If local authorities are being asked to deliver ambitious education plans with only a fraction of the budget under their control, this is devolution in name only.

Secondly, on the strategic skills plans, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rightly noted that, although these SIs referenced the SSPs, the detail is sparse. What mechanisms has the Department for Education used to assess the quality and readiness of these plans? Can the Minister assure us that each authority has demonstrated clear capacity and strategy to deliver?

Thirdly, on the wider context of post-16 education, we note the uncertainty surrounding the future of T-levels, apprenticeships and other crucial routes into training and employment. Adult education does not exist in a vacuum. Can the Minister explain how these reforms sit with the Government’s broader post-16 education strategy and how continuity and coherence will be maintained?