Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

In short, the amendment deals with the symptom—overlaps in jurisdiction—but not with the cause, which is the lack of a clear statutory framework for how development corporations fit into a devolved governance.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, having listened very carefully to the debate so far, I think the next best step would be to hear from the Minister, but I want to express some support for Amendment 362 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and Amendment 195A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on those when she replies.

On 3 April, guidance was issued by the Government to clarify the legislation, scrutiny and governance of mayoral development corporations in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I am pleased that steps have been taken to incorporate the recommendations of the Tees Valley Review, published over 18 months ago, to clarify the regulations for the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation. It is important to ensure that there is absolute clarity about oversight, reserved matters, consent and stranded liabilities, and I welcome the Government’s firm intention to do so.

However, it has puzzled me that the words “risk” and “risk management” do not appear in the guidance published in April. There is also nothing about capacity building; that point was raised a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It is very important that development corporations have the capacity to fulfil the expectations of the Government.

There is an issue, which we may come to in the next group of amendments, about where the development corporations will get their income from. I look forward to that discussion. I am concerned about how the mayoral development corporations will be structured to ensure that full risk analysis takes place on the decision-making for what will be major capital infrastructure investment. Overview and scrutiny are overview and scrutiny: scrutiny is scrutiny of a decision, and overview is overview of how decisions are being made. Risk and risk analysis come at the start of a decision to invest money, so this is not just about overview and scrutiny; it is about preventing risky investments.

When the Minister replies, will she explain who is going to pick up the bill if risk is not properly considered at the right point in the decision-making process? At the moment, I suspect that the bill will be carried by council tax payers in the area concerned and I would like that point to be clarified, because I do not think that a system based on the council tax payer being the body of last resort to make up a loss would be appropriate. I very much hope to hear the Minister’s views on those matters.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start with the notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposing Clause 93 standing part. I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind this clause. Clause 93 clarifies and extends areas for development and the remit of development corporation models. It includes changes to legislation that would extend the remit of mayoral development corporations, so that they can deliver regeneration and new town development rather than just regeneration. It also allows that separate parcels of land can be designated as one new town area, overseen by one new town development corporation.

The current framework is outdated and not fit for purpose. Each development corporation model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of its introduction. This poses a significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, mayoral development corporations can be used only for regeneration projects, as the model was developed initially for London but then widened out to areas outside London, including rural areas. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will enable strategic authorities to create more mayoral development corporations, so it is even more important to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose.

Amendment 195A aims to remove the power permitting new town development corporations

“to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.

I reassure the noble Baroness that this is not a new addition to the new town development corporation framework. This provision is already written into primary legislation underpinning new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporation models. The changes to the infrastructure provision include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations, with the addition of heat pumps, which have been added to the list of infrastructure that can be delivered by all models.

As development corporations are used to respond to the specific needs of developments or regeneration schemes, it is important that the legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly. We all want to see large-scale developments and infrastructure projects that will support housing and economic growth, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure without compromising existing provisions. It would be a step backwards if we were to take the power away from new town development corporations and instead provide only a list of infrastructure, as some developments may require new technologies. Decisions to establish development corporations and the powers each will have will be made via regulations. Their oversight will be carefully designed and subject to statutory consultation.

Amendments 351ZA and 362, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I welcome his proposal. It is vital that we empower local leaders to transform underused sites to create thriving communities tailored to local needs. For this purpose, mayoral development corporations should be part of every mayor’s toolkit. However, we believe these amendments are unnecessary. The changes the noble Lord is proposing are already being made through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduced on 10 July 2025. Given its scope, that Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these changes. I take the noble Lord’s point about delay, but I am not under the impression that there is going to be any grass growing under the feet of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think that is going to get moved on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Can the Minister explain who the funder of last resort is when a loss is delivered by a mayoral development corporation? Is it the council tax payer for the geographical area of the development corporation, the combined authority or the Government? To put it another way, who makes up, pays for, a loss if a development corporation makes one?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Of course, we all hope there will not be a loss, but we must always have provision in place for that. I know that there is ongoing discussion with Sir Michael Lyons and others in the taskforce about how the financial details and programme work, so it is probably best if I reply to noble Lords in writing on that issue.

In relation to the points about capacity, which were very well made, again, discussions are going on with Sir Michael Lyons about how we make all this happen. We have already allocated £46 million to planning, but we will continue to have those discussions with the taskforce about what the delivery mechanisms are to be. That said, I hope that the noble Lord has had some reassurance and that he will agree not to press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 190 and 192. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated in the legislation. This is the best part of a complex Bill, although we know that it has already been overtaken by the devolution Bill launched in the other place.

Clause 94 seeks the achievement of sustainable development, and the mitigation of and adaption to climate change, but there would be no sustainable development without commercially sustainable financing of the proposals that the corporations bring forward. My amendment seeks to bring sustainable finance alongside those other sustainability issues. I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised and that mayors may be created in what we now learn to be a cat’s cradle of overlapping and competing responsibilities. Regardless of that, the day-to-day financial pressures felt by national and local government have never been greater.

In a former time, development corporations would simply hold out their hand to the Government or local councils for funding. Of course, that route may still be open, but we need to recognise that the old ways, with joint severability between various tiers of local government, are falling away. Building new towns is the work of generations; it goes beyond political cycles. Relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where building a secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million. In the pursuit of sustainable development and delivery on the plans, the money needs to be right, because without the money, how can all the desirable options in Clause 94 be delivered?

We need to give the development corporations powers to exploit the difference between funding and financing—by explanation, funding is writing the cheque, but financing is putting the deal together. It is no surprise that it is the financiers in the City of London who are the highest paid, because their task of turning those good ideas into reality is the hardest.

Development corporations are independent, but they have the benefit of being able to lean on the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body. I will not dwell too much on the significance of the governance of development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash. We need to make it easy for development corporations to raise funds in new and creative ways at the lowest possible coupon. My amendments would path find those.

Get this right and we will provide investable opportunities for pension funds that desire to invest in infrastructure bonds, for local people who want to invest in local facilities that benefit their area, or for sovereign wealth that seeks a home for its money within an advanced economy with well-defined property rights. But the well of wealth from these sources may not be enough, and there may be other ways to skin the cat. The corporations need to be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the traditional issuance of bonds, debt or similar instruments. But we should contemplate other sources of finance. That extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners whose land is to be incorporated as an in-kind contribution to the whole, so that they may enjoy the uplift over a long period rather than cash up front. 

It should not be right that development corporations feel they need to reach for the CPO lever by default and then be forced to pony-up a premium price to the owner up front after the unpleasantness of the process—there are lots of “p”s in that sentence. In other words, development corporations need to have powers not just to assemble land but to be creative in the assembly of that land. The creative concept of the joint venture would allow more money to be spent on upfront infrastructure than on land acquisition. That is a better-value enterprise. By thinking creatively like this, the amount of upfront funding will be less and the ability to deliver essential infrastructure at the outset greater. 

 I want to place finance in its widest possible context, not just rooting it in the sort of funding where you stand on the street corner with your hand out. Let us seed these stand-alone corporations away from the other financial pressures that afflict local government and free them from the apron strings of those local authorities. While I accept that the development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, contemplated in Clause 93, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.

Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic

“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”

proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as

“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.

This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments. The financing of development corporations is an important issue and we will continue to engage on it. I look forward to the views of Sir Michael Lyons’s task force on the issues raised by noble Lords in this and the previous group on the financial aspects of development corporations.

We need to ensure that financing is long term and sustainable. If corporations are to take on debt to fund infrastructure, they and their lenders will need confidence that the debt will be repaid. This is a particular issue as a current Government cannot bind a future one. I will not comment on the issues in Amendment 197 as it has not been spoken to, but I assume that they will be discussed in group seven.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 162 in my name is in this group and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley, who have also put their names to it. I am glad that we have included it in this group and brought it forward, because it adds to the debate we had on the previous group—and this one—about how we arrive at a resourced and professionally effective overall planning function in local planning authorities. The last debate was principally about the resources that are available; this group and this debate tells us the importance of understanding the scope, complexity, breadth and degree of professional expertise that is required to deliver a successful planning function, and the planners themselves. The amendments that lead this group, on issues relating to health, the environment and so on, have amply demonstrated the degree of influence and importance that should be attached to the planning function in a local authority’s activity. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Moynihan had to say. I hope, when we reach Clause 52, he will note its value in showing that spatial development strategies should focus on health effects and inequalities. I hope that we can develop that important point.

Planners are often in this space already. Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework includes precisely the issues that relate to delivering on healthy and safe communities, including promoting healthy living. I am sometimes in awe of what is needed, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, when putting together a local plan: the range and complexity of what needs to be included in it and the extent to which one has to anticipate the many issues that many communities will face in order to deliver it.

The new clause proposed in Amendment 162 says that local planning authorities should have a chief planner and, in doing so, they can—if they choose to do so—join together and appoint a chief planner for more than one authority. I say this advisedly, knowing that in my own area Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council jointly run a shared service, with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service at its head. The clause would allow for what is current best practice. It would also flexibly but necessarily require of local planning authorities that the person they appoint to be a chief planner must have the relevant expertise and experience to justify their doing so. I hope that we could say that was always the case; it is pretty nearly always the case, but it is necessary when giving them a power and requirement to do so that we should be clear that it should be exercised in this way.

Why do we need this? Many local authorities have a chief planner—but not all. I was very struck in the briefing that we received the Royal Town Planning Institute—and I am very grateful to it for inspiring this amendment—by how important this could be in terms of supporting the professionalism and development of the profession. We want more planners; I agree with the Minister about managing to maintain level 7 apprenticeships if we possibly can—these have been very important. We need more planners, and I welcome the Government’s financial support for additional planners. However, we need not only more planners but to make sure it is very respected profession.

What will bring people into planning as a profession is an understanding that there are professional leaders. I suppose my pitch for Amendment 162 is that not only should we be resourcing planning and increasing the number of planners but we should recognise that leadership matters in every walk of life, and that we should encourage local planning authorities to have chief planners who are themselves leaders of their profession. In future there will be fewer local planning authorities than there are now. I hope that through the chief planner role, we can encourage them to look to have that kind of professional leadership.

The example we might look to is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government itself. My noble friend Lord Fuller talks about relevant planning functions and decisions made by Ministers; they are informed by professional expertise within the department. That is a profession led by the chief planner, who herself demonstrates the value of a chief planner role in relation to the planning functions of any organisation.

Interestingly, when the Government published their technical consultation on reform of planning committees—we will come on to more about that in the next group—they referred specifically to the question of a decision being made about the allocation of decisions to planning committees to tier A and tier B, and said that it should be done by the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee. That seems to me to be a present, important illustration of the independence of the professional expertise that should be brought to decision-making in local authorities.

If we are to rely on that, not least in relation to the national scheme of delegation, as a basis for making solid decisions about the allocation of decision-making, we absolutely need assurance that there will be a chief planner in each of these local planning authorities. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to this debate, this might be one of the things that she has written against it not “resist” but “agree to consider”.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 162 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, as well as mine. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out, this is an issue of professional leadership. It also underpins the delivery of the Government’s objectives with this Bill.

I add my support on the importance of comprehensive training for those involved in making decisions on planning matters. There are some very wise additional proposals in Amendments 99A to 102, and the case made by all those amendments is overwhelming. Someone in a local planning authority has to manage the training process, which has to be done at a senior level. That is one reason why I support the statutory requirement for local planning authorities to have a chief planner—but there are other compelling reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has identified.

Yesterday in Grand Committee, there was a statutory instrument to devolve housing and regeneration powers to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils. It was most welcome, it was approved, and it is a decision by the Government in their drive to devolve more decision-making to a local level, but it will succeed only if the capacity is there to deliver the desired outcomes. That capacity relates to the number of planning officers, their status and the training they have received. As we have heard, in recent years there have been rising levels of complaints about the planning system, its complexities and its delays. As we have heard also, one major cause is the lack of qualified planning staff and the downgrading of the status of planning, given the low number of chief planning officers reporting directly to the chief executive of a local authority.

We should recognise that Scotland has, for a year, had a requirement for statutory chief planning officers to be appointed by local authorities. I submit that we should do likewise if the planning system is to be speeded up in England and if the Government are to deliver their devolution agenda.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It calls for every local authority to appoint a chief planner, and I thank the Royal Town Planning Institute for championing it. I must declare various interests as I have not already contributed in Committee: I am an honorary fellow of the RTPI and a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and the Local Government Association.

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

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I have, in the past few days, stepped down as the vice-chairman of the local government resources panel, which has oversight of audit and accountancy within the Local Government Association. In that guise, I have been very well acquainted with the difficulties in local government audit.

If there is a villain of the piece—I use that word advisedly—the noble Lord, Lord Porter, when he was chairman of the Local Government Association struck a wonderful deal that established the PSAA, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. He drove down those costs and council tax payers benefited from low-cost audit for many years. With the benefit of hindsight, however, perhaps he did too good a job, because it came to pass that it was very difficult for audit practitioners to recruit the right staff at the right level, and they got behind.

We ended up in regrettable circumstances—through no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, I stress—aggravated by Covid, in which a number of local authorities had failed to sign off their accounts. I cannot remember the precise details but some were four or five years old—so old, in fact, that the authorities concerned no longer existed because they had been reorganised away. I am very pleased that the previous Government, belatedly perhaps, took a grip. A line was drawn in the sand and some transitional arrangements made, and now things are much better.

However, I am very concerned that we now see the increase in the threshold. I appreciate that we need to increase the threshold value, but going from £6.5 million to £15 million is a huge increase—of 230% in one bite. That will mean that some of the smaller authorities, which hitherto have been contained within the audit regulations—I will give some examples presently—no longer will be.

I am seeking reassurance because we are establishing the definition of a smaller authority. I cannot be blind to the notion—the Minister referred to it in the earlier debate—that we have a local government devolution and reorganisation Bill in the other place; it passed Second Reading yesterday. In that circumstance, we will see a large number of smaller principal authorities, which are subject to the full audit regime, fall into the third tier of local government—that is, they will not be subject to the 5% or £5 council tax increase cap, if I may use that word.

I want to highlight the example of Salisbury City Council. It used to be a district council and a principal authority but, since the reorganisations in Wiltshire, that is no longer the case. In the past four years, it has jacked up its council tax by 44%. I note that its total precept for this year is only £6.065 million, marginally below the threshold limit to which it is subject. Its gross income is £8.64 million. Currently, it is part of the arrangement to have a full audit. Having jacked up council tax by 44% over the past four years, I think it should be. If it is increased to £15 million, however, what assurance can the local people—the long-suffering residents of Salisbury—have that the council has their best interests at heart? By contrast, the Wiltshire unitary authority, which has assumed responsibility for most of the expensive services, put its council tax up by only 4.5% last year.

I am concerned that this definition will, in due course—not today, because I am conscious that we are concerned solely with audit—be used, as we go through local government reorganisation, to give a free pass to some of the smaller city councils and larger town councils, which will inevitably will fall out of the LGR process and let them let rip. Of course, it is not just the district councils, it is the internal drainage boards. I am concerned about the case of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, which had an increase in the internal drainage board levy of 91% last year, which the council was mandated to pass on to local taxpayers. Over the past few years, it has gone up by 117%. That means that because the district council in Great Yarmouth is a principal authority, it could put its council tax up by only £5, but 91% of that was as a result of the unavoidable increase from the internal drainage board that lies within it. That meant that only 9%, just £26,000 of the increase in council tax in that historic borough—I declare an interest because my business is in that borough, but I do not pay council tax there—could be devoted to the provision and improvement of local services. We shall see a whole class of authority that would currently be within the £6.5 million but will no longer be caught if the threshold rises to £15 million.

I want to highlight the example of the Broads Authority, which is well known for its governance failings. It is well known to be a dysfunctional organisation and, in the interests of transparency, I have in the past made complaints to that body through the mishandling of certain planning matters. Its gross budget is £9.7 million. If ever an organisation needed the close scrutiny of a full audit, it is the Broads Authority and now it will be given a free pass. It will be let off from public scrutiny. This is the unintended consequence of this legislation.

Finally, I want to get the definition of “smaller authority” on the record in the context of local government reorganisation, and ask the Minister what the Government’s intentions are. If it is contemplated that this definition of “smaller authority”—the £15 million threshold—will be used post local government reorganisation, when some of these smaller cities, such as Salisbury, or larger towns such as Scarborough or Shrewsbury, which are certainly covered by the audit now but would not be in future, is it proposed that this definition will cap them at £5 or 5%? There will have to be some reckoning. We cannot have a situation whereby only the large unitary authorities that will be formed after LGR have their council tax capped at £5 or 5%. What is the Government’s view about capping, limiting and putting the local taxpayer first from some of these much larger authorities, which will take on other responsibilities—possibly for local culture, parks and dog bins—when their current responsibilities for social care, planning, housing and homelessness are removed? We cannot have a situation where a 230% increase in threshold allows a new class of large, small authority to let rip at the expense of local taxpayers.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument. I share many of the perspectives of the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Fuller. I hope the Minister, in replying, will be able to meet some of the concerns expressed. The context, as we have heard, is the abolition of the Audit Commission 10 years ago. It was supposed to save £100 million a year but it did not do that. It was supposed to make local audit more efficient and it did not do that. It has not saved money. Costs have risen substantially since 2015. The private sector was supposed to take over from the Audit Commission but it has not worked like that, because there have been nowhere near enough trained auditors. There have been, as we have heard, huge delays in the audits of English local authorities. That is the background to this draft statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was speaking, I was looking at the RPI tables from the Office for National Statistics. Had the £6.5 million been increased by inflation, it would have been £10.3 million. So we are seeing a proposed threshold that is fully 50% greater than the increase in inflation over the same period. I just wonder whether that might help the noble Lord’s argument.

[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

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

107: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90(1) of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and (b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 107, I will also speak to Amendment 108. These amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing raises housing standards: it can help to regenerate areas that are blighted by poor housing and other social problems. Licensing provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are charged and enable local authorities to target regulation where it is most needed: in other words, at tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most vulnerable tenants. My amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes and increase the maximum duration of schemes from five years to 10 years.

Amendment 107 would permit local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of the licensed properties. It would remove a peculiar disconnect in current legislation, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, whereby local authorities are permitted to introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but are not permitted to include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed properties to be improved. The amendment would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to licence conditions used in additional HMO licensing schemes.

In Committee, the Government implied that the introduction of a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector will make this amendment unnecessary. However, I do not accept that view. Neither the decent homes standard nor Awaab’s law will remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions.

There are four reasons why the decent homes standard will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions in this way. First, when licence conditions are in place, if a breach of these conditions is proved, local authorities can serve a civil penalty notice on the landlord without first having to issue an improvement notice and/or take other action that involves unnecessary delay. However, they will be able to do this for breaches of the proposed decent homes standard only in more serious cases—possibly only where there is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety—and only where they can prove that the landlord has failed to take reasonably practicable steps to address the issue. Licence conditions would therefore give landlords a much stronger incentive than the decent homes standard to address general disrepair.

Secondly, the enforcement of licence conditions can be funded by licence fees. The cost of enforcing the decent homes standard will fall on council tax payers. In practice, therefore, the use of licence conditions would lead to local authorities undertaking a much higher level of enforcement.

Thirdly, licence conditions give local authorities a clear justification as well as sufficient funding for entering properties to carry out inspections without the tenant having complained. It seems likely that, outside of licensing schemes, the vast majority of inspections under the decent homes standard will be in response to complaints. Fourthly, licence conditions could deal with items of disrepair that would be difficult to address using the decent homes standard.

With regard to Awaab’s law, it will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions. The enforcement of Awaab’s law will depend on the ability and willingness of tenants themselves to seek redress and ultimately to take legal action through the courts. It is often difficult for tenants to use legal remedies themselves; areas with poor housing conditions contain many poor and vulnerable tenants, who are particularly badly placed to do so. Licensing would clearly be a much better way of targeting support at them.

Amendment 108 would permit local authorities to implement longer additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes without repeating the time-consuming and expensive designation process. Local authorities introduced these schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, but those are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. This amendment would allow them to advertise longer-term posts for staff and to include training of new staff in these schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes—for example, to resolve anti-social behaviour—to become embedded and effective.

The Government suggested in Committee that a maximum duration for licensing schemes of five years strikes the right balance between the needs of local authorities and the needs of landlords. But that does not take proper account of the time and money wasted through councils being unnecessarily required to repeat the designation process.

In conclusion, the removal of these unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes would make a major contribution to the regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of the country. A new general approval to establish selective licensing areas came into effect last December, and local authorities are no longer required to obtain confirmation from the Secretary of State before implementing a selective licensing scheme of any size. That is most welcome, but it needs to be accompanied with the powers identified in my amendments, and I hope the Government will now understand the importance of them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these two amendments once again to the attention of the House. However, we on these Benches do not consider them to be necessary. We recognise and wholeheartedly share the noble Lord’s ambition to see housing conditions improved. When I was in government, I was proud to support the decent homes standard and helped to lay the groundwork for what has now become Awaab’s law. The Government’s approach should be focused on delivering tangible improvements to living conditions. This includes tackling poor-quality housing wherever it exists, not slowly within selective licensing areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on licensing schemes. On Amendment 107, we share the noble Lord’s desire to improve housing conditions, and we have always been clear that all renters deserve safe, secure and good-quality homes. That is why we are introducing a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to drive reform and improve conditions across the sector. I acknowledge the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did on Awaab’s law when we were on different sides of the House. As discussed in Committee, we think this is the right approach so that all renters and local authorities are able to challenge and address poor-quality homes, not just those in selective licensing areas.

On Amendment 108, we believe that licensing schemes are crucial in helping local authorities tackle specific issues and improve standards. We also think that local authorities are best placed to make decisions regarding the use of these enforcement tools in their local areas. That is why, at the end of last year, we removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. However, we know that licensing schemes also place additional responsibilities on landlords. Local authorities must therefore keep schemes under review so that they remain proportionate and targeted at delivering the intended outcomes.

As discussed in Committee, a maximum duration of five years for schemes achieves the right balance. It gives local authorities time to assess the effectiveness of schemes while providing landlords with assurance that they will not be subject to increased regulation for extended periods. Where issues in the private rented sector persist after a scheme has ended, a local authority may introduce a new scheme to take further action, provided that the statutory criteria are still met. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their comments. We clearly have a difference of opinion about the importance of selective licensing and the future operation of the decent homes standard. The Government have accepted the importance of selective licensing schemes because, in December, they removed the requirement for Secretary of State approval, as the Minister just said.

I am reluctant to press Amendments 107 and 108 to a Division because, clearly, the House will vote against them, and I think that would not be helpful in the current situation. Both Front Benches of the two largest parties in this Chamber have indicated their opposition to them, so any Division that I moved would be lost.

It is important for me to withdraw the amendment because two pieces of work are going on in the House of Commons on this matter. One is the consultation on the decent homes standard that the Government are undertaking, which the Minister referred to a moment ago. Also, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee is taking evidence on housing conditions generally in England. It will be important for the government consultation and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to take the evidence from our debate on these amendments to see the concerns that I and professional bodies have been expressing about the importance of selective licensing in driving up housing standards in the private rented sector, as well as in the public sector more generally.

In the hope that there will be sufficient good will around the Chamber to allow this debate to be referred to the bodies now undertaking consultation, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

62: Clause 21, page 38, line 34, leave out “has” and insert “and any joint tenants have”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 21 apply to joint tenancies as well.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her clarifications and for the Government’s amendments, which strike an appropriate balance, given the explanations from the Minister. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

68: Clause 27, page 42, line 31, leave out from “tenancy,” to “being” in line 33 and insert “no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will speak to Amendments 69 to 71. This issue was not raised in Committee but it is sufficiently important—again I thank Citizens Advice for raising it—to be discussed on Report. I assure the Minister that I do not wish to press these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister might be willing to take away the questions raised in this group to assess whether further amendments are needed at Third Reading.

The amendments in this group

“seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with”.

Citizens Advice has advised me that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice, and that this would be a departure from the current position. Reverting to the requirement that a landlord must be compliant at the point that notice is served would give far greater certainty and avoid wasted court time in cases where a tenant may not have known up until the last minute whether a valid defence existed. The tenant may believe that they have a defence, because the deposit has been taken and not protected, but then find that the landlord protects or returns the deposit to them at the very last minute, potentially on the morning of the court hearing. That makes it very difficult for tenants to make informed decisions about defending a claim.

The Bill says:

“Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may make an order for possession of the dwelling-house let on the assured tenancy only if the tenancy deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme”.


My Amendment 68 would amend this to say that where a deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy,

“no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not”

being held.

Over 600 clients every month ask Citizens Advice for help with tenancy deposit return issues of various kinds, and things will only worsen if the protections are weakened. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that deposit protection will be strengthened during the passage of the Bill and that no notice of proceedings for possession may be given at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this group of amendments to the attention of the House. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Tenants already have clear rights and remedies when it comes to deposit protection. A tenant can easily check online whether their deposit has been lodged in a government-approved protection scheme. If it has not been properly protected and the issue remains unresolved, the tenant has the right to take the landlord to court.

In such cases, the court may order the landlord to return or protect the deposit, and may even award the tenant three times the value of that deposit as compensation. These are significant penalties and they serve as a strong incentive for landlords to comply with the law. Given that eviction proceedings are already subject to considerable safeguards and restrictions, we are not convinced that removing Section 8 grounds in these circumstances is either proportionate or necessary.

In particular, we must ensure that where a genuine error has been made and later rectified, especially where there is no actual harm or financial loss to the tenant, landlords are not barred from recovering possession of their property. To do so would seem unjust. A more flexible and proportionate approach would promote better compliance while avoiding unnecessary hardship or deterrence to good-faith landlords.

Although we fully understand the intentions behind these amendments, having heard the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we believe that existing protections for tenants are robust and that further restrictions of this kind risk being disproportionate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising these points, as well as to Citizens Advice for discussing them directly with our department, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. Although I have great sympathy with the intention of Amendments 68 to 71, Clause 27 already ensures that deposits will be protected at the time of the possession hearing, which we think is a more proportionate approach.

Landlords have until the court hearing to comply with deposit protection rules. This ensures that landlords can still gain possession when it is reasonable, while ensuring that the tenant’s deposit is protected before the tenancy ends. I also note that this approach is far stronger than current restrictions, which prevent only the use of Section 21, and not Section 8, if the deposit is not protected.

However, I believe the noble Lord’s approach goes too far. Most notably, if a landlord had failed to protect a deposit within 30 days of receiving it, they would be permanently prevented from serving notice for possession on any ground except anti-social behaviour. Let me be clear: such a landlord should have complied with the law—of course they should—but there are other, more proportionate, mechanisms available to enforce that compliance, including an ability for a court to award tenants up to three times the amount of the deposit if it was not protected properly.

In conclusion, the Bill balances tenant protection with the need for legitimate possession cases to proceed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply but it has extended the doubts that I have had about this, because it is still not clear to me why the Bill is weakening the current safeguards.

It is not clear why a valid defence cannot be assured for a tenant who has to go to court when the court case may not be necessary—in other words, they do not know whether the landlord has managed a tenancy deposit scheme correctly on their behalf. Citizens Advice has produced a strong case here, and it is not clear why the current safeguards are not being continued. I am advised that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice. That is a departure from the current position. If that is required to happen in future, it will simply encourage wasted court time.

I shall withdraw the amendment and not move the other three, but I hope that the Minister and the Government will look very carefully at this issue because otherwise, I fear that tenants will not be properly protected by the tenancy deposit scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I too offer strong support to Amendment 5. In that context, I declare an interest as an employee of King’s College London.

The profound change, in varying ways, to the rental market that the Bill will introduce is not very well understood outside this Chamber, but some of the people who have become very aware of it, in my experience, are people who currently let to students. I first became aware of this when told by a number of people that they do not see themselves letting to students in future, thank you very much. These are people who have small rental properties. I know that that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, whose amendment I was happy to support in Committee, is also aware of this. He has highlighted the fact that we now have a bifurcated system.

The Government have rightly acknowledged that student housing is a major issue and have introduced some clear provisions that cover purpose-built student accommodation, and indeed student halls, but fail to cover anything that does not have at least three bedrooms and is being let to students. The problem is that a large proportion of the cheaper student housing outside major cities is of exactly that type. What somewhat astonishes me is that we have a situation in which there is not likely to be any harmful impact on the provision of student housing at the expensive top end of the market but a very major impact on smaller, cheaper rental properties at the lower end, which are of course the ones taken by students from lower-income families and people who are not in the major cities but are in other places. I am somewhat puzzled that the Government have been so determined not to extend ground 4A to, at least, properties with two bedrooms. I really do not understand it and I therefore strongly support the amendment.

I would like to lay something for the future about Amendment 7. I notice that it is a probing amendment and, of course, apprentices are not students—they are employees, many of them rather adult employees—but in future, if and when we revisit the issue of making accommodation easily available to people who are, in effect, students, and that will include apprentices, we should pay this considerable attention.

If we look back 200 or 300 years, especially in London, we see that it was full of apprentices who had come from elsewhere in the country. They served their apprenticeships in London and then went back out, and they could do so because part of being an apprentice was that you lived with your master. We do not have that any more, and the result is, again, enormously reduced opportunities for people who live in less economically advantaged places. If you are a low-income school leaver, you will have far fewer apprenticeship opportunities open to you in your hometown, and we are not doing anything to make accommodation easily available to apprentices who might want to be employed in economically more favoured regions.

Apprentices are not students so it is too late for this Bill to do anything about them, and it probably was not possible anyway, but I flag this conundrum as something that—if we ever come back, review the consequences of the Bill and make some changes—I hope the Government might put something on the table about at the same time.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In Committee I was one of those probing the Government’s intentions on purpose-built student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and the application of ground 4A to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector that some students might choose to live in.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply in Committee and have thought further. Indeed, I have listened carefully to the debate so far and I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although I agree with him that it will be very important for the Government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. I will explain why I take that view.

I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground 4A to purpose-built student accommodation—the very large blocks—and houses in multiple occupation. The danger of not doing so is that some unscrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation which do not qualify for the term HMO might decide to call tenants students when they are not students, to get around the provisions of the Bill. I think that would be a serious defect in the Bill. Indeed, as the Minister said in her reply on this issue in Committee:

“The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]


I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is right on that matter and, for that reason, ground 4A, I submit, should be restricted to purpose-built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. The universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance. It is not difficult to identify who those students are. Does the noble Lord agree? Has he thought whether the existing statutory process for determining who a student is would be sufficient to avoid the jeopardy that he has suggested?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

The very point that the noble Lord raises is that I do not think it would be sufficient. Indeed, when I spoke on this issue in Committee, I suggested that the council tax register, because whole-student households do not pay council tax, would potentially be sufficient; I just do not think that is the case. It is not just about university accommodation. it is about students more generally. Indeed, there is an amendment coming up on the Marshalled List to define who is a university student. So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has indicated to us.

I have concluded that those students who are in smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway, as tenants under the Act. I have concluded that, on this matter, the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope very much that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is that they have to keep this matter under review.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have addressed the House at this stage of the Bill, I will just remind your Lordships that I am a chartered surveyor. I think that is probably the only interest I need to declare, other than being the father of three children. They are now long out of university, but I witnessed the process of them living in halls and subsequently in the private rented sector, two of them within the city of Bristol, and I got to know one or two of the people who let to students as a business model. The properties are not necessarily large—some of them are very small; it depends on what model they are using. I am worried about what seems to be an acceptance of what the Minister said will be a process of review.

Review done by government is an incredibly blunt and ponderous instrument. I predict that if there was a review looking at a particular problem, a lot of serious damage would have occurred by the time it had been completed or the matter actioned and put into regulation, or whatever other form it was going to take.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I understand the ambition of the Bill to speed up infrastructure delivery. Planning frameworks are complex and can be slow. But I remind Ministers that when the Audit Commission existed, it audited planning performance, publicised poorly performing councils and required improvements from them. I accept the need to enforce shorter timescales on decision-making.

It is wrong to suggest that the planning system is responsible for not building enough homes. As we have heard, there are well over a million homes with planning permission that are not built and councils approve nine out of 10 planning applications for housing. It is not the planning system that causes low house completions but the lack of money—now partially addressed in the spending review, although not entirely—together with the lack of construction workers and materials, added to land banking by major builders that sit on planning permissions while land values rise.

The Government still want to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. That means they must build 374,000 a year from 2027. If that were to be done, at what quality might it be done? I ask that because the Bill could be the means of future-proofing our housing stock, given our ageing population and that we have more people who live with a disability. Many new homes lack quality, and some very poor housing is being produced through permitted development conversions where profits are the driving force. We need to build more healthy homes that last.

My noble friend Lord Russell and others have talked about Part 3. I agree with his conclusions, and I wish that Ministers would stop talking about this being about newts—not in this Chamber, but more generally. It is actually about 5,251 rare and protected habitats that must not lose their current legal safeguards.

Planning reform will help to deliver infrastructure, but many large infrastructure projects in this country have suffered from bad project management and huge cost overruns. It is not just about planning. The Bill includes several positive measures, such as making it easier for councils to purchase vacant land for housebuilding, localising planning fees, and increasing planning capacity. Those measures should be supported, but the national scheme of delegation will centralise decision-making when there is no evidence that decision-making will be improved. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making, which has been central to the English planning system, is at risk. Any reforms must safeguard local oversight and transparency, otherwise there is a risk that the public will not be supportive.

Planning reform will succeed only if there are qualified planning staff to do the work. To build capacity, the number of level 7 chartered town planner apprenticeships must be increased—this at a time when spending on planning has been reducing. According to the excellent brief from the Royal Town Planning Institute, we have a shortage of over 2,000 planners in local authorities and not enough chief planning officers, because that role has been downgraded over the years.

The real reason why planning has been in difficulty is that there have not been enough staff to do the work necessary, and too few chief planning officers with the necessary clout to drive progress and outcomes. Chief planning officers should be statutory, as I have said during the passage of previous planning Bills. The RTPI is right to urge the inclusion of a clause defining the purpose of planning, alongside an audit of the whole planning system and how it interlocks. Its proposed national spatial framework would be a positive improvement.

At this stage of our debate on the Bill, we have to put competency and accountability at the heart of decision-making, but Clause 51 gives too much power to Whitehall. If, under Clause 50, you train councillors to be better, why do you need to take the power away from them and give it to Whitehall? Whitehall does not need to be involved in the size of planning committees or the powers of officers and councillors. Finally, as the RTPI has said, planning is not a blocker; it is an under-resourced enabler, and this Bill could put that problem right.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

253: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90 of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—“(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and(b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 254 and, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendments 267, 268 and 269.

Amendments 253 and 254 would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing is an important tool for improving housing standards because it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their amendments relating to selective licensing, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his absence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments.

Amendment 253, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to use selective licence conditions to improve housing conditions. We acknowledge and share the noble Lord’s intentions to improve housing conditions. We believe that all renters deserve to live in safe, secure and quality homes. With the introduction of a decent homes standard and the application of Awaab’s law through this Bill, the Government will reform and improve conditions across the sector. We think it is important that these measures benefit all renters and local authorities in tackling poor-quality homes, regardless of whether they are in selective licensing areas.

Amendment 254, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to increase the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10 years. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government recently removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. We think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes provided that they meet the statutory criteria. However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes to make sure that they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. A maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, while also ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendments.

I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 267 seeks to streamline the selective licensing application process and cap the total fee that local authorities can charge for licensing similar properties in a block under single ownership. The Government recognise that selective licensing imposes a burden on landlords. The financial and administrative cost can be particularly significant for large portfolio landlords, such as those operating in the build-to-rent sector.

Local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence applications and fees for landlords whose properties meet the requirements for block licences. Where appropriate and consistent with the aims of their licensing schemes, we would encourage local authorities to make greater use of block licences. This reduces the burden on large portfolio landlords and can better reflect efficiencies for local authorities in licensing such properties, for example, the ability to inspect multiple properties in a block during a single visit.

It is right that licensing schemes continue to be determined locally and that local authorities have the flexibility to decide the best application process and fees to support delivery of schemes. Placing a cap on application fees could cause issues due to regional differences in costs between local authorities and potentially undermine the success of some schemes.

Amendment 268 seeks to allow the transfer of selective licences in circumstances where the licence needs to be passed to an employee of the same corporate body. As noble Lords will be aware, under Section 91 of the Housing Act 2004, licences currently cannot be transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. A new licence application is needed where a change to a licence-holder is required after a licence has been issued. A crucial part of the application process is ensuring compliance with the fit and proper person test. This is designed to ensure that prospective licence-holders do not pose a risk to the welfare of tenants. I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Young, but accepting this amendment might mean circumventing those important checks for any new licence-holders within the same organisation.

I accept that it may seem excessive for a local authority to require a full licence application to be submitted where a licence needs to be transferred due to changes in staff in cases where there are no other changes to the management or use of the property. We would encourage local authorities to take a proportionate approach in these cases, for example, by requiring only details of the new licence-holder to be provided in the application and charging a fee that covers only the essential parts of the application process, for example, the fit and proper person test.

Amendment 269 seeks to allow a local authority to grant a temporary exemption from selective licensing to an applicant where it has determined that it requires more time to process the relevant licence application. I recognise the issues this amendment attempts to address. Where a local authority has received multiple licence applications from the same applicant, it needs sufficient time to review them. As a result, applicants may receive a decision after the period they deem reasonable. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about digitisation of this process and making the whole process more efficient.

Local authorities are already required to determine all licence applications within a reasonable time. We would encourage them to set out clearly their expected processing timelines when inviting applications. When planning a licensing scheme, local authorities should also carefully consider the level of resources needed to process applications to avoid large backlogs being created.

However, regardless of any challenges a local authority may face in processing licence applications, landlords with licensable properties should apply for licences. This ensures that they are protected from enforcement action being taken against them for having control of or managing an unlicensed property. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press his amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full explanation. I think the best course of action would be to review in Hansard what she has said and look at ways in which we might progress some of these issues by the time we reach Report in a few weeks’ time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 253.

Amendment 253 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it may not surprise noble Lords that, before we start the debate on the first group, I again remind the Committee of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the previous two days in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding us of the importance of declaring interests in Committee if they have not been declared so far, but will he make a statement to the Committee about the Government’s plans for further consideration of this Bill, given that we were promised six days of consideration? We lost more than two hours last week through dinner-hour business, and today—for extremely good reasons—we have now lost more than five hours of consideration. I hope the Government have now decided that they must give this Committee an extra day, because we were promised six days and we have not had six days. I hope the Government’s intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night on Wednesday. This would not mean reasonable discussion of the 132 amendments that still stand to be debated in your Lordships’ Committee.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. We will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but there are six days and this is the fifth day. We want to make progress today and we want to complete Committee on the sixth day, which is Wednesday this week.

Clause 17: Landlords etc: financial penalties and offences

Amendment 145

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

171: Clause 22, page 40, line 13, leave out “has” and insert “and all joint tenants have”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 22 apply to joint tenancies as well.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are four amendments in this group relating to Clauses 22 and 23 on notices to quit, so I wish to move Amendment 171 and speak to Amendments 172, 174, and 175.

The background to these amendments has been raised by front-line advisors of Citizens Advice. I thank them for their contribution to our consideration of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns that they have expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice that tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice that they had been served using the new, no-fault grounds 1 and 1A.

It may come as a surprise to some to realise that, in joint tenancies, one tenant can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint tenants knowing that this has happened. Tenants remaining in the property might not know that a notice has been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a notice to quit. This would put the remaining tenants in a very vulnerable position, at risk of homelessness and liable for court costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy unilaterally—I accept that—but a mechanism is essential to ensure that all joint tenants are notified.

Similarly, while it is welcome that the Bill provides for reduced notice by agreement between landlord and tenant, it should be stipulated that this is only where all joint tenants agree in writing. Otherwise, there is a risk that a departing joint tenant and their landlord will agree to bring a tenancy to an end very quickly, potentially without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms of the withdrawal of notice, there is a similar problem. In theory, one joint tenant could issue a notice to quit, and the other joint tenant and the landlord could agree that it will be withdrawn. The solution is to require that the agreement of all joint tenants is needed for the withdrawal of a notice.

There is a further issue when a tenant serves notice, but when the other tenant would have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known notice was being served. This happens most often when joint tenants go through a relationship breakdown and the tenant who leaves serves a notice to quit, sometimes with the intention of harming the remaining tenant. Yet the remaining tenant could have gone to court to get an injunction to prevent the departing tenant from serving the notice to quit, allowing time for the tenancy to be transferred to them under family law. The remaining joint tenant would then retain the security of tenure and not be made homeless. It is important to note that many of these cases involve children.

When a tenant receives an eviction notice based on the new no-fault grounds 1 and 1A, they must still give two months’ notice, even if they need to leave the property before the expiration of the eviction notice. Yet in a fast-moving rental market, tenants often have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before their eviction notice expires; tenants may therefore face having to start a new tenancy before their current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. There would be a new deposit, a first month’s rent, and often household bill costs on the new property, while also paying rent and household bills on their current home. This creates a very high-cost burden for tenants and can push those on a lower income into significant debt or put them at risk of homelessness if they cannot cover these costs or find a property with an aligning tenancy start date. This issue will be amplified with the Bill’s increase in tenant notice from one month to two.

This group of amendments would, first, require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant giving notice, that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy will come to an end on a specified date. We should note that this amendment reflects the notification requirements of Section 130 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.

Secondly, the amendments would ensure that a tenant’s notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn, through agreement with a landlord, only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.

Thirdly, they would allow withdrawal of a tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt a notice to quit with an injunction.

Finally, they would reduce the notice a tenant must give to one month when notice has been served to them on grounds 1 and 1A, which would give much-needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to many low-income renters.

I hope the Minister will give due consideration to those issues, which I think are very important. I have learned a little about joint tenancies that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration and detail to this so that, on Report, we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that have been identified.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.

I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.

I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.

I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments, which relate to tenants ending an assured tenancy and joint tenancies. In doing so, I thank him for raising the very important issues brought to him by Citizens Advice, which has been in touch with the department as well. I thank Citizens Advice and all the other stakeholders for engaging with our officials on these issues. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for their comments too.

Where a joint tenant has served a notice to quit, Amendment 171 would require any agreement to a notice period of less than two months to be with not just the landlord, as the Bill requires, but with all other joint tenants as well. Although I genuinely think there is merit to this approach, I am cognisant of the potential impacts on tenants who do not wish to inform their co-tenants that they are leaving. There may be a number of reasons why that might be the case. We would need to give very careful consideration to any change in this direction, to make sure we understand any impacts that it might have. We are currently working through that.

Amendment 172 would allow a tenant to provide only one month’s notice to end an assured tenancy if the landlord had already provided a notice of their intention to seek possession using ground 1 or ground 1A. The Government understand that tenants may find new properties to let within the four-month notice period the landlord has given them, and that market pressures would mean that, ideally, they could go when they need to. However, it is right and fair that tenants provide landlords with the usual two months’ notice so that landlords have sufficient notice, as they may need to change or alter their plans as a result. We think that this strikes a fair balance. Tenants will benefit from slightly longer notice periods, and it is right that landlords can plan for the ending of the tenancy too. Nothing prevents the agreement of a shorter notice period. We expect that, in many cases, landlords will gladly facilitate a quicker end to the tenancy to allow them to sell or move in more quickly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised a number of questions around subletting. I will come back to her on those points.

Amendment 174 would require joint tenants to notify each other when serving a notice to quit an assured tenancy, and landlords to inform all joint tenants that such a notice has been served and to provide a copy of the notice. The Bill does not require joint tenants to inform each other when ending an assured tenancy. I understand the point that there is an inherent risk that tenants may not find out until late in the notice period that their tenancy is ending. However, at the moment, the Government are concerned about the potential impact—for example, on domestic abuse victims—of being required to inform the perpetrator that they are ending a tenancy, possibly in order to flee. On the balance of risks, we believe the needs of domestic abuse victims must be allowed to prevail, although I recognise it is a difficult decision and we are giving it further consideration.

Finally, Amendment 175 would require all joint tenants to agree to withdrawing a notice to quit. This amendment is unnecessary, as it has already been established in law that all joint tenants must agree to positively sustain the tenancy. It is very unlikely that a court would determine that a single tenant could unilaterally withdraw a notice to quit, because there is not the positive consent of all tenants. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, these are essentially probing amendments and I am glad that the Minister and her department have had discussions with Citizens Advice. I understand some of the points that she has made. To take up the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I think the aim is to avoid unintended consequences in a new Bill such as this. So it is important that all these issues are thought through and examined so that the best answer can be found. I hope it might be possible, between now and Report, for some of the issues that the Minister has raised to be looked at in detail. I shall look carefully at her response in Hansard to see whether there are ways in which some of the problems that have been identified, and some of the responses with perhaps unintended consequences that the Minister has identified, might find a solution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 171 withdrawn.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The costs are included in the issues that Birmingham is facing overall. We are working with the council on options to address those costs. The commissioners in Birmingham have been working very hard to do that. The additional £131 million funding we put into Birmingham this year will help to address some of the deficit it has faced recently. In fact, we included in our funding for Birmingham a new one-off recovery grant of £39.3 million, which shows our commitment to correcting unfairness in the funding system. We also put in place an in-principle agreement to exceptional financial support totalling £1.24 billion across the country. We are helping Birmingham with its financial issues, but they are of long standing. The overall funding formula we have been looking at as we go into the spending review across the country does not deliver funding in a way that delivers the best funding settlement to where the most need is. That is something we will have to address going forward.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, concern has been expressed about this situation arising again following local government reorganisation. When we discussed this matter in the Chamber previously, I suggested that one way of preventing it happening again was to revive the Audit Commission, which has not existed now for just over 10 years. I think it would help, and I am not sure whether Ministers have taken on board seriously the suggestion that an improved audit system is necessary in local government.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know, because I have stated this before in this Chamber, how much I agree with him about the problems that not having an effective audit system in place in local government has caused. We need to reinstate a sound audit that the public can rely on to know that their money is being spent locally in a way that is accountable and transparent; that is an important part of the process. At the moment we are at the White Paper stage of bringing forward the English devolution Bill, and when we get the Bill it will contain information about how the audit system is going to be progressed.