Lords Advance Burial Bill Amid Four New Policy Debates

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords considered five Private Members’ Bills. The Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] completed its passage after Baroness Taylor of Stevenage reported that cemeteries and burial grounds had been added explicitly to the National Planning Policy Framework. Members then debated leaseholder remediation, creative education, the future role of the Youth Justice Board, and microplastic filters for washing machines. The other four Bills were read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; the House adjourned at 2.08 pm.

Detailed Summary

Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] — Third Reading

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley moved that the Bill do now pass and thanked the Minister for her engagement. He said that there had been “a positive outcome that we have been able to achieve”. Viscount Stansgate supported its passage, referring to differing community preferences for burial and cremation and increasing pressure on burial space; Lord Blunkett congratulated Lord Mohammed and spoke briefly in support. Baroness Sanderson of Welton also supported the Bill and referred to reported shortages among London local authorities.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said that the Government’s position remained that local matters such as burial space were best addressed in local plans, allowing local planning authorities flexibility. She reported that the new National Planning Policy Framework, published on 17 August, explicitly included cemeteries and burial grounds within the definition of “community facilities”. The Bill passed and was sent to the House of Commons.

Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL] — Second Reading

Baroness Pinnock’s Bill sought to protect leaseholders from remediation costs arising from systemic building-safety defects. Its provisions would apply regardless of building height, prevent remediation costs from being included in service charges, enable leaseholders to seek repayment of sums already paid, extend potential liability to manufacturers and suppliers, set deadlines for remediation, and strengthen information and redress rights. Supporters, including Lord Young of Cookham, Baroness Thornhill, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Baroness Brinton, argued that leaseholders had not caused the defects and continued to face costs, delays, insurance pressures and difficulty selling their homes. Lord Bourne said that “a lot of the providers of the material have yet to step up to the plate”.

Baroness Fox of Buckley supported the principle that leaseholders who had not caused the defects should not pay, but raised concerns about unnecessary work, litigation and effects on construction. Baroness Sanderson of Welton supported the Bill’s aims while asking about its scope, costs, the capacity of the Building Safety Regulator and potential effects on housing supply. Baroness Blake of Leeds said that the Government shared the objectives but opposed the Bill’s mechanisms, including its blanket prohibition on leaseholder contributions, which she said could create legal and financing uncertainty and overlap with the Building Safety Act 2022. She outlined a forthcoming remediation Bill intended to provide clearer standards, stronger enforcement, manufacturer accountability and routes to remediation where responsible entities fail to act. She said that the Government would proceed “when parliamentary time allows”. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Creative Education Access Bill [HL] — Second Reading

Baroness Featherstone’s Bill sought to establish creative education as an entitlement in state-funded schools. It proposed five hours a week at key stages 1 and 2 and four hours at key stage 3, together with a creative access guarantee, financial assistance, inspection, partnerships with the creative sector, and information about creative careers. Supporters argued that creative subjects could develop confidence, communication, collaboration and problem-solving, while wider access could address inequalities linked to income and location and support the creative industries. Lord Cashman described his experience of creative education by saying, “Access to these classes literally changed my life”. Baroness Bousted and others also highlighted shortages of specialist teachers and weaknesses in the teacher-training pipeline.

Baroness Gill supported the principle but questioned whether statutory requirements should be imposed without consulting teachers about staffing, timetabling and resources. Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, opposed mandated hours on the grounds that they could reduce schools’ flexibility and displace time spent on other subjects; she quoted the view that “when everything is a priority, nothing is”. Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood said that the Government shared the Bill’s aims but had reservations about its provisions. She listed existing measures including the new curriculum, removal of the English Baccalaureate performance measures, a National Centre for Arts and Music Education, an enrichment framework and £132.5 million of dormant-asset funding. She said that the national centre would launch later in the year, undertook to reflect on the need for research into neurodivergent students and said she would read the Teaching Commission’s report. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill [HL] — Second Reading

Lord Oates’s Bill sought to restore powers and responsibilities to the Youth Justice Board (YJB), including national oversight, performance monitoring, administration of the youth justice core grant and certain custody functions, while providing for Welsh Government involvement. He argued that the YJB’s specialist and independent role had contributed to major reductions in youth custody and proven offences by young people, and warned that transferring oversight to the Ministry of Justice could marginalise youth justice. He cited the Government-commissioned review by Steve Crocker, which warned that changing the board’s status could produce a system that was “less agile, more complex, and less transparent”. Several speakers supported retaining specialist independence. Baroness Smith of Llanfaes questioned whether restoring the functions proposed by the Bill fitted Wales’s constitutional position and argued for the eventual full devolution of justice, including youth justice.

The Government opposed the Bill. Lord Lemos said that the YJB should remain an independent body focused on improving local services, evidence, practice and capability, while system oversight, standards, performance and funding should rest with Ministers accountable to Parliament. He said that the Government intended to publish a youth custody transformation plan in the coming months and planned, from April 2027, to devolve to the Welsh Government funding for reducing the use of remand for children and for early intervention and prevention services. Lord Harlech also opposed the Bill as drafted, noting that the Ministry of Justice consultation on oversight and funding was due to close that day. Lord Oates remained concerned that transferring powers to the Ministry of Justice would cause youth justice to be forgotten. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL] — Second Reading

Lord Randall of Uxbridge’s Bill would give the Secretary of State power to require manufacturers to fit microplastic filters to new domestic and commercial washing machines in England by 1 January 2030. The filters would generally be required to capture at least 90% of microplastics by mass. The Bill also provided for public-awareness duties, including education provisions. Lord Randall argued that synthetic clothing releases microfibres into wastewater and that filters could reduce pollution, while acknowledging that fitting them could increase costs. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle supported the measure as a modest step and called for wider public education about microplastics.

The Opposition supported further research and industry innovation but did not consider primary legislation warranted at that stage, citing uncertainty about filter performance, costs and user behaviour. Baroness Hayman of Ullock said that the Government recognised the concerns and had already taken action including banning wet wipes containing plastic and microbeads in products. She said that further evidence was needed on effectiveness, cost, maintenance, disposal and recycling before new legislation was introduced, while stating that the Government would continue examining filters and wider producer-responsibility and wastewater measures. The Government could not support the Bill but said that it would continue research and stakeholder engagement and welcomed industry work on standardised testing of filter performance. Lord Randall said that he remained hopeful that the Government’s position might develop. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.