That the Grand Committee do consider the Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026.

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 9 March.

I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor typographical correction: at Regulation 4(3)(c)(i), the words “the right” should have a space between them. This was identified after the SI was laid and has been rectified through a correction slip. The correction is only typographical and has no effect on the meaning or operation of the regulations.

It has long been the case that a developer or land promoter can secure effective control over a piece of land—through an option, a conditional contract, a pre-emption right or a promotion agreement—without anyone outside the deal knowing about it. The land stays in the same name on the title register but, in practice, another party is determining its future. There is no legal obligation to disclose these arrangements and no reliable way of finding out about them.

The result is a land market that operates, in significant part, in the dark. Planning authorities draw up housing strategies without knowing who actually holds the cards on development sites. Smaller builders spend time and resources chasing land that turns out to be already committed, and local people find out about the development intentions for the land around them only when a planning application is submitted.

The Competition and Markets Authority examined these issues as part of its 2023 housebuilding market study and found that the largest firms alone hold contractual control over some 658,000 strategic plots through arrangements that are not on the public record. That is an extraordinary volume of land to be controlled without any transparency. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was passed under the previous Government, gave the Secretary of State the powers to address this, and the draft regulations before the Committee today give effect to those powers.

In essence, these regulations require anyone who holds one of the four specified types of contractual control right over registered land to notify HM Land Registry. HM Land Registry will then publish that information without charge—openly, digitally and in geospatial form—in a new database from April 2028. The regulations have been designed to support our objective of increasing transparency without introducing undue burdens on the sector.

HMLR will collect the names of the parties, the types of right, the land in question and the duration of the arrangement. Details about financial terms are not required. Conveyancers will provide this information. The information must be provided within 60 days of the right being created, assigned or varied through a regulated conveyancer, and HMLR must also be told when a right comes to an end. Conveyancers will also be expected to indicate the extent of the contractual control right to provide sufficient details to identify the land affected, to enable transparency rather than to represent definitive legal boundaries.

The regulations are focused on rights related to future development and include a proportionate set of exemptions for national security, loan security, short-term arrangements of less than 18 months and obligations under Section 106 planning agreements. They do not apply to agreements entered into before the regulations are made, unless those agreements are amended. The previous Government consulted on a five-year retrospective window, but we have decided not to pursue that, in order to minimise the administrative burden on businesses.

Where someone does not comply, HMLR may refuse to register a notice or restriction protecting that interest, and providing false or misleading information is a criminal offence under Section 225 of the 2023 Act.

I will say a word about why this measure matters beyond the legal mechanics. In the 1980s, smaller firms were responsible for a substantial share of housing delivery. That share has fallen dramatically and one reason for that, although it is not the sole cause, is the lack of transparency in the land market around them. They do not have the networks, the legal teams or the intelligence that larger operators have built up over decades.

A public database of who holds what rights and over which land changes that. It gives planning authorities the tools to more effectively understand the landscape of control over development land in their area, and to plan accordingly. Local communities will now be able both to understand who holds rights over development land nearby and to engage with them earlier in the process.

These regulations are a practical and measured step towards a land market that works more fairly. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As she will know, the origins of this policy lie with the previous Conservative Government and the work undertaken through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to improve transparency around contractual control agreements over land. We support greater transparency.

The Government argue that greater visibility of contractual control agreements may assist local authorities, communities and smaller developers in understanding how land is being assembled and brought forward for development. Although the principle is sensible, we also need to look at the practical implications of these regulations. Their success will depend ultimately on how they operate in practice and whether the Government properly monitor their wider effects on an already fragile housebuilding sector.

The context today is very different from when this policy was first developed. Developers, land promoters, conveyancers and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises are facing increasingly difficult market conditions. Inflationary pressures remain significant, input costs remain elevated, financing conditions are tighter and the costs of construction materials, labour and fuel continue to place pressure on viability across the sector—not to mention the increasing regulatory burden. At the same time, the Government continue to set ambitious housing targets while housebuilding output remains under strain. We have also seen growing financial pressures across parts of the industry, including on major housebuilders, as we read in the weekend’s business papers.

Against that backdrop, we must be cautious. Even relatively modest additional compliance burdens can have wider consequences than Ministers may anticipate. The challenge in many parts of the country is no longer simply identifying land, particularly brownfield land, but ensuring that development remains financially viable once construction, financing and regulatory costs are taken into account.

The Government estimate that the regulations will impose a cost on business of approximately £4.2 million per annum. In isolation, Ministers may regard that as manageable, but business does not experience regulation in isolation. These costs sit alongside increasing taxation, staffing pressures, financing costs and wider regulatory obligations. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of regulatory and economic pressures on SMEs operating within the development sector?

I will also press the Minister on the risk of unintended consequences, which several stakeholders raised during consultation. There is a legitimate concern that the regulations could alter market behaviour in ways that are not intended. These are, after all, private contractual arrangements, and we should be cautious about imposing disclosure requirements unless the benefits clearly outweigh the additional burdens and commercial sensitivities involved. For example, encouraging a shift away from flexible contractual arrangements and towards outright land acquisition in order to avoid additional reporting requirements could have the effect of tying up larger amounts of capital and potentially reducing the stock of land being actively brought forward for development.

Similarly, there is a risk that some landowners may become more reluctant to enter into option or promotion agreements if the public disclosure of those arrangements creates commercial sensitivities or local controversies at an earlier stage. Can the Minister therefore commit to conducting a regular review of the market impact of these regulations? I would be grateful if she could also clarify how the Government intend to ensure that the new dataset is genuinely usable and accessible in practice, and at what de minimis level this applies. Will it apply to all land ownership and the structures around that, or is there a size of plot or de minimis at which it does not apply?

The Government’s objective of increasing visibility within the land market is understandable. At a time when housing remains challenging and viability pressures across the sector are growing, the Government must ensure that these regulations support development rather than inadvertently discourage it. The test of this policy will not be simply whether more information is collected but whether it helps get Britain building more homes without placing further strain on a sector already facing considerable economic pressure. I hope the Minister can provide reassurances on these points and look forward to her response.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution to this short debate. He is quite right that this provision was brought forward in a Bill from the previous Government.

As I set out in my introductory speech, the purpose of this is to try to help support the SME sector and others, including local communities, alongside our other package of work, as we go forward to make sure that they have transparency and access to the information they need to make the business and local decisions that are so important to them. Transparency is not a substitute for other interventions to boost delivery, but it is a complementary and necessary precondition for a properly functioning and competitive land market.

The noble Lord is right that SME housebuilders have seen their market share significantly shrink since the 1980s, when SME builders delivered about 40% of the nation’s homes. A structural barrier to their return, as I am sure he will be aware, is the difficulty of identifying genuinely available sites. This new database will directly reduce that barrier for SMEs by allowing smaller developers to identify from the outset which sites are already under contractual control. More SMEs competing for genuinely available sites means more homes can be built by a more diverse market, which is central to our Government’s ambition to deliver more homes. We know that these regulations are not a silver bullet to the challenges SME builders face, but they do form part of a wider package of measures.

The noble Lord asked about exemption agreements. We have included targeted exemptions to make sure that the regulations are proportionate and require information to be provided only where it progresses the transparency aims. We have included the exemptions that I set out earlier, on national security arrangements such as loan security, non-development rights, short-term rights under 18 months and Section 106 agreements. Overage and clawback agreements are primarily financial mechanisms, which do not give a party the power to control how land is used or disposed, so a clear majority of the consultation respondents did not support their inclusion. Information about easements and restricted covenants is typically already available through the register of title.

I think the burdens and costs on the sector were the main issue that the noble Lord was raising. We have been deliberate throughout about ensuring that requirements are proportionate. The Government’s assessment is that the overall impact on business will be de minimis. No significant impact on the public sector is foreseen, and local authorities will benefit from access to the data at no cost. The information required is typically information that parties already hold. Exemptions exist for short-term and non-development rights. Our consultation, which was extensive, confirmed that the vast majority of parties already engage lawyers when drawing up these agreements. It was estimated that the process would add between 21 and 60 minutes per agreement.

As the noble Lord said, the impact on businesses is estimated at approximately £4.2 million per annum. That consists of ongoing compliance costs and one-off familiarisation costs to developers, land promoters and conveyancers. But, as always with these things, the important thing is to balance this with the improved transparency for communities and the industry to understand how land is available. Hopefully, that will off-set some of the costs because it will enable SMEs and others to access information that will tell them what land is available and save them wasting money looking at land that already has agreements over it.

In conclusion, these regulations will for the first time give government, planning authorities, small builders and local communities a clear and reliable picture of who controls development land in England and Wales. That is a straightforward but significant change and one that is long overdue. I trust the Committee welcomes the regulations.

I asked a question, which I appreciate the Minister may not be able to answer, about whether there is a de minimis level in those exemptions—for half an acre, quarter of an acre or whatever. Secondly, she rightly raised the various exemptions, and I am pleased that they are there; for clarification, will they be under the judgment of the legal bodies handling the transaction or will they have to refer to somebody for those exemptions?

I will respond to the noble Lord about the de minimis level in writing, if that is all right. In terms of determining what the exemptions are, the conveyancers will put this forward, so it will be up to them. As with all things in regulations, they will have to be honest in the way they approach this and exercise their professional judgment.