Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is usual on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Mar 2023)
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
Objective 2 currently focuses on the accuracy and completeness of documents delivered to the registrar. The amendment would expand it to refer to the accuracy and completeness of the register more generally. This would, for example, be relevant not only to the acceptance of documents for registration but also to their removal.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as set out in the register, including as a director and person with significant control of AMP Ventures Ltd and as a person with significant control and shareholder of several other companies. I do not believe that any of these is prejudicial to my role in today’s debate. If anything, they increase my passion for the important objectives of this Bill: strengthening the UK’s business environment for the law-abiding majority while closing the doors to rogue actors.
This Bill will deliver significant reforms to the role of Companies House, making the biggest change to our system of registering companies in over 170 years. It makes significant amendments to the Companies Act 2006, the largest single Act on the statute book. It will affect the more than 500,000 companies established every year in the UK and the 5 million companies currently on the register, which have grown from 3.5 million since the last major company transparency reforms in 2015. That is quite a significant amount and no doubt bears the attention deserved in this debate.
It is therefore vital that these reforms are designed and implemented properly, both so that law enforcement can undertake its responsibilities effectively and to ensure that they benefit business and that any burdens are proportionate. I am confident that the Bill will achieve this balance and set a sensible framework that works for the benefit of businesses while bearing down on those who seek to abuse our open economy.
If noble Lords will allow, I will express my gratitude to Members in the other place, who greatly contributed to the scrutiny and improvement of this Bill as it passed through their House, not least the honourable Members for Feltham and Heston, for Aberavon and for Glasgow Central, the right honourable Member for Barking and my honourable friends the Members for Barrow and Furness and for Weston-super-Mare.
I am also grateful to Members of this House for their invaluable contributions at Second Reading and for the further views that many of them have provided since to me and my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I see that several of them will speak to amendments today. I am also grateful for the constructive engagement of Members on the Opposition Front Bench throughout and look forward to continuing to work with them. It strikes me that all the amendments proposed today and all the work we have done across this House have the same intentions. That is important. We are working together to create a better company system in this country. My thanks also go to my noble friend Lord Callanan for all his past work on these reforms as the previous Minister for this Bill, to Minister Hollinrake, my colleague at the Department for Business and Trade, and to the Security Minister for bringing this Bill through the other place so effectively.
I very much look forward to the constructive debate that we will have over the coming weeks. I am sure that all noble Lords are as keen as I am to get this important legislation on to the statute book, including delivering the long-awaited reforms to Companies House that we will discuss today. As I set out at Second Reading, I hope that all noble Lords are fully aware of the opportunity before us to make a hugely meaningful difference to businesses, law enforcement and our citizens. I trust that we can count on the continued support of the House to deliver this.
I am delighted to be starting Committee by talking to government Amendments 1, 3 and 56, which amend Clauses 1 and 81. I will start with Amendments 1 and 3. The new registrar objectives introduced by Clause 1 are a key aspect of this Bill. They are designed to empower the registrar and the activities of Companies House, acting as a clear and purposeful signal of the manner in which new and existing powers under the Companies Act will be exercised. They will embolden Companies House to be the proactive gatekeeper that many have long wished it to become.
Government amendments 1 and 3 are designed to expand the scope and reach of one of the objectives. Amendment 1 should be warmly welcomed by those who have criticised Companies House as merely the repository of an accumulation of inaccurate, misleading and potentially fraudulent information. While powers in the Bill allow the registrar to revisit and, where appropriate, remove information that ought never to have found its way on to the register that she holds, this amendment will make it absolutely clear that she must endeavour to address that historical legacy.
Amendment 3 recognises and addresses the fact that the registrar is the custodian of registers other than the register of companies. Objective 2 already puts a duty on the registrar to seek to promote the accuracy of information that is already on, or delivered with a view to being put on, the register and to seek to ensure that the register contains everything that it ought to contain. This amendment makes it explicitly clear that this applies to all the registers that she keeps, such as the register of persons of significant control and the register of overseas entities.
Government amendment 56 expands on the registrar’s new ability, introduced by Clause 81, to require information to be provided to her in order for her to determine certain matters. Importantly, it will allow the registrar to require information to determine not only whether the documents delivered to her meet the “proper delivery” requirements in respect of such things as content, form, authentication and manner of delivery but whether the underlying trigger event for the filing has really happened. For example, this amendment will ensure that the registrar can compel the production of information to determine whether a form sent in to report the appointment of a director was genuinely triggered by a real appointment and was not simply a fraudulent attempt to dupe the registrar into recording an appointment that never happened. I beg to move Amendment 1 and hope that noble Lords will support Amendments 3 and 56.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before opening this debate, I advise the Grand Committee that, if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 2, due to pre-emption.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I again welcome this Bill, as I set out at Second Reading. My noble friend is right: it has all-party support and is sorely needed. Likewise, it is reassuring to see the large number of amendments tabled by the Government, reflecting, no doubt, the views that your Lordships expressed at Second Reading and possibly some of those from the other House earlier.
My noble friend says that the aim is to improve the system through the legislation and I believe that my Amendment 2, supported by Amendments 55, 57 and 58, goes some way to help that. Likewise, I declare a conflict of interest, in that I am a shareholder and a director of a number of small private companies. One large company might be in the book, but they are mostly SMEs. Therefore, my relationship with Companies House is, like that of every director of every company, important. In my day-to-day activity as an investment banker, I frequently look to accounts in Companies House for information. It is an invaluable tool; compared to arrangements in other countries, particularly the United States, it is a real asset for information flow about businesses.
My amendment seeks to ensure accuracy, specifically in respect of tagging. As I explained at Second Reading, this is key. Company accounts used to be provided on paper or on a PDF, which is essentially paper form, and they are now filed using digital formats that tag each item with a label so that it can be recognised by downstream processing systems. Unfortunately, as I read it, there is no requirement in the Bill for internal consistencies, so tagging errors will not be picked up. That is needed to ensure that none of the data is self-contradictory and that it matches other data in the previous year’s accounts or tags internally to the document. I note that my noble friend’s amendment is a sweep-all amendment, covering wider matters, but the amendment that I am proposing is specific.
Perhaps it will help if I give an example. Imagine that an oligarch is a director of a company and his name, quite correctly, appears on the accounts, but the name has not been tagged or has been tagged as something other than his correct name. When a smart fraud detection mechanism is used by way of a search, that name will not emerge. Accountants will argue that the accounts are complete as the name is there, but if that name has not been tagged correctly, the filing will be of no use electronically, and therefore it is essential that the accounts are consistent internally. At the moment, the registrar can refuse to accept accounts only where they are inconsistent with outside information, so my amendment seeks to close what I see as that loophole.
I welcome the amendment to this clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but I do not believe it covers my point. Likewise, I particularly welcome my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment, which sets the tone but, again, does not cover this point.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 63 to Clause 90. I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I am a director of several companies and a person with significant control of an LLP, so I have had a lot of interaction with Companies House over the years.
My amendment might sound rather anodyne, but the amendments I have tabled to the Bill are the first building blocks of the transformational change that will be needed in Companies House once this Bill has been passed. We are taking an organisation that ever since its creation has simply been a passive receiver of data and has never had any cultural inclination to challenge it. This Bill changes that, which we welcome, and I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for all his positive engagement so far. What I am asking for here is a direct and specific requirement for the registrar to construct a process that will enable her essentially to triage the cases that are coming through the system. As my noble friend the Minister said, there are 5 million companies on the register and some 300,000 to 400,000 new companies are created annually.
When the Bill is passed we will have a problem with what I call stock and flow—in other words, a huge cleaning-up operation of the 5 million companies that are already there will be needed, and that will take some time. We also need to ensure, as quickly as possible after the Bill has passed, that the new registrations coming through are of the highest standard possible. Essentially, I am asking for the registrar to be required to make a risk assessment of new companies being created. One example that is well known in the financial word is that of Danske Bank in Denmark, which was the largest ever anti-money laundering fraud case in Europe, worth some €200 billion. Much of that started here through our LLP and LP structures. It would not have been difficult to have seen that there were trends among a lot of the LLPs that were being created. Many of them were coming from the same registration agent and with similar, often the same, addresses. That would have been a serious red flag that could have been investigated.
I am trying not to the rewrite the past but to set the tone for the future. It will not be realistic for the registrar to go into enormous detail on every registration, but if she builds a triaging system at the beginning, with a series of red flags, in aggregate the ones with the most red flags will be the ones that need priority. When I was the Minister for Grants, I discovered that we were doling out £30 billion a year in grants, but we had no system to assess the validity of the people receiving the grants. We put in place one very simple piece of software called Quantexa which shows immediately all the connections of the person making the grant to other people who are not necessarily good actors in the system. It cost £1 or £2 a go, or maybe £5 a go, but it had a dramatic impact very quickly. It is those sorts of tools that Companies House in its new format will need to use. I am not specifying an app, but I am most anxious that the Minister considers my amendment and includes it as one of his own.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for his introduction today, and I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the previous Bill and in the run-up to today. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Fox is unable to be here to help kick off proceedings. I am merely his understudy today—but he will, I am assured, be back with a vengeance after Easter.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and his colleagues for their approach to the Bill and for his remarks at the beginning, which were very welcome. We all have an interest in trying to ensure that the Bill works, so I thank the Minister for his comments about that—and I can reciprocate with regard to how the Government have approached this in trying to enhance and improve the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister said about the amendments in this group, and all the various amendments that have been introduced, as we have heard, in a positive way, in seeking to improve the Bill.
I do not intend to speak at great length about the various amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for his support of my Amendment 4 and by saying that I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said on his Amendment 63. Essentially, what we are saying here is that the Bill has a lot within it that we appreciate, accept and think are important steps forward—but alongside that, most of us want to see the Bill having some teeth and the Government explaining to us how the various details are laid out, how the measures will be enforced and how we will see the change of culture that we have just heard about.
I will speak specifically to my Amendment 4. Noble Lords will see that, in essence, we are probing what the Government’s intentions are. Clause 1 has four objectives for the registrar. The amendment in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lady Blake seeks to understand whether anything could be gained by inserting a new objective 5. No doubt the Minister will say that objective 4 means the same, which may be why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not needed. We are suggesting that there needs to be a more proactive statement in the Bill about what the Government are seeking in terms of the information that the registrar collects and how it is then assessed to see whether it should be shared more widely, particularly with the various enforcement bodies.
The objective I am proposing—I will not read it all out—includes in paragraph (b)
“sharing information about any issues of concern regarding companies with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies.”
Why would the Government not put that in the Bill? I suspect they will say that objective 4 deals with that, but I think there is a difference between acting proactively and what the Government have in objective 4, which is
“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities”.
I suggest that is not quite strong enough. It is not about minimising the extent; it is about wherever information comes to light with the registrar that something untoward is happening. Surely there should be an obligation on the registrar to share that with the relevant law enforcement bodies. Minimising the extent is not sufficient; we do not do that with any other law—we do not minimise the extent to which violence takes place, for example. That may be the aim, but overall the intention of the law is to stop it. So I suggest that objective 4 could be strengthened.
On Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, the noble Lord can and did speak for himself, but in his proposed new subsection (1B)(b) he is getting at that very point in stating that the registrar must
“share any evidence of unlawful activity it identifies with the relevant law enforcement agency”.
That is exactly the same point I am trying to address in my amendment. It is not about minimising the extent to which it takes place; it is saying that the information should always be shared. Can the Minister outline the Government’s thinking? Is their objective with the registrar that all information that may be of concern should be shared with the relevant law enforcement agencies?
Without wishing to be pedantic about this, can I ask: what is the relevant law enforcement agency with which the registrar should share the information? There is the Serious Fraud Office; there is the City of London Police; there are local police forces; there is HMRC and all sorts of other enforcement bodies. The Government will have given thought to this, but can the Minister explain to the Committee where that information should go and who is responsible for enforcing it? Is there any report back to the registrar? Once the information has been shared, is it then just a matter for the law enforcement body, or does the registrar have an obligation to see where that has got to and what has happened to it? We all know that an issue that frustrates people is not knowing what happens when things are reported and where they have got to. Alongside that, given the significant numbers that the Minister quoted of those that have to register, what are the resource implications for those other bodies in taking that up?
My final point may seem a bit obscure. I am not a great expert on this, but I know from one limited case that I had some experience of that one of the problems was a lack of forensic accountants and the ability to understand what was going on within various company accounts. I was told it was a skill area that is never really talked about. I wonder whether the Government, given their intentions, have given any thought to how they ensure that the necessary skill base is there within police forces and the Serious Fraud Office for crimes that are referred to them to be properly understood and investigated. I am sure that some people are experts in company law and all this, but the problem is that when people say “Follow the money”, sometimes it is pretty difficult to do that. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about how he sees that.
In general, we welcome the Bill and the government amendments before us. I think the amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Agnew, have tabled make some very important points. I hope that my Amendment 4 also helps the Government explain to the Committee what their intentions are. If the Bill is to mean anything, it has to be properly enforced.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I had not intended to speak on this group, but my noble friend Lord Coaker has drawn my attention to the active verbs in the subsections of Clause 1. I am at a loss to understand why they are used. Why is objective 3
“to minimise the risk of records kept by the registrar creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”
and not “to prevent companies and others carrying out unlawful activities or facilitating the carrying out of unlawful activities”? It seems odd that the objective is not the complete protection of people who may be duped or defrauded or have their money stolen from them by the devices created here. I appreciate that one cannot guarantee perfection, but it seems to me that by legislating in this fashion we recognise that there will be an element of that, since the objective we set the registrar is only to minimise, not to prevent it altogether.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I declare my interest as chairman of C Hoare and Co. I apologise for not being here at Second Reading. I had a good excuse: a very bad dose of flu.
I have two brief points. First, legislation on its own does not change an institution—I worked in the Treasury for 30 years and saw many institutions come and go—but it can be really helpful in supporting the leadership of that institution to change its character and the way in which it works. I believe the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, would support the leadership in bringing that about.
My second point draws on my experience of seeing through a lot of reform to financial services regulation. I think it is fair to say that the lesson of the 2000s was that tick-box regulation really does not take you very far; a proportionate, risk-based approach is the answer. I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, very much goes with the flow of better regulation.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I really thank noble Lords for their contributions. Not for the first time in this House I am surrounded by people who know far more than I do about the subject, with business gurus such as my noble friend Lord Leigh, who gave us the benefit of his many decades of wisdom. It is extremely helpful. As I say, everything that has been said today is mirrored in the emphasis of the Government’s broad objectives, so we are working collaboratively here. I hope your Lordships do not mind me going through each different point—I hope I can answer them all.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I just interrupt the Minister before he goes much further. I have been listening very carefully to what he has to say, but he seemed to imply that a risk-based approach could lead to box-ticking. Surely, a risk-based approach is the very antithesis of box-ticking.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that intervention. Our view is that if we legislate specifically for a risk-based approach, on top of what we believe is already a risk-based approach, we are not achieving our goals. The concern from the Government’s point of view—and mine, as someone who has registered companies with Companies House—is that you end up box-checking. The Bill is designed to ensure that the registrar is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the register and minimising criminal activity. In my view, those are the core functions of the registrar and the activity of Companies House, so we already have what one would describe as a risk-based approach built in. We feel very comfortable that this ambition, which is what this is all about, is well built into the legislation and will be the core function of the registrar—this is the essence of it—and we believe this to be well represented. Clearly, the ambition of the registrar will be to take a risk-based approach to her activities. We may be arguing over the same point, but I take it very seriously and am happy to consider it with more thought. As I said, this has been drafted effectively to encompass the concepts and points raised by noble Lords.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised. My last point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: we are trying to create the registrar as a proactive gatekeeper. That is at the core of the Bill’s ambition. We welcome input on how we can ensure this is done more specifically.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend wants my amendment not to be moved, would it be possible for the registrar to write to us to explain her philosophy and how she is going to make this huge change to delivering a risk-based approach? I am very reassured by his comments, but having been in the trenches of government for 12 years, I just know that the reality is a long way from wise words in a process such as this. A simple letter to us saying, “This is my philosophy, what I am doing and how I am training people to cope with this enormous change”, would be very reassuring.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment, and I entirely agree that it would be extremely useful to have such a letter from the registrar. I take very seriously the comments about a cultural change at Companies House. We should be aware of where we are coming from. Not to repeat or labour the point, but Companies House is today simply a repository for information; it could practically be a static website. Having said that, in the conversations that I have had with Companies House, I have been very impressed by the tone of the officials I have spoken to there in terms of their determination to crack down on criminal activity around companies and Companies House. They currently make referrals to law enforcement agencies; they are not blind to the issues that present themselves, but they do not have the powers to do what we want them to do.
This Bill gives the registrar and her agents the concomitant powers to execute exactly on this mission that we wish. They talk boldly of a cultural change in Companies House, which we expect, as well as a technological change and a significant resource improvement—and under other amendments we will discuss the resourcing of Companies House. I feel confident that we are going to see a magnitudinous alteration in the relationship between the number of companies and number of directors performing their functions appropriately and providing relevant information to boost the economy, as soon as, or soon after, this Act is enabled—if I have got my terminology right.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I would be grateful for a clarification. Can the Minister say something about the language being used? My noble friend Lord Browne also picked up on this point. It is not that it is wrong, but why in Clause 1 do objectives 3 and 4, for example, talk about minimising risks or the extent? What I suggest in my amendment is acting proactively to prevent. It is about that sense of purpose and that cultural change, whereby the registrar actively seeks out unlawful activity and actively seeks to inform law enforcement to do something about it. It is not a clash of view but, in talking about cultural change, would not a language change help the Government in delivering what they want?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I do not want noble Lords at any point to think that I am being defensive in any way, as we are having a collaborative debate around the objectives of trying to improve company law and registration of companies and the integrity of the information stored at Companies House.
Objective 1 is pretty clear in referring to
“any person who is required to deliver a document to the registrar does so”,
and objective 2 is very clear and specific in saying
“to ensure that documents delivered to the registrar are complete and contain accurate information”.
They are unambiguous points—that is very clear. There is no question about there being some grey area around that. But with regard to objective 3 and
“creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”,
clearly that is relatively subjective statement. It is clear that we have made efforts in this Bill to ensure that company names, for example, cannot be used to be misleading, and additional powers have been placed with the Secretary of State to ensure that companies have to change their names—but there is an element of subjectivity around a company name. To some extent, it is not totally prescriptive. Objective 4 then says,
“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities, or … facilitate the carrying out by others of unlawful activities”.
These are complicated areas, in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, issues around forensic accounting, and so on, have been raised. Nothing is necessarily as straightforward as it seems. The principle here is to try to reduce the crime clearly to zero—so if the registrar reduced levels of criminal activity to a certain percentage, which they felt were somehow in a target range and then stopped their work, we would consider that to be entirely inappropriate. At the same time, they have a very clear objective, which is to minimise financial misconduct and criminality. That flexibility enables the registrar to perform her functions appropriately.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I do not want to prolong this debate because, although it is fascinating, it is something that can be dealt with in the period between now and Report. Perhaps my noble friend could, with his officials, run through the dictionary to find a slightly punchier verb. We all know what “minimise” means—to reduce to a minimum. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is making. A slightly more aggressive approach to criminal activity or people’s misconduct in using the Companies House system is probably required. It is just a tweak in the language; we are not going to World War III over this—it is just a question of going back, having a look at a dictionary and seeing if they can find a slightly more aggressive word.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
So that the Minister does not have to answer questions seriatim, as it were, I endorse that. I am not sure that I have heard persuasive objections to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I understand what he says about risk-based, but sharing information with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies surely does not tie the registrar’s hand in any way. It must be remembered that while we can all applaud what has happened in Companies House and the change in culture that will follow, this is really a second attempt to tie things up. We should not forget that there was the first economic crime Bill, before the Minister came to his post, where much was promised, so this is the final word on it and the time to crystallise where we are on those things. Objective 5 is another step. If the Minister is saying that Companies House is coming a long way and it is further step to ask it to do this, that is an answer, but I do not think it is an answer that satisfies the Committee.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. I do not believe that I suggested at any point that this was not baked into the cake of what Companies House is expected to deliver. I would be delighted to have further dialogue with Members around this but, in my humble opinion, the entire Bill is designed to ensure that the registrar takes a risk-based approach to ensuring the integrity of the information at Companies House. I am very comfortable on that, and the Government are very clear on it. We are wary of having duplicative statements in the Bill because that causes more complications when we are trying to create the enforcement regime and the integrity regime that we want to bring to bear.
On the key clauses and the language therein, I am certainly happy to consult my dictionary as noble Lords suggest. I am sorry that I was unable to bring one with me. It would be unusual for us to be quite so prescriptive in part 3 of the four objectives. I am delighted to have further conversations if noble Lords feel that that would be more helpful in setting the right cultural change at Companies House, but I am wary of being too prescriptive. I hope this is not misunderstood by Members of this Committee, but we want to avoid a box-ticking exercise because that is exactly what criminals like, as they can then navigate the system. We want to allow the registrar and her officers to use their judgment because that will lead to far better outcomes when it comes to achieving the mission that all of us are embarking on together.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
On a plain reading of this clause, the registrar is being required to promote these objectives, but in objective 4 she is being required not to prevent but
“to minimise the extent to which”
crimes can be committed. What is the problem about setting an objective that she is to prevent, and Parliament is telling her that is the objective we want her to have but recognising of course that perfection is very seldom found in these situations? Why do we set an objective that is less than what we really want? There is no question that Parliament wants these crimes prevented, not minimised.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comment. We have discussed this at some length. I am personally very comfortable defining further the usage of “minimise”, but the intention is very clear. This is not about “minimising” criminal activity to a so-called acceptable percentage; it is ultimately to eradicate it entirely. I am sure there are good reasons why this language has been used, in order to enable an element of flexibility and facilitation for this Bill to operate effectively. I am sure noble Lords will sympathise with me when it comes to legal drafting of text, but the assurances around this Bill are that it should do exactly what we want it to do. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and I commend Amendment 1.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(2) In Objective 2 the reference to “the register” includes any records kept by the registrar under any enactment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Objective 2 as amended applies not only in relation to the register of companies but also in relation to any other registers and documents kept by the registrar under legislation.
“(2A) After subsection 1, insert—“(1A) The memorandum must also state—(a) the nationality of the each subscriber, and(b) the country in which each subscriber is ordinarily resident.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would require a memorandum of association on the formation of a company to include the nationality and country of ordinary residence of each initial shareholder alongside their name.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments which focuses mostly on the amount of information given about subscribers, founding shareholders and limited companies when registering a company and ongoing shareholders. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Agnew, are aimed at making it transparent whether subscribers and shareholders are holding shares on their own behalf or on behalf of others.
Currently, information about subscribers is very limited. The amendment in my noble friend’s name, and other Back-Bench amendments, are aimed at helping provide more information. The amendment would require the nationality and country of residence of subscribers. There has been a huge increase in the number of shell companies with directors based abroad. This is one step we can take to increase transparency and fight against the UK’s reputation for tolerating dirty money. The theme of this group as a whole is increasing transparency; there are various specific amendments with that aim in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for accommodating this intervention. I thought it would aid noble Lords in having a productive debate if I set out up front the intention of the government amendments in this group, given that it contains a significant number and, as I understand it, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, seek to build on them.
The government amendments seek to further strengthen transparency of shareholder data on the company register. I hope they will reassure noble Lords that the Government take this topic very seriously. A core purpose of the register of companies is to provide details of company ownership. However, users of the register have reported some problems with the way in which company ownership data is recorded. That is why the Bill contains measures to increase the usefulness of the information held on the shareholders, subscribers and guarantors—also known as members—of companies.
The Government appreciate the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill by expert witnesses and parliamentarians about member information. However, I stress that we are also mindful of stakeholder concerns about imposing disproportionate burdens on businesses. The 2019 corporate transparency and register reform consultation proposed that non-traded companies, such as companies that are not listed on any regulated market, be required to collect the usual residential address and date of birth of their members. Consultation responses were mixed, and the Government concluded that the case had not adequately been made for the collection of the information, given the potential burden on businesses.
The Government consider that the approach taken with these amendments balances competing stakeholder concerns proportionately. The amendments will help to ensure that the policy intent of provisions in the Bill and the Companies Act 2006 are met without imposing undue burdens on business before further consultation is carried out.
Amendment 31 inserts a new clause into the Bill, which will amend the Companies Act 2006 to create an express requirement that old information must be retained where it changes. So, if a member’s name, address or shareholding changes, that old information must be retained for as long as the Companies Act 2006 allows. That is currently implied by other sections of the Companies Act 2006, but the law is unclear. For example, Section 121 states that an “entry” relating to a former member of a company may be removed from the register after the expiration of 10 years from the date on which he ceased to be a member. The retention of old information should already be current practice as it is in a company’s own interests to retain such information for audit purposes. Retrospective disputes relating to votes, dividends, and tax could all hinge on who owned shares at a point in time.
The new clause inserted into the Bill by Amendment 31 will also amend the Companies Act 2006 to provide powers to companies to ensure that member information is provided and kept up to date. The amendments also provide duties for members to provide their information and keep it up to date. There are offences for companies and members failing to comply with the new requirements without a reasonable excuse. That will ensure that the requirements are taken seriously by both companies and members and will enable more effective enforcement activity.
Amendments 6, 31, 34, 59 and 66 restructure existing provisions in the Bill that in turn amend the Companies Act 2006. They also provide powers to strengthen the regime by regulations. The powers allow regulations to require more information to be provided and to ensure that any new personal information is protected as appropriate. That would allow the Government to act swiftly to require more information to be provided if it is deemed proportionate to do so—again, following further consultation. Equally, law enforcement agencies may identify additional types of information that the registrar could require the collection of, which would help them in the prevention and detection of crime.
If new information is later required, it may not be appropriate for it to be made available for public inspection or disclosed except in specified circumstances—for example, if regulations later require a person’s personal email address to be provided, as that could have unintended consequences with spam mail and so on. These amendments ensure that personal information can be protected where appropriate, applying the principles from similar provisions in the Companies Act 2006 and this Bill to these measures.
I want to highlight that the power in new Section 113C could be used to limit any additional information requirements to companies that are not traded on any listed market, as those companies are already subject to similar disclosure requirements. That would reduce the burden on business, in line with the proposals in the 2019 consultation.
These amendments set up the framework for the policy intent to be met and leave the heavy lifting to regulations, once consultation has been carried out. The Government consider that to be an appropriate balance, as all regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure such that Parliament will have its say when those regulations are made.
The Government intends to remove Clauses 2, 4, 46 and 47 from the Bill because the provisions of those clauses are amended and/ or incorporated into the new clauses that I have described. Amendments 35 to 38, 60 to 62 and 67 allow the provisions to be sequenced more coherently and make consequential drafting tweaks.
I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments, and I look forward to the rest of this debate.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7, 8, 32 and 33 in my name. Before I start, I hope the Committee will not mind if I point out that my name is pronounced “Vawks”. It is astonishing how many different pronunciations of a four-letter word it is possible to come up with. I should also remind the Committee of my interest in the register as a non-practising chartered accountant.
I thank the Minister for arranging to meet me to discuss the various amendments that I have tabled and for his engagement so far. Like, I think, everyone in the Room, I support everything that the Government are trying to achieve with this Bill. My amendments to the Companies House section try to make it more effective in achieving the Government’s stated aim, which the Minister explained at Second Reading is to
“bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, and it will strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, while ensuring that dirty money has no place to hide”.
He went on to say that:
“The use of anonymous or fraudulent shell companies and partnerships provides criminals with a veneer of legitimacy and undermines the UK’s reputation as a sound place to do business.”
I think we all agree with that, but the Bill remains weak in improving transparency.
At Second Reading the noble Lord also said that the Bill would be
“helping to ensure that we know the real people acting for, and benefiting from, companies.”
The Bill makes some improvements in that respect, but it is pretty thin gruel and is not likely to make any real practical difference unless it is strengthened. That is what I am trying to do with these amendments, which I have tabled as amendments to the government amendments.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
As a fellow chartered accountant, can I ask the noble Lord how his amendment would work in respect of trust? Does it mean that trustees are disclosed or that beneficiaries are disclosed? Clearly, one would want to have beneficiaries disclosed, and I am not sure that this achieves that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord is quite right. What we are really trying to get to here is the ultimate beneficial owner, which is a problem that sits throughout this and the overseas property register. Neither of them really gets to that point. The wording requires refinement, but that is what I was trying to get to—that the ultimate beneficial owner, the directing mind behind the shareholding, is disclosed.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Does the noble Lord think this goes far enough? I chaired the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, and one of our recommendations was that there should be improved verification procedures for Companies House. We also thought it was well worth considering ensuring that regulated professionals acting should also provide statements, which would concentrate the minds of those advising who are responsible for providing this information.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I made exactly the same argument during the passage of what we used to call ECB 1—the first economic crime Bill. I entirely agree, and noble Lords will see that I have a number of later amendments dealing with those issues of the verification statements and the authorised corporate service providers being named publicly as opposed to—as is proposed at the moment—not being named on the register. That is really important. I agree that this probably does not go far enough. I am mindful of the Minister’s comments about not making this overly burdensome—if we do, it will not work—but we need to find a way to make sure that we understand who owns the shares.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am here as an international policy wonk, and I am very conscious that, in economic crime, a great deal goes on cross-border and outside the jurisdiction of the UK. I have therefore tabled two later amendments: one concerns the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories and the other concerns the levels of international co-operation that will be desirable and necessary if we are to crack some of these problems.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said about the requirements for those agents—or enablers, if you like—in setting up what are very often cascades of companies that disappear outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to our various overseas territories or beyond. The question, therefore, is how we ensure the maximum amount of transparency and make the risk of crime as minimal as possible by putting heavily on those who are engaged in setting up these trust companies and further arrangements the responsibility of declaring clearly that these are legitimate and sound.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be present at Second Reading. In support of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Vaux, I simply say that I really could not count the number of criminal cases in which I have been involved where it is precisely the concealment of beneficial ownership that is the driving force of the strategy behind the crime. This happens repeatedly. Anything that can be done to strengthen the Bill in this area—I am particularly attracted by the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—should be entertained seriously by the Government.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, if we achieve nothing else today, it will be getting the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, right in future—you take what victories you can. One amends government amendments at one’s peril, as I am sure the noble Lord recognises, but this Bill is about transparency, so I speak in support of his Amendments 7 and 32. Amendment 7 is about who a person is really subscribing for and Amendment 32 is about who they are really holding for. Those surely play directly into the objectives that we were discussing a few minutes ago regarding complete and accurate records and not giving a misleading impression. They could be tied to objective 4 as well. These are not onerous requirements. I note the challenges put down by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, but they are not onerous; they are a basic feature of transparency. I therefore hope that the Minister will get behind these two amendments.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has done a lot of the heavy lifting, so I will not repeat all his arguments. I take some comfort that he makes me look moderate in my requests for further transparency—that is not how I am normally referred to by noble friends and Ministers. The title of the Bill specifies “Corporate Transparency” and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has just said, it is not an onerous requirement to state whether the shares are owned by the individual or somebody else. The suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, of a simple affirmation statement is even more powerful, so that the enabler who is setting up the entity simply has to answer “yes” or “no” to whether the shares are for the beneficial ownership of the name on the share register. My noble friend now has a choice of routes down which he could go if he is minded to take on board either of our amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I think I need to say very little given the barrage we have heard. These Benches firmly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and congratulate him on putting up with the mispronunciation of his name on such a consistent basis. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has exactly the same problem, so there is a commonality across the Benches here. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, talked about “heavy lifting” and others have talked about “very light requirements”. Those who have argued for the amendments have made a very strong case, not least my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire on the implications for overseas territories and revealing beneficiaries there. Transparency is the essence of what we are trying to achieve here.
I think we all agree that one of the core competencies of Companies House needs to be expertise in verifying the identity of applicants, whether subscribers or members, and so on. Identity verification, which we will discuss throughout Part 1, will be a vital tool in the policing of the sector if it is to be successful and should be a core competence of what we might call the new model of Companies House. There is some doubt about how far this is being, in a sense, outsourced to others. These amendments make it absolutely clear, particularly as regards nominees, that it should be the applicant and Companies House which make sure that we know who we are dealing with here. It has several distinct advantages and, as everyone has emphasised in this debate, is not an onerous requirement.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. The Government appreciate their intent but consider that we already have the powers we need in the Bill to address the substance of these concerns. Following on from comments from my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we are not discussing the verification of corporate providers. I think there is a significant amount of discussion to be had on that a bit later.
I totally agree about the importance of the transparency of the records and understanding who the beneficial owners of companies are—that is the whole point of much of the work we are undertaking today. On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about the ownership level of 25%, in a private company you have to have your identity verified if you are a director, own 25% or more of the company or are a person with significant control. To clarify, the 25% level does not denote a person with significant control. Somebody who has one share can be a person with significant control, and it is the company’s duty to report who they are. It is extremely important to make that clear in this discussion.
I was not in this great House for the previous piece of legislation, the debate on which has resulted in this new piece of legislation, but I am very aware of the importance of understanding who stands behind the companies—as has rightly been said, to quote myself, the people acting for and benefiting from companies. The 25% level does not denote a person with significant control, and companies suffer significant penalties—the penalty regime, which I am happy to share with noble Lords, is substantial and at the very core of this process.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord is quite right: there is the question of being able to influence or control the company other than through shareholdings, but he referred to penalties and so on. How many times has anyone been penalised for failing to provide information about being a person with significant control when they did not hold 25%?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
That is exactly the sort of question that should be asked; I look forward to returning to this Committee with the answer, as I unfortunately do not have it at my fingertips. However, I know that Companies House continues to do a great deal of investigation into these matters, even before this Act has come into place.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also raised an important point in saying that it is too easy and cheap to create a company and that the 1855 principles around the corporate veil are a privilege. At the time, they were considered a great risk to the economy, abrogating people of their personal responsibilities and liabilities to the debts of their businesses. It caused great debate, as noble Lords may remember—looking around the Room, not all noble Lords will, but some may. It is important to understand that it comes with privileges and obligations.
Having done a great deal of investigation into this Act, of the 4.8 million companies on the register, I would have thought that many should not be limited companies; it is not necessary for a sole trader or a small partnership to have a company, so I have a degree of sympathy for upgrading the entire concept of what a limited company is and what sort of information should be provided. It may be important, philosophically, to look at it in that way, rather than simply saying, “Here are a very large number of companies; if we impose undue obligations on them, that will be unfair or overly burdensome to businesses.” It is not unreasonable to look at the picture in the round.
Having said that, we undertook a variety of consultations and feel that the way this Bill has been drafted gives us the security to understand who the beneficiaries of companies are and the requirements of companies to record that information and link those individuals across the information processes and systems in Companies House to ensure that we have integrity of data. To require all shareholders to verify their identity would be unnecessarily burdensome for many thousands of companies and, potentially, millions of small shareholders who are simply passive holders of a business.
I would not like my comments to be taken in the wrong way—perhaps in the way that “minimise” has been taken—but we are making a significant change to the way that companies are established in this country and to the sorts of information levels that we require from businesses to ensure the integrity of data at Companies House, in what both individual directors, persons with significant control or corporate service providers and companies have to provide. It is very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that this country is one of the easiest places to do business in the world. Our wealth comes from our entrepreneurial nature and the importance of having a company structure, system and process that does not place unnecessary burdens where they will not necessarily add value.
I am, however, very open to further conversations to ensure that the philosophy presented here matches our ambition, which is to ensure that we understand who benefits from companies and who is behind them.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord has explained the onerous nature of verifying the identity of every shareholder, which I accepted in part when I spoke. We will come back to that issue on Amendments 39 and 43. However, he has not talked about whether and why a shareholder making a simple statement as to whether they are holding the shares on their own behalf—and if they are not, on whose behalf they are—is particularly onerous. I am afraid that I do not see why it should be.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The company is obliged to register if there is a person with significant control or someone with more than 25%. If it is not truthful in that registration, it will be committing an offence.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
But that is different from any shareholder having to make the positive statement: “I am”—or “I am not”—“holding the shares on my own behalf”. It is very different from, “I’ve got 25% and therefore I have to make some disclosures”. Why is it a problem for an individual shareholder to say, “I’m holding these shares on my own behalf”, or “I’m holding them on behalf of somebody else”? I am sorry, but I really do not see why that is difficult or onerous. It is a very different thing from the 25% threshold that the Minister just mentioned.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s intervention. I expect some of this comes down to nominee companies and the roles that they perform on shareholder registers, but I am happy to look in more detail at this point. We had the good fortune to have a conversation about this some days ago and came to the conclusion that it was certainly worth further investigation to ensure that anyone who puts information on to the Companies House website has to ascertain whether they are acting on behalf of other people. However, I believe, and very much hope, that the answer will lie in the depths of the legislation.
My noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment is very similar. I hope I have covered this point, particularly in relation to the PSC framework already in place.
I turn to Amendment 5, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful replacement of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in speaking to it. The amendment would require a memorandum of association to include the nationality and country of ordinary residence of each subscriber. A memorandum of association is a memorandum stating that the subscribers wish to form a company, and they agree to become members of that company. Their names are then entered into the company’s register of members.
This amendment, if I may be so bold, would not require the same information to be provided by persons who later become members. Frankly, it is considered that that would create inconsistency between the information requirements of members who were subscribers and other members. The Government consider that any new information requirements should be consistent between the two.
The Government appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but we consider that this would be better addressed by consulting stakeholders about what additional information, if any, it would be proportionate to require every company to provide about all its members, rather than just subscribers who are individuals. To reinforce that point, we would look to consult stakeholders about what additional information it would be proportionate to require.
This Bill, and government amendments to it, provide the powers to require additional information to be provided via regulations. This discussion can happen on an ongoing basis, and we welcome that. The government amendments that I outlined earlier signal our willingness to review the position on this issue, albeit having first consulted stakeholders, given the potential burdens involved. I know we all agree about the importance of keeping the legislation sensible so that it does not impinge on our entrepreneurial spirit and the creation of companies in this country. That is absolutely right, and noble Lords would expect the Government to consult in ensuring that we get the right information registered in the right way. I hope this reassures the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short but important debate. I make it clear to the Minister that I do not think anyone contributing to this discussion was questioning the underlying philosophy of the Bill. Indeed, we were trying to enhance its underlying philosophy, which is to provide greater transparency about who the ultimate beneficial owners of all these companies are.
The Minister’s response to the various amendments was about disproportionality. He said that they would put disproportional burdens on smaller companies, that personal information may be made available, and that people should be protected from spam, promoters and so on. I do not think anyone is questioning that. Various amendments put forward by various noble Lords try to increase transparency and to stop people being able to hide behind layers and layers of nominee companies.
I was drawn to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said: “Having to lie in public is very different from just keeping quiet”. That is a very sound principle to operate on. He also made the point that identifying shareholders should be the same as identifying directors or people with significant control. That is a second principle behind his amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Information about subscribers
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 9 (registration documents)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The application must contain—(a) a statement of the required information about each of the subscribers to the memorandum of association (see section 9A),(b) a statement that none of the subscribers to the memorandum of association is disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation (see section 159A(2)),(c) if any of them would be so disqualified but for the permission of a court to act, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the subscriber’s name,(ii) the court by which permission was given, and(iii) the date on which permission was given, and(d) if any of them would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the subscriber’s name, and(ii) the date on which it was issued and by whom it was issued.”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(7) In subsection (3A)(c) “permission of a court to act” means permission of a court under a provision mentioned in column 2 of the table in section 159A(2).”.(3) After section 9 insert—“9A Required information about the subscribers(1) The required information about a subscriber who is an individual is—(a) name;(b) a service address.(2) The required information about a subscriber that is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, is—(a) corporate or firm name;(b) a service address.(3) In subsection (1) “name” means the individual’s forename and surname.(4) Where a subscriber is a peer or an individual usually known by a title, that title may be stated in the application for the registration of the company instead of the subscriber’s forename and surname.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) amend this section so as to change the required information about a subscriber; (b) repeal subsection (4).(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”.(4) In subsection 10 (statement of capital and initial shareholdings), omit subsection (3).(5) In subsection 11 (statement of guarantee), omit subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the information that an application for the formation of a company must include about the subscribers and confers a power to amend that information (similar powers currently exist in sections 10(3) and 11(2) of the Companies Act 2006). The clause also incorporates material from Clauses 2 and 4.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for my lack of fluidity in the procedures of Committee stage—I have not taken such a complex and important Bill through before, so I am grateful for noble Lords’ indulgence and apologise for any confusion caused.
I speak now to the set of government amendments in this group: Amendments 9 to 12, 25 to 30, 40 and 41. These will replace existing Clauses 36 and 38. They create a completely new type of sanctions measure in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 called “director disqualification sanctions”. It will be unlawful for a designated person subject to this new measure to act as a director of a company. These amendments improve and extend the existing clauses, which prohibit individuals who are subject to the asset freeze sanctions measure from acting as directors of companies. Instead of automatically applying director disqualification status to individuals who are subject to an asset freeze only, this amendment allows Ministers to apply the new measure on a case-by-case basis using the existing designation procedure within the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. That will ensure that the measure can be better targeted at those designated persons who are acting, or could act, as directors. It provides the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with flexibility as to when to apply it and does not limit it in applying it only to people subject to an asset freeze. That is standard practice for our other designation-based sanctions measures, such as asset freezes and travel bans.
It will be for the Foreign Secretary to decide when and how to deploy the measure, alongside the full suite of other sanctions measures. For instance, this measure could be applied on its own or alongside an asset freeze, travel ban or other measures. While other countries may be able to prevent designated persons from acting as company directors through the effect of other prohibitions, we will be the first country to introduce this as a specific type of sanctions measure.
The amendment will utilise the procedures set out in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to disqualify the designated person from directorship of UK companies. An individual subject to this new measure will commit an offence if they act as a director of a company or take part in the management, formation or promotion of a company.
As with existing sanctions measures, the relevant authority will be able to issue a licence to an individual to allow them to undertake activity that is otherwise prohibited. This may be necessary, for instance, where the individual needs to continue to act as a director for a short period of time in order to wind down the company. Additionally, the Secretary of State can by regulations create exceptions to provide more general carve-outs from the sanction.
Information about individuals who are subject to this new sanction, and any relevant licences, will be published on the director disqualification register maintained by Companies House, as well as on the UK sanctions list. This will ensure that the use of the sanction is transparent. It will also make the information more easily accessible. Members of the public will be able to find all the relevant information on the existing register, and will not have to search unfamiliar sources to access information on disqualified directors.
Introducing this new director disqualification sanctions measure will be an important addition to the UK’s sanctions armoury. I beg to move Amendment 9 and very much hope that noble Lords will support the other government amendments in this group.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment on designated persons. The Minister is already dealing with this issue in some of his own amendments, but I stress that mine would be a slight tweak to the system that would have enormous power over the very few people who would be impacted. Last year only 1,200 people were designated for the Russian activities—across the whole world, not just by us—so we are talking about low numbers of thousands of people relative to the 5 million on the register. We also know that some of these bad actors got wind of their designation before it happened and were able to reorganise their financial affairs, so the horse had well and truly bolted by the time we rumbled into action. This slight amendment would give much more transparency into what these people were doing and allow the enforcement agencies to act accordingly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note that these various amendments cover England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the UK financial system very much includes Jersey and Guernsey for a great many company formations and associated company forms. I wonder whether at this stage the Minister could explain whether or not the disqualification of persons from being directors within the UK will in time apply to the Crown dependencies, or whether one will still be able to act as a director for companies formed in the Crowd dependencies while disqualified within the UK.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comment about the Crown dependencies. I am happy to confirm that this debate develops the specific answer to his question. My assumption would be that they fall under the register of overseas entities and the requirements placed around them, but I will confirm that. The noble Lord makes a very valid point. It would be peculiar if we did not include the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey in our legislation. My assumption is that they are well covered, and I hope that is the case.
I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his Amendment 24. I assure him that I do not think it is necessary to achieve his intentions. Provisions in the Bill already allow Companies House proactively to share data more widely for purposes connected with its functions. Data sharing will also be permitted to assist public authorities with exercising their own functions. This will include government bodies such as OFSI, which is part of His Majesty’s Treasury, the National Crime Agency and so on. Examples of data sharing could be for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of data provided to the registrar to ensure the register is kept up to date or for passing on intelligence to law enforcement agencies to minimise criminal activity.
Companies House will operate a risk-based approach targeting its efforts primarily in those areas where information and intelligence gleaned through new data-sharing powers and through Companies House’s own systems and processes suggest that particular scrutiny is warranted. The Government believe that this amendment, while well intentioned, is overly prescriptive and would lead to Companies House having to share potentially irrelevant and unnecessary information with OFSI and NCA. This would be an inefficient use of government resources and could lead to more serious intelligence that needs to be shared being missed. Although Companies House already works very closely with government departments, including HM Treasury’s OFSI and law enforcement agencies, this Bill will strengthen these existing relationships through enhanced data-sharing provisions.
This amendment seeks to impose a duty on the registrar only with regard to material information, which it leaves undefined. The imposition of such a vague duty could lead to confused and ineffective results and underlines the importance of the registrar being able to share data using a risk-based approach. Furthermore, information about individuals who are subject to this new sanction and any relevant licences will be published on the director disqualification register maintained by Companies House as well as on the UK sanctions list to ensure that the use of the sanctions measure is transparent. Discussions about implementing the new sanctions measure, including data sharing between Companies House, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are already under way to ensure that the new measure is effective. For the reasons set out above, I ask my noble friend not to move his amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(7) Where any of the persons named as directors would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, the statement must also include a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(a) the person’s name, and(b) the date on which the licence was issued and by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
(c) if any of them would be so disqualified by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect, in respect of each of them, specifying—(i) the person’s name, and(ii) the date on which the licence was issued and by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments, would require that, when a when a company is ordered to change its name under the provisions of this Bill (including in cases where the name is considered misleading or it may facilitate criminal activity), the company must comply with the order with between 28 and 90 days.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 13 is tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby. I thank the Minister and his team for all the briefings we have had and for their openness and support in getting us this far, and all noble Lords in the Room for all the information we are gleaning on almost every group that comes before us.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for speaking in this debate and for tabling Amendment 13, to which I will now respond. All these amendments are concerned with directions issued to a company by the Secretary of State requiring it to change its name under provisions already in the Companies Act 2006 and added to that Act by virtue of the Bill.
I am very sympathetic to some of the background comments relating to this amendment, but we feel that it is better to allow an element of flexibility around the time it takes a company to change its name. There is already a 28-day target point, and it is right that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to extend that.
Noble Lords in the Committee who have been involved in company management will know that sometimes, in order to have a formal resolution, there are certain requirements of notice periods for boards, which can be 30 days. For the businesses I have been involved in, that tended to be common practice; you can have a special resolution, but it is more important that the change happens and that we do not necessarily set arbitrary timelines, which could cause other issues at a later date.
I am very comfortable with having a further discussion with the noble Baroness and her colleagues about this in case something has been missed in the debate. Ultimately, I believe that we have set the right level of activity requirements and that allowing the Secretary of State to have the flexibility would be more appropriate given the ambitions we are trying to achieve.
The second element of the amendments—I am not sure whether they were spoken to, but they were certainly proposed so it is worth covering them briefly because they are part of the debate—is the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish details of any directions. Directions are issued to companies by the Secretary of State rather than the registrar so they do not form part of the company register, which is a record of information provided to the registrar by companies and material issued to companies by the registrar. We do not believe it would be appropriate to depart from that principle. However, to repeat commitments made at earlier stages of the Bill, we would be happy to examine on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness of annotating the register where name change directions have been issued. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I was indeed referring to all the amendments in the group. I note his offer of further conversations to make sure that we have absolutely nailed down the clarification that we are seeking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“(2A) An address is not an “appropriate address” if—(a) it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out,(b) the registrar, following appropriate investigation, has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use the address, or(c) it is a PO Box address.(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—(a) for exceptions to subsection (2A), and(b) for the registrar to exercise discretion to disapply subsection (2A) in exceptional cases.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an “appropriate address” for a company’s registration.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 23 is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I have signed in support. The amendment does not form part of a group. It seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an appropriate address for company registration. It is aimed in particular at trying to stop the terrible practice—which is widespread, as we heard at Second Reading—of companies using false addresses. Although Clause 28 defines an appropriate address, our amendment goes further in defining what is not an appropriate address, including a Post Office box.
In terms of public awareness of the debate that we are having as the Bill goes through, the use of false addresses is one of the most publicly well-known issues with Companies House, and we really should be putting all our efforts in to try to prevent it. People trying to prove that companies are registering falsely at their address often have to go to far greater lengths to prove that they are the proper residents of the said address than the person setting up the company. I hope that this amendment provides an opportunity to talk about the use of false addresses and, therefore, the impact that it has on the public. It is one of the most visible parts of the current failure of Companies House. As things stand, Companies House does not do any detailed check on an address where a company is registered, particularly if it uses the basic criteria laid down by Companies House.
I am sure that I am not alone in having listened to many of the different programmes in the media, particularly on the radio but on other outlets as well, which have had this vexed issue as their subject. You hear about the absolute distress caused to people, who are completely innocent in the process, who come home and find letters sent to their address and many other factors which lead them to understand that someone has falsely set up a company using their name or address—and on this occasion we are talking about their address. The most important issue to recognise here is that this can take years to disentangle, and it can cause distress and untold misery, and we have a collective responsibility, with the passage of this Bill, to make sure that Companies House does all the work that it can to help.
The important issue to bear in mind is that the onus should be on the businesses to prove that they are legitimate rather than it being on individuals to prove it is a scam and their innocence. I hope that other noble Lords will comment on this amendment, and I hope that collectively we can work together to make sure that innocent members of the public are given the full protection possible by the new legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I take up the noble Baroness’s invitation to comment on this amendment, although I have just received a text from my mother who says that, having been called a business guru by the Minister, I should keep quiet and not say any more. However, this is a very important issue on which I spoke at some length at Second Reading, and quoted an article in the Times highlighting the problem. The noble Baroness is quite right that it blights people’s houses when they find it to be a registered office, which they had not intended it to be and, of course, the information does not go to the right person.
Nevertheless, I am very concerned by this amendment as worded, because it says:
“An address is not an “appropriate address” if … it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out”.
I assume that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the amendment would be separated by an “or”, because many companies choose as their registered office their solicitor or accountant, with good reason, particularly in these days of working from home, start-ups and virtual companies, where they do not have a single office space but move around the place. The main place of business may be an apartment where they happen to live, so it is convenient and sensible to choose a solicitor’s or accountant’s office as their base. Indeed, when I worked as a chartered account in a large accountancy firm some 35 years ago, that was very common.
Sadly, I do not think the amendment as worded achieves what the noble Baroness seeks, but neither does the Bill: with the greatest respect to the Minister,
“would be expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company”
is a bit convoluted for what we know we want to achieve. Although I cannot support this amendment at this time, I very much hope that before the next stage, we might come up with some wording that achieves where we all want to go.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have two very short points on this. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. I do not think paragraph (a) in the amendment works: the registered address does not have to be the place of business, it often is not and there are often perfectly good reasons for that; but paragraph (b) is incredibly important, concerning this use of people’s addresses for, effectively, fraudulent purposes. Often, the first thing the person whose address it is knows about it is a letter from HMRC with a massive VAT demand: this is particularly used for VAT fraud. It is really important that Companies House works closely—a point discussed on a previous group—with other agencies, particularly HMRC, to make sure that this sort of thing is knocked on the head.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the Companies Act says at Section 9(5) that an application
“must contain a statement of the intended address of the company’s registered office”.
That is all on registration. That opens up the sort of abuses that we have heard from the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who have already spoken. I tend to agree with the two noble Lords, having been a solicitor myself, that it is perfectly responsible for a solicitor’s or accountant’s office to be used as a registered office, but nevertheless, the way in which the Government have attacked it does not cover the whole ground. It is very sensible, in addition to the way the Government have put it, to define an appropriate office in the negative sense. That would not include the solicitor’s or accountant’s office, for the reasons given.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have very little to add to what my noble friend said. This is clearly a bit of a curate’s egg and Amendment 23 is a good start, but there are objections to it, which were very well set out by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Vaux. As my noble friend said, it is quite usual to use professional offices as a registered office. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that new subsection (2) in Clause 29(3) is not as good as it should be and that he will take on board some of the points made about Amendment 23. Then, we would be in a much better place.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Leigh, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Clement-Jones, for their contribution to the debate on this issue.
The Government’s view is that Clause 29 already introduces a revised Section 86 to the Companies Act 2006 in an effort to introduce a definition of what constitutes an acceptable and effective address for a company’s registered office. The amendment seeks to define the opposite: what would not represent an appropriate address. I hope your Lordships will agree with the following argument for why that is unnecessary.
I begin with the suggestion that PO box addresses be explicitly forbidden. We do not believe there is a need for this. A PO box address cannot be an address at which deliveries can be acknowledged, nor an address to which a sender can be assured that what is sent will find its way to the hands of a company representative. It is therefore clearly not an appropriate address—we very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.
I turn to the “reasonable suspicion” element of the amendment. Where the registrar has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use an address, she will almost inevitably conclude that the conditions that I have just mentioned will not be capable of being met and, again, she will be within her rights to reject or force the company to change it as appropriate.
The other element of the amendment would prevent companies having their registered office address anywhere other than their main place of business. There are, frankly, many reasons why a company may choose to separate the two, so this could be problematic for many companies. That includes, for example, particularly small enterprises that carry out businesses from home but choose to register the company at the premises of their accountant in order to protect their residential address details, which I think we would agree is perfectly reasonable. We have been at pains elsewhere in the Bill to introduce measures to extend, where appropriate, the ability to suppress addresses that the public have access to which might jeopardise the safety or security of individuals. There are elements of the amendment that we believe would run contrary to those aims.
I hope the Committee will be reassured that new Section 86 will be an effective means by which to monitor and police the accuracy of company address information and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. As a final point, I personally have great sympathy with the ambitions of the amendment to make sure that the right address is being provided for the company register, but I hope I have laid out the reasons why the processes that the Government have put in the legislation should be sufficient to ensure that real addresses are given and other protections are employed.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Personally, I am convinced by what the Minister has said about the substitute for Section 86. I just have one query. It creates an offence whereby a person is guilty on summary conviction. The offence appears to be committed by a company and
“every officer of the company who is in default.”
Could the Minister help with who the statute envisages will be an officer of the company who is in default?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that comment. I will come back to the noble Lord with more detail, if that is possible.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their comments, and I thank the Minister for his explanation. We will of course take those comments away and consider them, but at the moment I feel that there is still room to explore this issue and perhaps come up with another form of wording to take forward at a future stage. As I said earlier, the emphasis on reflecting the fact that the onus is on a business to prove that it is legitimate will need to run through all this. With those comments, and in anticipation of future discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Power to impose director disqualification sanctions
(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to make sanctions regulations), in subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—“(ab) impose director disqualification sanctions (see section 3A);”.(3) After section 3 insert—“3A Director disqualification sanctions(1) For the purposes of section 1(5)(ab) regulations “impose director disqualification sanctions” if they provide for designated persons (see section 9) to be persons subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of—(a) section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(b) Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.(2) As to the effect of such provision, see—(a) section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(b) Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.”(4) In section 9 (“designated persons”)—(a) in subsection (1), for “3 and 4” substitute “3 to 4”;(b) in subsection (3), after “3,” insert “3A,”.(5) In section 15 (exceptions and licences), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where regulations provide for designated persons to be persons subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, the regulations may—(a) create exceptions from subsection (1) of that section or paragraph (1) of that Article;(b) confer power on an appropriate Minister to issue a licence to authorise a designated person to do anything that would otherwise be prohibited by subsection (1) of that section or paragraph (1) of that Article.(3B) Regulations may, as respects any licences provided for under subsection (3A), make any provision mentioned (in relation to licences) in subsection (3).””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause would allow an appropriate Minister to designate a person as subject to “director disqualification sanctions” for the purposes of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
“Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB
(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.(2) After section 11 insert—“11A Designated persons under sanctions legislation(1) It is an offence for a person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions to act as a director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company (but see subsection (2)).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply—(a) to the extent that an exception from subsection (1) has been created by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or(b) to anything done under the authority of a licence issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of that Act.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they engaged in that conduct.(4) In this section “person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions” means a person who under regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is a person subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of this section (see section 3A of that Act).”(3) In section 13 (criminal penalties), after “section 11” insert “or 11A ”.(4) In section 14 (offences by body corporate), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) Where—(a) a body corporate is—(i) guilty of an offence of acting in contravention of a disqualification order or disqualification undertaking or in contravention of section 12A or 12B, or(ii) guilty of an offence under section 11A, and(b) it is proved that the offence occurred with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,the person, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”(5) In section 15 (personal liability for company’s debts where person acts while disqualified)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “section 11” insert “, 11A”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of subsection (1)(a);(c) after subsection (1)(b) insert “, or(c) as a person who is involved in the management of the company, they act or are willing to act on instructions given in contravention of section 11A or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.”;(d) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions (within the meaning of section 11A) and is involved in the management of a company is not personally responsible under subsection (1)(a) for all of the relevant debts of a company if the person proves that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they were so involved.”;(e) in subsection (3)(b), after “(b)” insert “or (c)”.(6) In section 18 (register of disqualification orders and undertakings), in subsection (2A), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) persons who are subject to director disqualification sanctions within the meaning of section 11A;(e) any licences issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.” (7) In section 21 (interaction with Insolvency Act), in subsection (4), after “section 11” insert “, 11A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that any person who has been designated as being subject to director disqualification sanctions will be committing an offence if they act as a director etc. in GB, unless they have been issued with a licence or unless an exception applies.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI
(1) The Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 15 insert—“15A Designated persons under sanctions legislation(1) It is an offence for a person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions to act as a director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company (but see paragraph (2)).(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply—(a) to the extent that an exception from paragraph (1) has been created by virtue of section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, or(b) to anything done under the authority of a licence issued by virtue of section 15(3A) of that Act.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article to prove that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they engaged in that conduct.(4) In this Article “person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions” means a person who under regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is a person subject to director disqualification sanctions for the purposes of this Article (see section 3A of that Act).”(3) In Article 18 (criminal penalties)—(a) omit “15,”;(b) for “and” substitute “; and any person guilty of an offence under this Article or Article 15 or 15A”.(4) In Article 19 (personal liability for company’s debts where person acts while disqualified)— (a) in paragraph (1)(a), after “Article 15” insert “, 15A”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (1)(a);(c) after paragraph (1)(b) insert “, or(c) as a person who is involved in the management of the company, they act or are willing to act on instructions given in contravention of Article 15A or section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.”;(d) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) A person who is subject to director disqualification sanctions (within the meaning of Article 15A) and is involved in the management of a company is not personally responsible under paragraph (1)(a) for all of the relevant debts of a company if the person proves that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were subject to director disqualification sanctions at the time at which they were so involved.”;(e) in paragraph (3)(b), after “(1)(b)” insert “or (c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that any person who has been designated as being subject to director disqualification sanctions will be committing an offence if they act as a director etc. in NI, unless they have been issued with a licence or unless an exception applies.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI)(which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
“P is subject to director disqualification sanctions within the meaning of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. | Section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 (exceptions and licences).” |
This amendment is consequential on new clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) (which are inserted after Clause 36).
“P is subject to director disqualification sanctions within the meaning of Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. | Section 15(3A) of the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 (exceptions and licences).” |
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI) (which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38)
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 112 (the members of a company), at the end insert—“(4) Where an individual’s name is entered in a company’s register of members but is not in the form required by section 113A, that does not affect the person becoming a member of the company by virtue of subsection (2).”(3) For the italic heading “General” at the beginning of Chapter 2 of Part 8 substitute “Duty to keep register”.(4) In section 113 (register of members)—(a) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) There must be entered in the register, in respect of each person who is a member—(a) the required information (see sections 113A and 113B), and(b) the date on which the person was registered as a member.(2A) Where a person ceases to be a member there must be entered in the register the date at which the person’s membership ceased.”;(b) in subsection (3), omit “, with the names and addresses of the members,”;(c) in subsection (5), after “show a single” insert “service”;(d) in subsection (6), omit “, with the names and addresses of the members,”;(e) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where any of the information required to be entered in a company’s register of members changes—(a) that does not relieve the company from the obligation to include the old information in the register if it has not already done so,(b) the old information must be retained in the register until its removal is authorised by section 121 or by court order under section 125, and(c) a note must be included in the register recording the date on which the information changed and the date on which the change was entered in the register.”;(f) in subsection (7), after “If” insert “, without reasonable excuse,”.(5) After section 113 insert—“113A Required information about members: individuals(1) The required information about a member who is an individual is—(a) name;(b) a service address. (2) In this section “name” means forename and surname.(3) Where a member is a peer or an individual usually known by a title—(a) any requirement imposed by section 113D or 113E, or by a notice under section 113F, to provide their name may be satisfied by providing their title instead;(b) the title may be entered in the register of members instead of their forename and surname (and references in any enactment to the name of a person entered in a company’s register of members are to be construed accordingly).113B Required information about members: corporate members and firmsThe required information about a member that is a body corporate, or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, is—(a) corporate or firm name;(b) a service address.113C Power to amend the required information(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) make provision changing the required information about a member for the purposes of this Chapter;(b) repeal section 113A(3).(2) The provision that may be made in regulations under subsection (1)(a) includes provision amending this Chapter.(3) The consequential provision that may be made in regulations under subsection (1)(a) by virtue of section 1292(1) also includes provision amending section 51 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.113D Duty on new members to notify required information(1) A person who becomes a member of a company must provide the company with the required information about the member (see sections 113A and 113B).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if or to the extent that—(a) the person has already provided the information to the company, or(b) the person becomes a member of the company on its incorporation and the information is contained in the application for the registration of the company.(3) A person must comply with this section within the period of two months beginning with the date on which the person became a member.113E Duty on member to notify changes to required information(1) A person who is a member of a company must give notice to the company of any change in the required information about the member (see sections 113A and 113B).(2) The notice must specify the date on which the change occurred.(3) A person must comply with this section within the period of two months beginning with the date on which the change occurred.113F Power for company to require information from members(1) A company may, for the purposes of ensuring that its register of members includes the information that it is required to include, require a member or former member of the company to provide any of the required information about the member or former member (see sections 113A and 113B). (2) The notice must require the recipient to comply with it within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the notice is given.113G Failure to comply with section 113D , 113E or 113F(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with section 113D or 113E commits an offence.(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a notice under section 113F commits an offence.(3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum;(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum.113H Basic false statement offences in connection with sections 113D to 113F(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with section 113D or 113E and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 113F and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.113I Aggravated false statement offences in connection with sections 113D to 113F(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with section 113D or 113E, the person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 113F, the person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. (3) Where an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is committed by a firm, the offence is also committed by every officer of the firm who is in default.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum;(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both) and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum.Duty to keep index of members”.(6) Section 115 (index of members)—(a) is moved to after the italic heading “Duty to keep index of members” inserted by subsection (5) of this section, and(b) is renumbered section 113J.(7) In that section as renumbered—(a) in subsection (1), for “names of the members of the company” substitute “names or titles of the members of the company (to be known as “the index of members’ names”)”;(b) for subsection (3) substitute—“(3) The index must include the same details of a person’s name or title as are entered in the register of members.”(8) Before section 114 insert—“Inspection etc of register and index of members”.(9) Before section 121 insert—“Removal of entries from register of members”.(10) In section 123 (single member companies)—(a) in subsection (1), omit “, with the name and address of the sole member,”;(b) in subsection (2), omit “, with the name and address of the sole member”;(c) in subsection (3), omit “, with the name and address of the person who was formerly the sole member”.(11) In section 771 (procedure on transfer being lodged), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The company may not register the transfer under subsection (1)(a) unless satisfied that it has the information that it is required to enter in its register of members in relation to the transferee.””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause confers a power to amend the information that must be kept in a company’s register of members. It also creates an express duty for companies to retain old information about members (eg former address information).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) require a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, individual membership information except in circumstances specified in the regulations;(b) confer power on the registrar, on application, to make an order requiring a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, individual membership information except in circumstances specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a company to refrain from using or disclosing membership information, whether or not a member applies for protection.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendment to Clause 49 that appears in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This severs the link between the operation of Clause 51 and the commencement of Clause 46. The appointed day could be later than the commencement of Clause 46, allowing a company more time to obtain the information it has to provide to the registrar.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 51, page 35, line 16, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
““the appointed day” means such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint for the purposes of this section;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 51, page 35, line 16, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“Disclosure of control of 5% or more of shares in a private or public company
(1) A person who controls 5% or more of the shares in a company must declare that fact to the registrar.(2) The duty in subsection (1) applies whether the person controls the shares directly or indirectly.(3) The registrar may impose a penalty on any person who fails to comply with the duty in subsection (1).(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) a person has made a declaration under subsection (1), and(b) the registrar has identified a matter of concern under subsection 1062A(1A) of the Companies Act 2006 in relation to the person or the declaration.(5) The registrar must—(a) verify the identity of the person, and(b) verify the number of shares the person claims to control.”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates a duty of disclosure on shareholders holding more than 5% of shares in a company. Non-compliance may incur a penalty. The registrar must verify the declarant’s identity, and the number of shares they control by cross referencing against other documents, such as company records. The reference to 1062A(1A) relates to the amendment tabled by Lord Agnew to Clause 90, page 69, line 27.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, this amendment builds on my opening comments in relation to Amendment 44 and goes to the core of the Bill and transparency. It asks that shareholders with more than a 5% shareholding are disclosed on the register. I am conscious of burdens that that might impose on businesses, but the reality is that it is a maximum of 20 entities per company and, in reality, it would be far less than that. Any business in operation maintains its own cap table—the “cap” is the capitalisation of the company—so my proposal is that that is made available on public records. I do not see why we cannot have this. I am sure that my noble friend will ask me to withdraw the amendment, and I simply ask him to explain how we are going to have a comparable level of transparency if this sort of mechanism is not available. So much of the trouble is lurking in the undergrowth in my experience. This is a one-off opportunity to surface this sort of information to help us track bad actors.
Amendment 43 has a similar theme about persons of significant control. It is part of the replumbing of Companies House, which needs to carry out some analysis of the identity of people who are claiming significant control to make sure they are people whose identity, and the connections they have to other entities, is known and on the register. I return to my earlier comment that, if my noble friend does not want to do this, what is the strategy for this kind of understanding of the behaviour of these sorts of organisations? If we are not going to have the amendment that I am proposing, what is the alternative? What are the mechanisms that are going to give us some reassurance that we have control and understanding of the people on the Companies House register? I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he would consider accepting the amendment in due course with a de minimis size qualification. This would be quite onerous for a large number of private companies, such as family businesses, where ownership changes quite regularly, and small businesses that have enough to do without worrying about perfectly innocent share transfers. For larger companies—public companies in particular—this may not be too onerous. I remind the House of my comments at Second Reading that the Quoted Companies Alliance had calculated that the average public company accounts now comprise 95,000 words—no one is keen to add any more words to that. I would certainly not wish to see this apply to private and SME businesses.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has said and will perhaps think about that. I should declare my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange. At 5% ownership, there are significant things that can be done: if it is a public company, at 5% you can apply to the court to prevent it going private. That is a significant power, and we ought to know that it is applied properly. I guess the court would find out if you were not who you said you were; nevertheless, you might be masquerading as such and could still have influence—you could call general meetings and propose resolutions. These are all events that could have a significant effect on companies of all sizes. I tend to feel, therefore, that other shareholders need to know that things have been properly verified.
I have sympathy for the SME angle and will think about it further. However, just because you are small does not mean that you do not need to know some of these things, including who might have an exercisable right which you know has been verified. I would probably follow suit in the decision on persons with significant control: if you are going to exempt SMEs, they should be exempted for both; if they are going to be included, they should be included in both. I am still veering towards including them, simply because it is a substantial power. There are plenty of private SMEs in which people have significant sums invested, and I do not really see that they should be protected any less from not having full awareness of who really holds these powers to do things or of whether they are sheltering a nominee.
At the moment, my tendency is to support both of these amendments as they stand, with the caveat that I will go away and think a bit about whether this would be too onerous for SMEs. We have to remember, however, that the “M”s of SMEs can be quite big.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am not wholly convinced that what you would be required to do under this amendment is very onerous. I remember looking at this when we were examining the desirability of transparency in relation to ownership of shares. Presuming bad actors—although this is, I hope, infrequently the case—it is very easy for someone to, as it were, redistribute their shares to smaller packages if they wanted to conceal their identity. I am not saying that that is what people do most of the time, but it would be more difficult if there were an obligation to disclose of the sort contained in this amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, very quickly, I will not repeat what we said on an earlier group, but these two amendments cover very much the same sort of areas of transparency. I ask the Minister—probably as a matter of relative urgency, given the discussions we have had—whether he could facilitate a meeting of the various interested parties so that we can try to thrash out where we want to start to coalesce around these issues, as that would be helpful.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I declare that I am a shareholder in an SME. We need to be aware that there are various classes of shares. You could be a 5% shareholder in terms of owning the company, but an 80% shareholder in the voting shares. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, we need to be very clear which type of shares we are talking about.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
I was going to make a similar point. Obviously, there are a number of different classes of shares; as it stands, the amendment is, with respect, a little unclear as to how it would operate in relation to voting shares, non-voting shares, preference shares, class A shares, class B shares and so forth. That would need to be tightened up.
On the amendment creating a dangerously onerous regime, it occurred to me that a further aspect of its onerousness relates to what the registrar is required to do pursuant to this amendment. It currently states that the registrar must
“verify the number of shares the person claims to control.”
If taken literally, that might require the registrar to look quite carefully at what is being said about the slightly tricky concept of control, which is not quite the same as ownership. That might need to be reconsidered in due course, or perhaps watered down or removed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Bowles, have usefully teased out some of the principles that we need to adopt and the fact that we are not quite there in terms of trying to find a relatively simple formula that is not unduly onerous. They also point out that the current provisions are not adequate. Indeed, it is quite interesting that we have two separate groups here, in coming to government Amendment 42. This whole area of persons with significant control and what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, set out in terms of shareholders holding more than 5% of shares demonstrate that we need a greater level of transparency.
I very much hope that the Minister will come back in the spirit in which these proceedings have been conducted and say, “Yes, we think there is more to be done and that it is possible to get over the SME issue that has been raised by a number of noble Lords. However, we think in principle that it is desirable to go down this sort of route that has been suggested.” I hope that we will get a positive reply from the Minister and an undertaking to take this forward in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. When the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, moved Amendment 39, which places a duty to register on those owning 5% or more of shares, and he spoke to his Amendment 43, which creates an obligation for the registrar to examine the statements attesting to the identity of the person, by his tone he made it crystal clear that that was not the last word on the subject. In fact, he threw down a challenge to the Minister in introducing that group and saying, “If not this, then what? What will be the strategy to combat the bad actors?”
As he said, the problems lie in the undergrowth. There are shareholders with smaller shareholdings, and maybe there are multiple companies owning small shareholdings; there are many ways of hiding things and many who will facilitate those who want to hide their wealth. The whole theme of this group is a challenge to the Minister; it is not about the detail of the amendments themselves. I look forward to what he has to say.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that summation. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the powerful reason which they bring to bear on these amendments. The Government are delighted to have more discussions around how we ensure that we have full knowledge of people who have control of companies and of companies’ beneficiaries. I believe that the Bill as it stands gives us that level of security. The Government would be reluctant to set arbitrary levels in terms of that above a certain percentage one should have additional registration information, but I am happy to have a discussion around those principles, if that is helpful.
If people do not have confidence in Companies House, we will not have achieved part of our goal, which is to give people a sense of that the data has integrity and is true. The whole point about this exercise is to make sure that people put the right data in so that we know who the people are who are behind businesses and people can trust that information. I am very sympathetic to this discussion, which is extremely important.
To balance this, I say that this is about helping businesses function better in a lawful environment. One can go to the ultimate degree in terms of requirements for information and verification that do not necessitate greater degrees of security but cause significant burdens for businesses. This is not simply about satisfying our desire for excess information simply for the sake it; it must be linked to whether this is going to help us achieve our basic goals, which is to understand who owns these businesses, who is behind them and who is benefiting from them. With that in mind, I am open to having further discussions, as my colleagues would be.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the Minister for his offer to have an ongoing conversation about this, because that is how you achieve the best results in these things. This very formal and rigid process of trying to look at individual clauses in isolation does not solve the problem. We have had several clauses this afternoon that all mesh together with one objective, which is to improve transparency. I take my noble friend Lord Leigh’s point about creating a bureaucratic system that impacts adversely on thousands of decent people, particularly small businesses. However, the transaction of changing car ownership in this country, where you have an asset worth a few thousand pounds, it is a very simple process. You fill in a change of ownership form, you send it to the DVLA, and the job is done—so to the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks, I do not believe that we have to create a bureaucratic system to get transparency.
I remind noble Lords of the downside of not having this information. A case study was given to me by Members in the other place. The awful ammonium nitrate explosion in Beirut a couple of years ago killed and wounded hundreds of people. It was eventually uncovered that the company that owned the warehouse was a British-registered company, Savaro Ltd, but it was almost impossible to find out who the shareholders of that company were and to get to grips with who were the people who caused that terrible accident.
There is a lot more to this issue. As someone who has created a lot of small businesses in my career, I do not want a heavy hand on this, but light-touch regulation done well is the answer. I urge my noble friend to have an open conversation with Members here as a way of solving the problem in a business sense, not in this very formal way.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s summation. Again, I hope that the Government have demonstrated today that the principles of the Bill conform to the expectations and desires of this Committee. Clearly, there are details that require further discussion, and that debate will help propagate the ambitions and values that we are trying to inject into the Bill. I am grateful for the comments but, in this instance, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, given that we will have further discussions to try to ascertain the right levels and what burdens we should impose on business to achieve our outcomes.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(f) if the person would be disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation by virtue of section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Article 15A of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (designated persons under sanctions legislation) but for the authority of a licence of the kind mentioned in that section or Article, a statement to that effect specifying—(i) the date on which the licence was issued, and(ii) by whom it was issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new Clauses (Power to impose director disqualification sanctions), (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: GB) and (Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: NI) (which are inserted after Clauses 36 and 38).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Clause 40 that appear in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“False statements about persons with significant control
(1) Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006 (enforcement of disclosure requirements in relation to persons with significant control) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 13, in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (b) and the “or” before it.(3) In paragraph 14, in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (b) and the “or” before it.(4) After paragraph 14 insert—“False statements: basic offence14A_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D or 790E or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G or 790H, and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, an offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.False statements: aggravated offence14B_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D or 790E or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G or 790H, the person makes a statement that the person knows is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, an offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction— (i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).””Member’s explanatory statement
This is about the provision of false or misleading information about persons with significant control. The current offences require the prosecution to prove knowledge or recklessness in all cases. The amendment replaces that with a strict liability offence (not dependent on knowledge) and an aggravated offence (where there is knowledge).
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise if I have not followed the procedure correctly, but I am grateful to our Deputy Chairman of Committees for her guidance in getting us to the right place.
The purpose of Amendment 42 is to align the drafting of the false statement offences in the Companies Act with the equivalent offences in Section 15 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and the amendments made by Clause 161 of the Bill. This will ensure the same approach to misconduct by a UK company or an overseas entity.
The current offences require the prosecution to prove knowledge or recklessness in all cases. The amendment replaces those offences with a strict liability offence not dependent on knowledge, and an aggravated offence where there is knowledge. The amendment also removes the need for the prosecution to prove recklessness in any case.
The amendment inserts new paragraph 14A into Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006. New paragraph 14A introduces a basic offence, where a person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular without a reasonable excuse.
The amendment also inserts new paragraph 14B into Schedule 1B to the Companies Act 2006. New paragraph 14B introduces an aggravated offence, where a person makes a statement that the person knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular. The penalties are more severe to reflect the knowledge of misconduct. If any of the three offences is committed by a legal entity, the offences are still also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised that point. I am not sure whether there was confusion about whether it related to this part rather than an earlier part, but I would be delighted to clarify that point later.
The penalty for the basic offence is a fine. The penalty for the aggravated offence is up to two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The level of fines and prison sentences a person will be liable for are the same as for the equivalent offences in Clause 161 of the Bill. This amendment ensures that equivalent offences can be prosecuted in the same way, with the same penalties applied for non-compliance, whether the misconduct relates to an overseas or a UK entity. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I do not really understand this provision. The purpose is to create a basic offence of strict liability—that is what the Minister and the Explanatory Notes say—but the wording that inserts the basic false statement offence says:
“A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice … or in purported compliance with a duty imposed… and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.”
It is the words “without reasonable excuse” that bother me. I do not see how a strict liability offence can have an excuse. Last week it was well-publicised that someone in the other place said, “Yes, I misled, but I had a reasonable excuse because no one told me. Indeed, I was advised that there was nothing wrong.”
What is meant by a reasonable excuse? How can it be, as put forward, a strict liability offence in circumstances like that? This of course goes to officers who are in default, which is another contradiction within that proposed new paragraph. I ask the Minister to take this proposed new clause back to those advising him and ask whether it is correctly drafted. I do not think it is.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the use of the phrase “false statements” rather than “inaccurate statements” is quite significant. A false statement carries with it the connotation of a deliberate inaccuracy, whereas simply getting something wrong is rather different. I agree with him that without reasonable excuse the prosecution would have to prove the absence of a reasonable excuse, which is contrary to the concept of a strict liability offence.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
I agree with what the noble Lords say. It occurs to me that the intention of calling this a strict liability offence but including the concept of “reasonable excuse” might be to impose a burden on the person who is responsible for filing the misleading statement to demonstrate a reasonable excuse—shifting the presumption, as it were. That might work. It would not quite be a strict liability offence, but it would make it relatively easier to prosecute the matter where a false statement was filed, and it would cater for the rare case—like the person trying to persuade a committee in the other place a few days ago—where the person filing the statement was entirely blameless because they had acted honestly and reasonably in reliance on information supplied by someone else. In that rare case, where the person who had made an error and filed a false statement but was entirely blameless could demonstrate that, it seems right that they should avoid a conviction.
To echo a point made in relation to a different amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I am slightly troubled by the further subsection that talks about an offence being committed by
“every officer of the entity who is in default”.
At the moment I am not certain what that is getting at, and I simply seek clarification.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, to add to the point that has been made, if the burden of proof is going to be changed so the defendant has to prove his innocence, it is essential that the clause be carefully drafted to make that clear. Otherwise a judge who is trying to direct a jury really does not know how to do it.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am struggling, as are others, with the wording in subsection (2) about
“every officer of the entity who is in default”
because I do not know what “default” means. In most of these circumstances, this may be something that is filled in by the company secretary and they do not necessarily get the approval of everybody who might end up being in default. I would like to know more about that.
In his introduction, the Minister said this was bringing the Bill into line with what was in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. I am afraid I have been rather busy on other Bills so maybe I have not read everything that I should have about this one. I did the last economic crime Bill but I am not sure what is being referenced there, will the Minister elaborate on what this is being brought into line with because I am a bit confused? If what is said here is exactly the same as what has been said in that Act then we also have a mistake there that we need to correct if its wording is as ambiguous as this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, all this is well above my legal pay grade, but the Minister has no doubt heard all the voices; clearly, there are flaws in this new clause. I suggest that he listen to those voices, take advice and not move this amendment and that we should come back to this at a later stage. As the Minister can see, there is considerable appetite around the Room for a proactive approach to the new Companies Act powers and duties, the registrar and so on. However, there are genuine concerns that have been expressed, so I suggest that the Minister takes this away and considers it pretty carefully, given the opinions that have been vouchsafed this afternoon.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully in favour of this matter being taken away and simplified, if it can be. I just take advantage of this opportunity to do something I probably do not do very often, which is to support the existence of the words “reasonable excuse” as a defence in this strict liability clause. It is a long time since I practised law, but I am certain that there are lots of regulatory and other offences out there that have this defence of reasonable excuse. I am absolutely certain that the statutory provision that makes it a strict liability offence to carry an offensive weapon allows, in its drafting, a defence if you are doing it with reasonable excuse. I do not think that these two things are inconsistent, but this is not clear.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate—and a very lawyer-heavy debate —on the juxtaposition of “strict liability” with “reasonable excuse”. I can claim some knowledge here as a sitting magistrate in that I deal with those sorts of things quite regularly, frequently with respect to knife crime and traffic matters. It is a conundrum; it is worth examining further and I hope the Minister will take it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones described this as above his legal pay grade. Talking as a magistrate, I am an unpaid legal practitioner. Nevertheless, the Minister should take up the invitation of members of the Committee to look at this further. I can see that it is open to confusion, and I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about putting other officers in default. I hope that the Minister will take these comments in the spirit in which they were made and that there may be further opportunity for discussion on the points raised.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the input from noble Lords. Knowing my record over the last hour, I will probably vote against this in any event.
I shall just explain this in my own words, if noble Lords will tolerate my lack of legal expertise. The point was that, until this amendment, you had to prove—I welcome interventions from noble Lords if they feel that I am straying into their legal territory—either dishonesty or recklessness, rather than simply misfiling, in order for there to be a prosecution, which set a very high bar for prosecution. As I understand it, a number of important prosecutions—which is the whole principle for us being here—failed because they were unable to prove that exceptionally high bar.
This therefore makes it an offence to misfile which, as has been rightly pointed out, is a statutory event. However, it would seem to be unreasonable that, if you accidentally put your address down as “46B” when it should be “46C”, you then receive a two-year prison sentence or indeed a significant fine. It is right in this instance that “reasonable excuse” is brought to bear.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Unfortunately, I do not think that is a “reasonable excuse”; that would not be a “material particular”.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am delighted that the noble Lord pointed that out; that is certainly true. I think noble Lords understand the direction of travel in the intent of this amendment. It is important; it is not simply tidying up. There are some elements of making sure that penalties relating to overseas entities relate to companies registered in the United Kingdom, but, following consultation with department officials, it seems to me that this is a very important part of the Bill. I do not support dropping it at this stage, but I am very comfortable having further conversations about it. I would be grateful if the Committee gave me a few moments to consult my team on the specifics about how to proceed. I want to make sure that we have a sensible and reasoned debate but that I do not get the process wrong regarding amendments to the Bill.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I do not get the impression that the Committee is against the idea; there is simply a lack of clarity as it is currently formulated as to what constitutes “false” and a “reasonable excuse”, and what is inaccurate. I think the Committee is generally in favour of this provision and understands why it is there; we are just not quite sure that this captures it, as currently drafted.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the procedure in Grand Committee is quite clear: there has to be unanimity for an amendment to proceed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
We are not against the Minister’s amendment; we just think it needs clarity. The Labour Party would not object if the Committee agreed the amendment. If appropriate, we will come back to it at a later stage.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The appropriate procedure would be for the Minister to withdraw it, and then move an amendment on Report. We would be very happy if the Minister came back on Report.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
At this stage, I believe it would be appropriate to consider further the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
May I just clarify for the Minister that it would be very unfortunate if he pressed his amendment? If he pressed it and lost it in Committee, I do not think he could bring back exactly the same amendment on Report. That is the rule: he would have to bring back something different on Report, even if all the officials and legal advice said that it was a perfectly sound clause—he may well get advice on that. I suggest that he withdraws it so that we do not have to vote against it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I advise that, if the amendment is voted against, it is negatived.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their input. I hope they felt, over the last few hours of very productive debate, that the intentions of this Government and the speakers in this debate are entirely aligned: to try to create the right structure for Companies House and the right penalties and compliance regime. Given that, and my gratitude to the Committee for the constructive discussion, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, with the understanding that we may easily return with something identical on Report, having followed a good degree of debate and discussion on that point.
House of Lords
Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the recent transfer of governance powers in parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories from Israeli military authorities to Israeli civilian ministries, and (2) the implications of this transfer for securing a lasting peace in the region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as the occupying power in the West Bank, Israel’s presence is governed by the provisions of the Geneva convention, and we call on Israel to abide by its obligations under international law. We are still examining the consequences of the recent transfer of some governance powers in the Israeli Ministry of Defense related to the occupation. The UK remains of the belief that there is no better alternative than a two-state solution for peace and for realising the national aspirations of both the Palestinians and Israelis.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. However, in the negotiation of the recent trade deal with Israel, which, according to the Prime Minister, was based on the common values of democracy, what assurances did the UK Government seek from the Netanyahu Government over compliance with international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the avowed intent of the Netanyahu Government to remove democratic safeguards by emasculating the judiciary, in the face of massive opposition from Israeli citizens? What assurances did they receive?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As noble Lords will know, our Prime Minister spoke to Mr Netanyahu just a few days ago as part of the development of the road map. The road map does not in any way change our support for a two-state solution. Our position on the settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law, they present an obstacle to peace and they threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, last week, a Minister in the Netanyahu Government opined that the Palestinians are neither a people nor a nation? Is that the view of His Majesty’s Government? If not, did that view get communicated by the Prime Minister to Prime Minister Netanyahu when he saw him? Also, what line did the Prime Minister take on the intention of the present Israeli Government to expand the scale of illegal settlements?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the remarks that the noble Lord refers to absolutely do not reflect the position of the UK Government and nor, I believe, do they reflect the view of the vast majority of people in Israel. High-level members of the current Government there have found themselves having to speak out on the same issue.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly those relating to friendship with Israel. Does my noble friend agree with the sentiments of Golda Meir, who said that it is very difficult to negotiate with people who are trying to kill you? Looking for a secure and lasting peace in the region, does my noble friend think it would be sensible for the Palestinian Authority to cease the “pay to slay” policy whereby Palestinians are rewarded financially for the murder of an Israeli, whether it is an army officer or a child?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I fully subscribe to the comments my noble friend quotes. It is very hard to negotiate if one side does not believe that you have the right to exist, and it is clear from the security situation today that things are particularly fragile. Last year, a very large number of Palestinians and Israelis were killed by acts of violence, and 2023 started the same way. We are all appalled by the recent terror attacks near Jerusalem that killed two Israelis, and the attack on Sunday 26 February, which killed two Israelis on the West Bank. We condemn these attacks, as we do all such attacks, in the strongest possible terms, and we condemn the glorification of violence that so often happens among those in Gaza.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that for years, if not decades, Ministers in his position on that Front Bench have reiterated support for a two-state solution and opposition to illegal settlement by the Israelis in the Palestinian territories? Can he confirm that there has been no progress whatsoever on either of those fronts in all the time that Ministers have been expressing those wishes and desires? Does he further agree that there is a diminishing prospect of any kind of two-state solution so long as the illegal Israeli occupation of parts of Palestinian territory continues?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on the Middle East peace process is clear and remains clear. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with equal land swaps to reflect the national security and religious interests of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. That is our position and always has been our position.
Regarding the settlements, there too our position remains unchanged. We want to see a contiguous West Bank, including east Jerusalem, as part of a viable sovereign Palestinian state, based on those same 1967 lines. We recognise that many such settlements are contrary to international law.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
In his Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister said that the occupation should be governed by the Geneva convention and that the question of whether the transfer from military to civilian rule contravened or agreed with the convention was still being examined. When that examination has taken place, will the Minister kindly put the result in the Library?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will convey that perfectly reasonable request to my colleague who normally handles this brief.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, previously the Foreign Office indicated that it would not engage at ministerial or official level with Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich—the Minister referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. In a recent debate, the noble Lord the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that we would now engage with them and all Ministers in the Israeli Government, so why has there been this change of approach? Also recently, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the Trade Minister, said that human rights will not now be part of trade agreements. So can the noble Lord answer my noble friend’s Question and confirm that British Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have stated that the long-held protection for the illegally occupied territories in trade relations with the UK will be maintained in a specific chapter in any Israel-UK FTA?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord asked a lot of questions and I doubt whether I will be able to answer them all. In both this House and the other House, the UK has repeatedly and strongly condemned the comments of the Israeli Finance Minister, who, as the noble Lord will know, called for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped out”. We condemn his recent comments, which deny the very existence of the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination, their history and their culture. The UK has been unequivocal in its condemnation of that language.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I was in the West Bank last week and I talked to Palestinians. They said—and this was supported by surveys—that they no longer believe in the two-state solution. They saw what happened in Gaza, they do not trust their leadership and they want the advantage that Israeli benefits in health and so on can give them. Now is perhaps the time for the FCDO to lead the way and come up with a more imaginative solution, possibly modelled on the United Kingdom, where we have separate Governments for separate countries, because the two-state solution is a very long way away.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is vastly more knowledgeable about and qualified to speak about this issue than I am, and he makes a fascinating contribution. The reality is that, wherever things end up, a prerequisite has to be the cessation of terrorism and violence on both sides.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in last week’s exchanges on the road map for future relationships with Israel, the Foreign Secretary also met with Eli Cohen, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The Foreign Office said that the recent spike in violence would be discussed, so can the Minister tell us what the outcome of those discussions was and whether any practical steps were agreed to support de-escalation?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give details on the nature of the exchange; I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that information. However, I do know that the concerns that both sides of this House have raised were raised in strong terms by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their respective discussions.
Charitable Sector: Food Provision
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government, given the increased use of food banks, what assessment they have made of ways of reducing dependence on the charitable sector for the provision of food.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, food banks are an example of the generosity of spirt of giving across communities in Britain. This Government are committed to understanding and addressing poverty. Last week, for the first time, we published official estimates of food bank use. This April, we are increasing benefits and benefit cap levels by 10.1% and making further cost of living payments. The Government have provided total support of more than £94 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for this Answer. One of the real concerns about the increase in the use of food banks—which has gone up phenomenally, by a third in the last year—is that they are being used more by the working poor: people in full-time employment who still cannot afford to feed their families and heat their homes. Is it not time for the Government to be even more creative than they have been already and perhaps introduce a wealth tax of 1% on the richest, so there can be pay rises for the poorest workers?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, it is helpful to have some innovative solutions from the noble Baroness, but she will know of the huge amount of support that we have given, of which the House is very aware. There are other measures as well: for example, the Government will provide £100 million of support for charities and community organisations in England. This will be targeted towards those organisations most at risk due to the increased demand from vulnerable groups, and targeted in particular to support critical front-line services.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Trussell Trust recently piloted a study for the APPG on ending the need for food banks on the provision of cash grants instead of food handouts: 94% of the recipients preferred cash to food and said that their finances improved as a result. The survey showed that the cash was used to buy only essential items. What are the Government doing to promote cash responses to local crises?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I fully understand that some people prefer to use cash, and that is certainly possible. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the spread of where cash can be used.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I do congratulate the Government on all the work that they have done in this area to try to help the most disadvantaged. I know that my noble friend cares deeply about these issues. Of course, the working poor have a real need, but can my noble friend tell the House what evidence there is that pensioners are using food banks, and what action the Government are taking to address pensioner poverty?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that we are committed to action that helps alleviate levels of pensioner poverty. In answer to one of her questions, the HBAI statistics recorded that fewer than 100,000 pensioners were living in households where a food bank had been used. However, despite those figures, there is more to do.
The figures show that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty than in 2009-10. Pension credit provides a vital financial support to pensioners. This is one of the actions that has been and is being taken by the Government, and it is proving to be very successful, with a 73% uptake in the last 12 months.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that we are now asking about food bank use in the annual HBAI survey. That is great. But the results are really pretty shocking. For example, they showed that one in six of all people on universal credit used a food bank in the last financial year. When we think that, in the first half of that year, universal credit was £20 higher, furlough was still in place, inflation was 4% and energy bills were half what they are now, it begins to show the scale of the problem.
On 9 January, I asked the Minister what the Government were going to do about the shocking increase in food banks. He said that they needed to know more. Now that they do, what will they do about it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
First, I welcome the noble Baroness back. It is good to see her in her place. To pick up on what she was saying, our newly published statistics on food bank use, alongside the broad suite of poverty data, will indeed help us to shape future policy considerations. There is much in these statistics—some good, some less good—and I assure the noble Baroness that we will look very carefully at them and use them to help us inform and impact on our policies.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, will the Government commit to the full sharing of full universal credit datasets with local authorities so that they can better co-ordinate their poverty relief programmes with the Government?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, I can certainly follow that up. The noble Baroness will be aware that there is a very strong link with the housing support that I say that “we” but in fact local authorities are giving through the DHPs. There is certainly more that we can do to work even more closely with the local authorities in this respect.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, 80% of our churches currently support food banks. The Food 4 Thought Alliance was set up to respond to the immediate needs of people in Derby at the start of the Covid pandemic. It reports a 30% increase, already mentioned here, in the distribution of food parcels since last year.
The National Farmers’ Union cautioned last year that we were
“sleepwalking into a food supply crisis”.
What is being done to ensure that problems with supply chains do not push yet more people to rely on food banks?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right. We recognise that charities and community organisations have been hit by a triple threat of rising demand, rising costs and declining income over recent months. I applaud the role the Church plays in this respect. I am also very aware of the rising costs of certain food items from places such as Morocco and Spain due to climate change. But the funding we are giving broadly supplements the intervention to support households and businesses. The Government also support some of these vulnerable groups through other funding, such as through DLUHC.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, have the Government considered properly the role of the social supermarket? I speak as the chair of Feeding Britain. We have opened 260 of them, which you join as a club. You can then shop at around 30% to 40% off in the pound. You also get taught to cook and you get community help, which has been so stripped out over the years of austerity. For instance, in the Wirral, where I was on Friday, we have six such social supermarkets. Every Monday they have an adviser on benefits. In the course of 18 months, 1 million quid has been returned to people because they do not understand the complexities of the benefit system. These set-ups work to put back things that used to be in before the age of austerity. Will the Minister agree to come and look at one with me and consider how the Government can take them forward?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I would certainly be very pleased to join the noble Baroness to look at social supermarkets. She will be aware that the main supermarkets do offer some help in this respect. For example, Morrisons offers an average 13% price cut on more than 500 goods, including eggs, beef and rice. Children get a free meal at Morrisons cafés when their parent buys an adult meal worth £4.99.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, how convinced are the Government that the data on food bank use reflects the number of those who would genuinely go hungry without them? About one-third of all food is wasted, with the UK a leading culprit internationally. Increased use of food banks therefore also underlines the need to cut food waste, which we have heard already. How can we better redistribute food that is reaching its sell-by date to those most in need?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The figures that have just come out help us with a regional focus. For example, 4% of households in the north-east and north-west use a food bank, which is 1% higher than the average for households in England. To answer my noble friend’s question on food waste, we support a broad and holistic approach, with £2.7 million per annum grant funding to the Waste and Resources Action Programme. Crucially included in this programme is the food waste reduction road map and the push for food businesses to follow this tool to target, measure and act on waste, including to redistribute more. It is very important to make the connection between where there might be waste, particularly with foods at their sell-by date, and distributing to those most in need.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, why do half the NHS trusts in England have food banks for their staff?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This question has cropped up before in this House. I deeply regret the anecdotal evidence that we have of those in the NHS who are minded to go to, or need to go to, food banks. It is certainly something that the Government are very aware of and are looking to take action on in a number of ways.
Children’s School Meals
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and revise the children’s school meal regulations to reduce the levels of processed sugar and to provide incentives to encourage the use of alternatives such as stevia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the school food standards regulate for food and drink provided at lunchtime and at other times of the school day. They restrict foods high in fat, salt and sugar. We believe that the current standards provide a robust yet flexible framework to ensure that pupils in England continue to receive high-quality and nutritious food that builds healthy eating habits for life. We are keeping the standards under review, including the use of sugar and sugar alternatives.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are keeping it under review. Is she aware that we have the unhealthiest children in Europe? If the regulations are working, why is that the case? If she accepts that fact, will she go back and speak to the her department and the Department of Health and see whether we can get some progress along the lines of what happens in the Netherlands, where the producers and the Government come together to look at food reformulation, giving children healthier food and getting away from the inevitable decline, which we are suffering, into more obesity and type 2 diabetes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do recognise the figures to which the noble Lord refers with regard to the level of obesity—particularly shocking, perhaps, in our primary age children. The noble Lord will be aware that in 2019 we brought together a group of stakeholders to look at updating the standards. That was postponed for understandable reasons during Covid but my right honourable friend the Minister for School Standards is now looking at this very actively.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that nearly 1,600 children in England and Wales are suffering from type 2 diabetes—a disease that causes inflammation throughout the body and, if not treated properly, can cause kidney failure, heart attacks and other diseases in later life—and that a high proportion of these children come from the lower demographic groups? Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that the Government are doing everything they can to address the shortcomings of the diets of poorer children in our society?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have made a great deal of progress in this area, which is not to say that there is not more to do. The noble Baroness will be familiar with the so-called sugar tax, which has led to a decrease of almost half in the amount of sugar in soft drinks between 2015 and 2020. Most recently, we introduced regulations restricting the location of products with high fat, salt and sugar in supermarkets, which is critical in making sure that children do not access those foods.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, one-quarter of two to 15 year-olds are obese or overweight. Despite Governments publishing 14 obesity strategies containing 689 policies between 1992 and 2020, the prevalence has not reduced. Does my noble friend accept that, unless radical changes are made to support healthier eating habits, the increasing rates of obesity and related diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, are likely to break the NHS?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government continue to take a number of steps. The point I would make to my noble friend—she understands this better than I do—is that obesity is a fantastically complicated problem caused by a number of different factors, of which calorie intake is, obviously, one part, but activity is another. That is why we were so pleased to confirm recently the £600 million for the PE and sport premium for primary schools over the next two years.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is probably aware of figures released last week, which showed that, in the early 1950s, the UK had one of the longest life expectancies in the world. Recent figures suggest that we are now 29th in the league table. Only the US is performing worse in comparative terms than the UK, largely because of diet problems. Can the Minister assure me that, in taking forward the work that she has just mentioned, the education sector will recognise that it has to work very hard with the health sector to develop huge programmes of health improvement embracing young people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Department for Education has already been working closely with our colleagues in the Department of Health. I absolutely agree with the point that the noble Lord is making.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, just to correct the Minister, all new science shows that it is calorie intake of the wrong kind, such as in ultra-processed food, that causes obesity. While exercise keeps you healthy, it does not take off weight unless you are prepared to run a marathon every day. One thing the Government could do if they are serious about this is to extend the salary limit at which you can get free school meals. Currently, you have to be on universal credit, earning under £7,500—that is fantastically little—before your child gets a healthy, decent meal once a day—made up, ideally, of decent ingredients. Can the Government look at this again?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, we keep the eligibility for free school meals under constant review, but the House is also aware that eligibility for free school meals has never been higher. This Government introduced universal infant free school meals and free school meals in further education. Now, in schools, 1.9 million of the most disadvantaged pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, demonising fat is the wrong attitude. Clearly, we need to avoid saturated fats but other fats are actually good for us and limit obesity, because when fat goes into the duodenum it releases hormones that inhibit the emptying of the stomach, giving us the feeling of being full, so we stop eating. Fat should not be demonised by the Department of Health or anyone else.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware that anyone is demonising fat, but there is a very serious issue about education. The percentage of children who are either overweight or obese rose very sharply during lockdown. We must absolutely do everything we can in our schools and health services. We also need to make sure that parents really understand the implications of what they feed their children.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, last year research from Imperial College found that ultra-processed foods accounted for 62% of the calories in school meals. Given the widespread obesity epidemic in our schools—that the Minister recognises has got worse since lockdown—and an NHS buckling under demand it can no longer meet, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will next update the current school food standards to include guidance on ultra-processed foods and other foods that could be contributing to the obesity epidemic?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to make sure that I have not confused the House, levels of obesity and children who are overweight rose very sharply during lockdown. Levels have come back, depending on the age group, to pretty much where they were pre lockdown—I just say that for clarity. I cannot say when the standards might be reviewed, but they are designed to give those in schools, and those supplying schools with school food, enough flexibility to make choices to give children healthy meals. As we heard in an earlier Question, there is also an opportunity here to make sure that we keep waste to an absolute minimum, so that the investment can go into the quality of food for children.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
But is it not true that in the days of the coalition Government, the regulations on school meals were weakened, particularly in 2014? That weakening of the regulations allowed much more sugar to be added to some of the school meals.
Baroness Barran (Con)
—but I do not accept that they were weakened. As I say, there is sensible flexibility to allow schools to respond to their local community.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee report Hungry for Change found that to pay for government healthy eating recommendations, the poorest 10% of UK households would need to spend 74% of their post-housing disposable income on food. The report also found that the cost of healthy eating did not factor in the calculation of benefit rates. Would the Minister urge her colleagues in government to make sure that realistic benefit rates pay for a healthy diet, even for the poorest people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to share those figures on benefit rates with my noble friend sitting next to me on the Front Bench. More seriously, there are so many variables in this. I remind the House of the scale of support that this Government have given every household over 2022-23 and 2023-24: an average of over £3,300 per UK household.
Shamima Begum
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carey of Clifton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, on the grounds of compassion and morality, to reconsider their decision to refuse citizenship to Shamima Begum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
We are pleased that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has found in favour of the Government in Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to deprive her of British citizenship. It would be inappropriate to comment further, given the potential for further legal proceedings. The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered response. I think we all know the circumstances: Shamima Begum was a 15 year-old child when, seduced by a perverted ideology, she ran away from home and ended up as the consort of an ISIS terrorist and, eventually, the mother of three dead babies. Now 25 years of age, her situation has changed since she was deprived of her British citizenship in 2019. Her provisional Bangladeshi citizenship lapsed when she reached the age of 21 and she is now stateless. I would like to ask two questions. First, what consideration has been given to her present situation, as of today? Secondly, does the Minister’s response suggest that security fears trump our moral responsibilities?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his questions. The answer is that in relation to Shamima Begum, as I indicated in my earlier Answer, due to the fact that the litigation may continue I am unable to comment specifically on the facts of that case. However, I can answer more generally that the power to deprive an individual of their British citizenship, as happened in this case, has existed in law for over 100 years. The British Nationality Act allows for the deprivation power to be exercised in two circumstances: first, where the Secretary of State considers that it is conducive to the public good to deprive that person of their British citizenship, generally on national security grounds; and, secondly, in relation to Section 40(3), if British nationality has been obtained by fraud. This power is exercised sparingly and obviously, given the national security nature of these decisions, the content of them is the subject of closed proceedings. It is therefore a matter for particularly careful consideration by the Secretary of State and that was certainly done in the instant case.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, may I press my noble friend on the security aspect? If we continue to refuse citizenship and refuse to put on trial alleged UK terrorists here in this country, are we not just passing the buck to other countries? If every country pursues the same policy, are we not just going to build up vast and insecure camps full of potential terrorists—the breeding ground for the terrorists of tomorrow?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Of course it is not the case, as the noble and right reverend Lord put in his Question, that Shamima Begum’s citizenship was refused. In fact, her citizenship was deprived from her by reason of the decision of the Secretary of State, which was reviewed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and upheld. I do not agree with my noble friend that there is a risk of large camps of people being accrued who had been deprived of their nationality. If I might provide the figures, in 2019 some 27 people were deprived of their nationality; in 2020, it was 10; and, in 2021, it was eight.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked a Question last week relating to the British Government’s position over the use of capital punishment. Widespread comments from all sides of the House indicated that we had no truck with it whatever; quite right too. Since the Minister is not able to comment on a current case—and I respect that—could he ask himself, and assure the House, whether statelessness is not a form of capital punishment, in the sense that it deprives somebody of status forever? If it is for the rest of their lives, is that not just the breathing dead, so should we not be opposed to it on moral grounds and let circumstances dictate what might happen to her if she were brought back? Leaving her where she is is surely inhumane.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the Secretary of State for the Home Office has to evaluate the balance of competing interests. Surely the principal interest and the principal duty of government is to keep the people safe. I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes very seriously its obligations under the UN statelessness convention. Decisions to deprive individuals are taken in circumstances where they would not be left stateless. This applies in all cases where decisions to deprive are made. In all cases, there is further detailed consideration as to the applicability of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to deprivation decisions. The Government are satisfied that all those deprivations have been actions which are compatible with our obligations under that convention.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend reflect that, if a 15 year-old child commits a murder in this country, they remain anonymous? We do not know the name of the person, and he or she is dealt with appropriately. Is that not rather in contradiction to the line that has been taken in this case?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The slight difficulty the noble Lord has is, obviously, the incomplete picture of information, which is, unfortunately, the consequence of the nature of these types of decisions. The evaluation is made at the time of the deprivation decision, which in this case was in 2019. At that stage, the subject of the decision was not a minor, but obviously I cannot venture further into the facts of the case.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, what are the implications of this case for the reform of the Prevent strategy?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The reform of the Prevent strategy is clearly an important priority, as discussed on a previous occasion. I do not believe that this particular case has any direct impact on the reformulation of the policy. If the litigation continues, I will come back and address the House further on that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if noble Lords remember the expression “compassionate conservatism”. Those halcyon days seem long gone, sadly. Shamima Begum has been variously described as a vulnerable, trafficked 15 year-old from Bethnal Green and an ex-IS recruiter. Is the point not, however, that she is our vulnerable, trafficked girl or our ex-IS recruiter? Should she not be brought home to face the music in a British court of law?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Again, I am afraid I cannot comment on the specific facts of Ms Begum’s case. However, I remind the House that the purpose of deprivation proceedings under Section 40(2) of the 1981 Act is to protect the country in relation to issues of national security.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the difficulty the UK had being able to prosecute British people who went to Syria to support ISIS led in part to the counterterrorism Act 2019 and its provisions to prohibit people going to designated terrorist hotspots. Are the Government confident that future circumstances similar to Shamima Begum’s would fall under the provisions of that Act and enable prosecution in the UK?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, it is a very fact-sensitive evaluation on what is an appropriate matter for prosecution. The issue as to whether to deprive someone of British nationality arises in very limited circumstances, as seen in the numbers I cited earlier to the House. I would hope that all the relevant factors are taken into account when making such decisions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Shamima Begum admitted on the BBC podcast that she willingly chose to join a barbaric, nihilistic, Islamic death cult, so I am not sure about compassion. However, the Minister said that the responsibility is to keep citizens safe. Is he suggesting that the Government cannot keep people safe when there is radicalisation happening in the UK? One reason why the public do not want Ms Begum here is that, after the Manchester Arena bombing report, it seems that the Prison Service and the secret services are not able to keep us safe. Would he say that that is our problem and we should bring her home and not wash our hands of her, not because of compassion but because of moral responsibility on our part to keep people safe, even if there are terrorists among us?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The answer is that, obviously, the primary duty of government is to keep the people safe. Parliament has seen fit to afford to the Secretary of State the power of deprivation of nationality on dual nationals, and that power has sensibly been exercised in the cases to which I have referred and on which I have given the numbers to the House. I do not believe that there is any greater moral equivalence in returning people for trial. The question that arises on the exercise of this power is the issue of national security.
Black and Minority-ethnic Children: Police Strip-searches
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Children’s Commissioner showing that 2,847 children, disproportionately from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, have been strip searched by the police since 2018.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I declare my interest as a vice-president of Barnardo’s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question. The Children’s Commissioner’s report raises a number of concerns that we take extremely seriously. Strip-search is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police. No one should be subject to the use of any police power based on their race or ethnicity. The IOPC is currently investigating several instances of children being strip-searched and it will review whether existing legislation, guidance and policies remain appropriate. It is right that we await its findings.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, it is sickening, shocking and truly disturbing to read the Children’s Commissioner’s report on the thousands of children who have been strip-searched by the police unsupervised. Most of us thought that being strip-searched was a rare occurrence during the Child Q scandal. This has proven not to be so. Worryingly, those from black and ethnic-minority backgrounds appear to be disproportionately targeted. Childhood lasts a lifetime. The mental trauma, mistrust, abuse and humiliation suffered by these children will stay with them, at a huge cost to society. How are the Government going to address this unacceptable and despicable practice? What recourse and disciplinary action will there be when a safeguarding failure is found to have taken place?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Any child subject to strip-search under PACE should be accompanied by an appropriate adult unless there is an urgent risk of serious harm or where the child specifically requests otherwise and the appropriate adult agrees. Such searches must be carried out by an officer of the same sex as the child. The Children Act 2004 encourages agencies to share early concerns about the safety and welfare of children and young persons and to take preventive action. The Act requires local policing bodies and chief officers to co-operate with arrangements to improve the well-being of children in the authorities’ area. It is too early for me to comment on what sort of disciplinary processes and so on might be implemented in cases where there are failures of these things. As I said, we are awaiting the report from the IOPC and will make the appropriate response in due course.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it seems that every week there are more devastating revelations for trust in policing in our country, and yet the Public Order Bill is still moving between the two Houses—it will come back to us tomorrow. The Bill contains, among other things, stop and search powers, including without suspicion. At the very least, those provisions in the Public Order Bill should be paused by the Government until they can assess what police regulation we need, as opposed to just endless extra police power.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I have said from this Dispatch Box before, stop and search makes a serious difference to crime prevention. In 2021-22, stop and search removed around 14,900 weapons and firearms from our streets and resulted in almost 67,000 arrests. The noble Baroness made good points about trust in the police, and the Home Secretary has been clear that policing needs to address all of the causes of poor, and in some cases toxic, cultures. That will be a key focus of part 2 of the independent Angiolini inquiry, which will consider issues in policing such as vetting, recruitment and culture, as well as the safety of women in public places.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister clarify the role of the IOPC here? Is it reviewing just individual cases—so there will be a number of reports—or is this a systemic review of the use of this practice? Only if we look at the system can we know whether there is potentially racial bias within it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend is right. At the start of the process, 14 referrals involving strip-searches were received by the IOPC from the Metropolitan Police Service. On 1 August 2022, it confirmed that it is investigating five of these cases. It decided that six of them were suitable for local investigation by the force, and the remaining three are still being assessed to determine whether further action may be required by the IOPC. However, the IOPC has been asked to take a more general look at the framework. We expect its findings soon, and for it to opine a little more widely.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, nearly 3,000 children have been strip-searched. Waiting for the IOPC is a long process, and it seems to me that the Government should intervene to see that the rules are complied with.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely correct that there has been a large number of these cases. Our problem with intervention is that data has only recently started to be collected on this. As I said, there is a great deal of incoming input, and it is appropriate to wait for that to make sure that we are properly informed.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow on from the noble and learned Baroness’s question. Would it not be sensible for the Home Office to require all police forces in England to discontinue any further participation in Safer School Partnerships and to withdraw Safer School officers from schools until the very laudable review is completed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not feel particularly qualified to comment on that.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Children’s Society. I join other noble Lords in expressing horror at the findings of the Children’s Commissioner’s report. It is vital that children are treated as children at all times. Can the Minister reassure the House that children are treated and recognised as children within every aspect of the criminal justice system?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In areas where the Home Office collects data—for example, on custody—I can reassure the House that that is the case. For example, in 99% of cases where searches involved children in custody, an appropriate adult was present. Obviously, this report has identified failings in other parts of the system. We are awaiting the right inputs in order to make a detailed and thoughtful review, and as soon as that is the case I am sure I will be able to give the right reverend Prelate more broad reassurance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is rarely proportionate for the police to strip-search a child, let alone 2,847 times since 2018? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, not right when she says that the whole regime of police stop and search needs a hard reset?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord invites me to comment on operational police matters. I do not know whether it is appropriate, but I assume that they have very good reasons to do this; otherwise, they would not conduct these searches.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Would the Minister care to reanswer his noble friend who asked the question about the role of the IOPC? It sounds as though it is checking a couple of dozen cases, and that is not good enough, given what the commissioner’s report has identified. Surely we need a review of all the cases, because there have been dozens a week over the years. The answer that the Minister gave on the role of the IOPC is not sufficient.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I said at the end of my answer to my noble friend that the IOPC has also been asked to look at the more general legislative framework around this particular subject and to give us more comprehensive findings.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am absolutely gutted to hear the Minister respond to a question by saying that there must have been some reason. I am a child protection officer and have been a long-standing social worker, so I am all too aware of the issues around safeguarding—as the noble Lord should be, as a Home Office Minister. Can he say that he is either waiting for the review or that he has already taken the decision that there must have been a reason? It is either one or the other; it cannot possibly be both. I will make another point. Given what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, surely everything leads to the conclusion from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that racial discrimination is endemic in the Met. Can the Minister answer?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have to correct the record, because I did not say that there “must” be a reason; I said that I assumed that there was a good reason. To be absolutely clear, that is very different. I agree with many of the conclusions that the Children’s Commissioner has come up with—they seem to make a great deal of sense to me—but I would prefer to wait for the context of the various reviews that are being undertaken at the moment before giving a further opinion on this matter.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a superb commissioner and was also an iconic head and founder of the Inspiration Trust in Norfolk? She is saying that, while this type of strip-search should not be banned, it should be looked at very carefully. One of the things she said was that strip-search should never take place in schools but always in police stations.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am extremely happy to pay tribute to Dame Rachel de Souza for her report, which strikes me as very comprehensive—although I confess to having read only part of it so far. I agree with some of her conclusions, as I have just said, and I think that the one about schools is an entirely appropriate conclusion to have reached. In my opinion, strip-searches should be conducted only in very safe and secure places.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, one of the report’s conclusions was that there were widely differing practices in stop and search and strip-searches across the country. Does the Minister believe that there are good examples of stop and search and strip-search, and what can the Government use from those examples? Is it not right that particular communities—I am talking about young black men—have very little trust in the police service, and that it does not take much for things to kick off and for the police to use further interventions which are wholly undesirable as a result of the original police intervention?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord’s last point; that is a significant issue for the police and for us all. It relates to so many other issues that we deal with on a daily basis regarding the police, including things that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has brought up in previous debates, such as recruitment and so on. Regarding strip-search, I argue that, where the rules are followed, which are pretty clear and rigorous, it could be appropriate under certain circumstances. However, there needs to be an appropriate adult present, and there are complications around that, including making sure that there are enough of them. The other rules and safeguards that are already in place need to be followed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is absolutely right and true that the Government should never interfere with operational policing, but the Government can recommend that the guidelines are actually followed. That is the big problem we have here: there were no appropriate adults in 52% of the cases. In 51% of the cases, children were strip-searched in police vans, schools and even fast-food restaurants. I think that the Government have a role here to say that guidelines are there to be followed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that is right. The Government will have a role when the appropriate time arrives—when the reviews have delivered their various conclusions—to also suggest and recommend upgrading and updating that guidance.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that strip-searching would be humiliating for any of us. It is particularly humiliating for a child. The Minister has indicated that there are rules that govern strip-searching, but the rules have not been followed in many of these cases. Let us not wait for a review. The rules operate now, today, everywhere. It is the responsibility of the Home Office to ensure that these rules are complied with. Will the Minister take this away with a degree of urgency to make sure that these rules are applied now, everywhere?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will of course take that back to the department
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, for the benefit of those of us who have not yet been able to read the report, will the Minister tell the House what proportion of those nearly 3,000 children who were strip-searched during that period were charged with any offence?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have those details. I will have to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice to those saying that we understand about the review—there will be lessons to be learned from the reviews and rules to be updated. But can my noble friend the Minister say why the Home Secretary could not write to all chief constables now to ensure that PACE rules are being enforced and adhered to very closely?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that there is no reason why the Home Secretary could not write now, but the report was delivered in its final conclusion only on Friday and we are still assessing its recommendations.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, less than a third of the cases referred to in the ombudsman’s report—31%—led to an arrest. Does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, when she said that strip-searching as done by the Met was an example of
“over-policing and disproportionate use of powers against certain communities”
and may be due to
“‘adultification’, where Black children are treated as adults and as a threat, therefore justifying greater use of force or intrusive interventions.”
Those were her words. Does the Minister agree with them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not going to agree or disagree with those words. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, delivered them in good faith, and I take her word in good faith. I think a lot more thought needs to go into all the various recommendations that have been made in the various reviews, many of which I happily acknowledge raise a number of very serious issues that demand urgent attention.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2023 - (24 Mar 2023)
Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 View all Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 View all Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Act 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 View all Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Firearms Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Firearms Act 2023 View all Firearms Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2023 - (15 Mar 2023)
Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Sarfraz be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Viscount Camrose.
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 View all Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-VIII Eighth Marshalled list for Committee - (23 Mar 2023)
Baroness Parminter
Local nature recovery strategies(1) A local planning authority must ensure that their development plan (taken as a whole) incorporates such policies and proposals so as to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy.(2) Any policies or proposals in subsection (1) must be consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s plan making functions.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause sets out the relationship between local nature recovery strategies (LNRSs) and statutory development plans to ensure LNRSs objectives are delivered and aligned with development plans. This is to help secure implementation of Environment Act requirements.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 184ZA and 242I, which are in my name and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, cannot be in her place today as she has tested positive for Covid; she is sorry she cannot be here to add strength to the weight of the case.
The point of these two amendments is to do the job that local nature recovery strategies need to do—as the Government set out in their Environment Act in only 2021—which is to help restore our much-depleted nature. As the strategies currently stand, they will not be able to do that unless they are given further significant weight in the planning processes. As we all know, nature is all about place; it is a spatial matter, so we need to protect the areas where our birds, species and ecosystems are placed. For noble Lords who are not familiar with local nature recovery strategies, I explain that they are a new requirement of the Environment Act which are due to come into place next month. They are spatial plans across England that will help us to identify where places are special in terms of biodiversity and habitats, to put together policies to enable us to protect areas, and to encourage our local authorities to build protection into their plans. There are about 40 of them across England, mainly at the county level. As local authorities currently need only to have regard to them rather than take account of them, there is a real danger they will not be able to do the job we need them to do. This is a job that the Office for Environmental Protection said earlier this year was essential because the Government are not delivering at the speed and the level we need them to in order to protect our environment.
All of us in this Chamber—particularly those of us who have been local councillors—know that when push comes to shove, nature often gets pushed aside if there is a planning application for a housing development or some other form of infrastructure. We need these local nature recovery strategies, which are done principally at the county level, to have some purchase on the unitary, district and borough plans of councils, as they seek to ensure that our areas meet the needs of local people and protect our nature at the same time. This amendment is needed because currently local authorities need only to have regard to these principally county-level plans. I think the plans will probably take a year or two to come into force, so there is time for us to get this right.
However, I acknowledge that the plans for county councils and other groups which will be drawing the local nature recovery strategies together were produced last week. For those of us who have had the chance to review that guidance to the local authorities, there are some significant concerns about what is being proposed. I know that we as a House will have our chance to say something on that, because a statutory instrument will have to come forward. This is the guidance to the county councils that will be bringing the local nature recovery strategies together. They will be bringing together different landowners and local people to pull all these elements together so that there is an agreed sense of what, on a landscape scale, our priorities for the future are. Bringing people together as part of that job is really important. It is also important that the plans are evidenced. It is extremely good news that Natural England is going to resource each one of these local nature recovery strategies with a policy officer in support so that the evidence is there, because we have to make sure that these are evidence-led.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Natural Capital Research Ltd. I speak in total support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Parminter. I have a few brief points to add. As a country, we agreed last year at COP 15 to a number of international agreements and legislation to enhance and protect nature for the benefits that it provides. It is not just something nice to look at; it provides the most critical ecosystem services we rely on, including benefits for carbon sequestration, clean water, green space and health and education.
We also have our national targets that are set out in the Environment Act 2022. However, when looking at these, there is a huge void in what we say we are going to do and what we are doing on the ground. One of the biggest obstacles behind this large gap is to do with the planning system, where nature is still very firmly viewed as a secondary consideration. Nature is viewed as a thing that can be moved elsewhere, or it can be depleted or fragmented, because it does not matter as much as the other things we are considering. I totally disagree with that. A lot of nature is spatially constrained.
An important step leading on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, is to move nature into the first tier of the planning legislation, in the sense that it is viewed in the same terms as anything else that we are reviewing. A local planning authority must ensure that its development plan, taken as a whole, incorporates these policies, and that the policies are in the local nature recovery strategy.
The outlines of the local nature recovery strategy were published by Defra last Friday. I have some serious concerns about it. First and foremost, most of the work is based around habitats, whereas a lot of the things we need to consider are to do with species and things such as soils, which are not in the guidance at all. We also have no guidance on how to make existing protected areas bigger or more joined up: the two key cornerstones of how we are going to get nature to recover. However, it is a first step in the right direction and the inclusion of this amendment ensures that local authorities must incorporate these strategies into their planning policy and local plans. As such, I strongly support this as the right way forward for nature in England and the UK more generally.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the other cosignatories on putting forward the two amendments in this group. My only concern is what time commitment and resources would be required of the local authorities, given the fact that they are very heavily challenged at this time. I pay tribute to the lead local authorities, especially on the work they are doing on flood prevention, which is already a major resource commitment timewise. I know it has made a big difference already in areas such as north Yorkshire, which I am most familiar with, where we do have a number of functional flood plains. Across the country, the advice of the Environment Agency is not always pursued.
As regards the habitats directive, we need a firm steer from the Government on how we are going to steer this path, where we have the retained EU law Bill where, presumably, we are going to park the habitats directive on one side. But there is a possibility here, through this group of amendments, for nature recovery strategies to try to achieve a balance.
I end by saying that my noble friend is only too aware of my commitment to farming and ensuring that, within nature recovery, farming is recognised as a major contributor to these strategies.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register. I came in to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because I thought I liked the wording of her amendment. Having listened to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, I am absolutely convinced of the justice of their case. As my noble friend will know, one of the most crucial parts of the Environment Act is local nature recovery strategies—it is what it is all about in many ways. At the moment, the Bill says merely that local authorities must “have regard to” it. We all know—the lawyers present will explain no doubt ad nauseum and for a reasonable fee—that “having regard to” is fairly meaningless in many ways. A local authority could “have regard to” a local nature recovery strategy and then find a dozen reasons to reject it, because they had regard to it but for this reason or that reason did not wish to pursue it.
I particularly like the wording here, which does not seem to tie local authorities’ hands. It says that they
“must ensure that their development plan (taken as a whole) incorporates such policies and proposals so as to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy”.
It does not tell them what to do or how to do it; it just says that they have a free hand to invent their own policies that deliver the objectives of local nature recovery strategies. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what is the point of us developing local nature recovery strategies at a national level if they are not going to be implemented locally in local development plans?
I do not think that my noble friend is right that there will be great additional cost to local authorities in doing this—I can see nothing here to suggest that—but, if local nature recovery strategies are to work as every single person in this Chamber wants them to, the wording of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is probably the only way to deliver that. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain to me what the problem is with the noble Baroness’s wording.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, have made an absolutely convincing and compelling case for strengthening the responsibility of local planning authorities to consider local nature recovery strategies.
This is exactly the arrangement that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, set out when he was trying to persuade us not to press our amendments on this issue to a vote during the passage of the Environment Bill. At that time, he made it clear that the Government viewed local nature recovery strategies as key to identifying where action for nature and the environment would have the most impact. He went on to make it clear that Defra was working with the then Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop planning reforms that would contain a defining role for local nature recovery strategies and set them at the heart of decision-making. Obviously, there have been some changes in government and some movement on this since then, but that does not alter the nature of the pledges that were given at that time.
Since then, we have made good progress on establishing a network of local nature recovery strategies around the country. They are getting on with the job of surveying their local biodiversity priorities, providing crucial local data and mapping their local habitats. Their local knowledge and insight are proving crucial in identifying what action and resources can best be targeted. Through their partnership in stakeholder roles, they are also bringing together a wide group of interests to support a local strategic biodiversity recovery plan. However, what is the point of them doing all this work if local planning authorities can simply override their work and priorities? If we are not careful, those involved in drawing up these strategies will quickly become disillusioned and this will be seen as yet another talking shop.
This matters because, as we know, we have crucial statutory targets; for example, to halt the decline of species abundance by 2030, to deliver on our COP commitment to protect 30% of land and nature by 2030, and to deliver the many nature recovery targets set out in the environmental improvement plan. These are simply not going to happen unless local planning authorities put nature recovery at the heart of their decision-making. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, pointed out, there is widespread support for greater weighting to be placed on these local biodiversity recovery plans. There is also a real concern that, when it comes to the crunch, those nature recovery strategies will once again slide down the list of priorities and be seen as a second-tier concern.
I am grateful for the Minister’s letter to me and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone on this issue. Again, she flagged up that the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 commits to publishing guidance on how local nature recovery strategies can be reflected in local plans. As we have heard, we have received statutory guidance since then; however, it does not answer the central challenge that, unless we have wording along the lines of Amendment 184ZA or something very similar, the current imbalance will continue and local nature recovery strategies will not play their deserved and necessary part in decision-making.
This is not a total determination but about getting the balance right and ensuring that local nature recovery strategies are part of the decision-making. I am very pleased to hear so much support for these amendments from around the Chamber today. I hope that the Minister is hearing that strong case and can reassure us that the Government will take this away and come back with a stronger commitment, along the lines of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, local nature recovery strategies are one of the triumphs of the Government’s Environment Act, which I welcomed at the time, as did the whole House. We wanted to ensure that they had a little bit more edge and power than they had when that Bill went through this House. We now have the chance.
Local nature recovery strategies are not a nice to have; they are essential. They are essential not only for nature and the environment but for the future of our economy, which is supported by so many of the ecosystems that I am sure the Minister, given his ministerial experience, is more aware of than I am. This is something that is vital, rather than, as I said, a nice to have. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was right when she said that we have a problem here if the thousands of people who will be involved in writing these strategies are not convinced that any notice will be taken of their words.
However, I have some really good news here as chair of the local nature partnership in Cornwall and Scilly. Cornwall—not Scilly, although we are now involving Scilly in the final plan—was involved in a pilot local nature recovery strategy, along with four other areas. This was not seen by the various parties in Cornwall as being a pain to do, as something that the local authority and the local nature partnership had to urge, nudge and cajole them to do. It was something that people genuinely wanted to be involved with. The consultation exercise spread right across all sorts of organisations, individuals and households.
A strategy came out that was welcomed and that everybody wanted to happen. The great thing was that it was local. The Cornish aspects were particularly around things such as Cornish hedges, which are very different from other hedges elsewhere in the country. We also involve marine because, for a peninsula such as Cornwall, marine is so important. I was disappointed that the guidance that has come out does not mention marine. Marine is essential. It is part of the same ecosystems for those areas which are coastal.
My message is short: these local nature recovery strategies are vital to our future. We have, as we all know, one of the most nature-depleted areas in the UK. Even Cornwall, the environment of which is loved, has the same problems of retreating nature. This is the chance to have the turnaround in the environmental improvement plan. It is completely within the Government’s strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, the UK was at COP 15 in Montreal last year. We signed up to the global target of 30% being managed for nature. That is a UK target as well, as put out by the Government. Many local authorities, including in the south-west, have taken that target as well.
I urge the Government to take this step of ensuring that these plans really mean something. Let the thousands of people who will be involved and who will volunteer to participate know that not only will their voices be heard but their policies will be implemented.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we have had some very powerful speeches in support of incorporating local nature recovery plans into the planning system. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and others such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They made powerful speeches, so I do not need to add to their arguments.
However, I want to make two points, the first of which is the importance of stitching together different strategies across different government departments. This, in essence, is what Amendment 184ZA is about—that what was agreed in the Environment Act must be incorporated where it matters: in local plans and national development management planning.
Secondly, the Environment Act currently requires local plans and local planning authorities to achieve a 10% biodiversity net gain in any planning application, but it is not that straightforward. If the applicant is unable to improve the site on which it is developing by a 10% net gain—and a recent application I had resulted in a minus 19% biodiversity figure—the next option in the cascade of biodiversity options is for the applicant to purchase a nearby greenfield site and improve the biodiversity there. If that does not work, you get to commuted sums, whereby the applicant has to provide a sum of money for the local authority to improve biodiversity somewhere else entirely. To me, that is not what biodiversity net gain should be about.
As I have declared on many occasions, I am a councillor in Kirklees. Recently, I had a major application in my ward, and the applicant was unable to pursue any of those options. The commuted sum was for somewhere else entirely, and biodiversity was depleted in the area applied for. That is why these local nature recovery strategies are so important: they put that at the heart of local planning policies and outcomes, so that applications cannot fob off a lack of biodiversity net gain into some other part of a council district.
This amendment has my wholehearted support, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report if the Government will not accede to it now.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very good debate, and there clearly is a lot of support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We also strongly support them.
As has been discussed, the Environment Act created the local nature recovery strategies and introduced the statement of biodiversity priorities for local areas, accompanied by the habitat map, which identifies where people can contribute to enhancing biodiversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, these are not just nice to have; they are essential if we are to not simply reverse the decline but improve the situation. We know that local nature recovery strategies have the potential to really drive forward the recovery that is so badly needed. Importantly, they bring local knowledge and expertise into play. Also, as we have heard, the duty to apply the local nature recovery strategies in decision-making such as planning is too weak and will have a negative impact on their effectiveness.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch pointed out that the Government chose not to accept amendments tabled during the passage of the Environment Bill that would have required local authorities to take close account of local nature recovery strategy land identifications when making planning decisions. She also referred to the pledges made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Some of us who spent a lot of time considering that Bill had expectations in this area, and I am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments so that we can debate those expectations.
The noble Baroness made it clear that the guidance for authorities on the application of the strategies is just not strong enough. As a result, despite groups mapping sites that will be essential to nature recovery in a local area, local authorities will not necessarily have to take proper notice if they do not want to. That is the fundamental problem, and we do not want lots of time and effort on the part of local nature recovery strategy groups and supporting bodies such as Natural England to be wasted, and opportunities then completely missed.
These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and supported by many noble Lords, would rightly prevent any wasted effort and enable the local nature recovery strategies to achieve their full potential. Incorporating them into local planning authorities’ development plans is surely an obvious way to go about this. We do not want them to be weak documents, sitting on a shelf somewhere and not informing proper strategic day-to-day planning decisions. We need them to make a real difference, not just a tangible one.
As we have heard, many people think that greater weight should be given in planning to local nature recovery strategies. The Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection have supported this approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, talked about our commitments at COP 26, saying that there is a gap between what we say we will do and what we actually do, and that planning plays a very important role in nature recovery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked, what are our priorities for the future? How will we meet the government targets? Surely, anything that helps deliver the local nature recovery strategies is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, certainly thought this: he made it very clear that he thinks it important that this be included.
I hope that the Minister agrees with those who have spoken today and sees the absolute sense in accepting these amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I start by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, a speedy recovery, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, and others, for bringing forward these amendments. There is a lot of unity in this Chamber regarding what we are seeking to achieve here, and I have listened with great interest to the debate.
On the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, this is an attempt to hard-wire nature into our planning system. Many will argue that it already is, but as has been pointed out by many others, nature continues to be depleted. Species decline is now a serious crisis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pointed out, this is not just an environmental crisis but an economic one, as the Dasgupta review so vitally illustrated.
Amendments 184ZA and 242I in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, provide a revision of the prior amendment, Amendment 184, to set out the relationship between local nature recovery strategies and development plans, to ensure that local nature recovery strategies’ objectives are reflected in development plans. These amendments would require that the Secretary of State’s guidance on how to have regard to local nature recovery strategies must include information on the degree of compliance with them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend will reflect. As he started his remarks, I was buoyed with confidence that the Government had taken on board the sheer difficulty of turning what throughout my lifetime has been a process of depleting nature into a process of augmenting nature. It requires difficult internal decisions in all sorts of processes to get this right. Unless we give the process a good deal of strength and power, it will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, just be ignored; there will always be an excuse for letting it go. I urge my noble friend that this may be the time for a little too much force on the tiller, to make sure that we make this change. If we find that we are clogging up the development system, we can perhaps let it go a bit, but we have been headed in the wrong direction for so long that we need to be absolutely sure that we are doing enough to turn the corner.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his wise intervention. We have come a very long way. Over a decade ago, the natural environment White Paper created local nature partnerships. Some of those have been incredibly successful but some have not. What we are trying to create here on a statutory basis is something that will see around 50 of these right across the country, with consistency and a determination to draw the threads of the desire to restore nature through the planning system and get good decision-making as a result. I am happy to work with my colleagues and anyone in this House to see whether that can be tweaked but, at this stage, I think we are going a long way towards creating the kind of regulatory and statutory basis that we need to see the proper restoration of nature.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am straying on to the next set of amendments, but the Minister made it very clear that, regarding building up local plans, there needs to be flexibility and that something statutory in the Bill would stop that. However, under Clause 86, if there is a difference between the local plan and national guidance, statutorily, in the Bill, it says that national guidance must be followed—so there is no flexibility. Can he explain that contradiction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the noble Lord says, he is perhaps straying on to the next group. What we are concerned with here is making sure that we are creating a plan that is agreed locally under very clear guidelines, and that has a proper weight in planning decisions across the country. We will then see an understanding of where the nature-rich areas are, where nature can be improved and what the particular features are in those areas that need restoration, all unpinned with an understanding of what species exist and where they can be increased in abundance. That is what we are trying to achieve here. We all want the same thing. I think we have gone a long way to achieving that and I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It was not a matter of the plans. The Minister has said that, as a matter of principle, the reason to reject the amendment was that flexibility is needed and that statutory provision for the automatic assumption to accept another plan should not be in the Bill. But Clause 86 says exactly that. I am trying to tease out why it is okay for one national plan but it is not okay for these local environment plans. What is the difference, as a matter of principle, if flexibility is required for local plans in every area, as the Minister said?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are over 200 clauses in the Bill, and what good legislation seeks to do is to achieve the right balance between the needs of society—new houses, energy and the rest of it—and the understanding that we have a serious problem. We think we have that degree of flexibility about right here. There may be other parts of the Bill that are more rigid in what they seek to achieve, but I have tried to explain that if flexibility did not exist here, rather timid plans might be created, and we want ambitious plans to be created for these local nature recovery strategies. That is why we think this degree of flexibility is the right way forward.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and for the fact that he recognised the strength of feeling right around the Committee. As he said, we all want the same thing; we all want to restore nature from its depleted state, and these local nature recovery strategies are a brilliant tool. As my noble friend Lord Teverson acknowledged, on these Benches and others we think this was a good initiative by the Government. The trouble is that it is not going quite far enough. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, I was initially buoyed by the Minister’s comments. In his words, this is about hard-wiring nature into the planning system. It is—that is what we are trying to do. Frankly, it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to respond to the challenges that nature faces and that the citizens in our country are desperate for us to address.
Guidance alone will not be enough; it will not cut it—we know that. There are enough people in this Chamber who have been or are councillors who know that, when push comes to shove, if there is not some purchase on the planning system—if the local plan is not clear that the local nature recovery strategies are a key evidence base for the local plan—it just will not happen. Nature is not something you can just talk about, and the Government are good at getting plans together on local nature recovery. You can make as many targets as you like but if you do not will the means we will get nowhere.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove inserted subsection (5C), which would give primacy to the national development management policies over a development plan in the event of a conflict.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the previous discussion highlighted some of the concerns we have about the contradictions between the matters that have been enshrined in the Bill, which some of us might think are not quite so important, and those which have been left out. Getting the balance right is clearly important. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Hayman all said, now really is the time for nature recovery and such issues to be a clear focus and for them to be put into the Bill.
We have had lengthy earlier discussions relating to the unwelcome and centralising shift represented by the introduction of NDMPs. I hope that the Government have been left in no doubt about the deep disquiet in the local government community about this provision. Further to the earlier comments made on those serious planning matters, we believe that the Bill is simply not clear enough about how conflicts between local plans and NDMPs are to be dealt with. Our amendments in this group therefore address these issues.
Amendment 185A in my name seeks to take out the lines from Clause 86 that give automatic primacy to the NDMP where a conflict arises between it and the local plan. It is simply unthinkable that this could happen by virtue of statute, with no dialogue relating to why the local authority or the combined county authority considered it necessary to depart from the NDMP. Let me be provocative and suggest that it would, in effect, mean there was almost no point in preparing a local plan at all, if any conflict arising is to be determined in favour of the NDMP—which is, after all, determined in Whitehall. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on this. Surely the provision goes against the key principles of devolution.
Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is similar but refers to “insignificant conflicts” between the local development plans and the NDMPs. If I know local government, I fear that this would involve considerable arguments, perhaps even resulting in legal arguments about what is and is not insignificant.
My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 187 aims to clarify the situation relating to how conflicts between local plans and the NDMP might be dealt with. It would add a further subsection to Clause 86, setting out how conflicts could be resolved in favour of the local development plan where a CCA had been handed powers over planning, highways, the environment and other functions of public bodies under the circumstances outlined in Schedules 16 and 17 or where the development plan comes under a joint spatial development strategy, or if it is in Greater London.
Amendment 192 is a probing amendment. It would insert a clause in the Bill setting out the primacy of the development plan over the NDMP, should there be a conflict. This amendment sits alongside other amendments to Clause 87 which aim to ensure—I want to be really clear about this—that the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives have the primacy in determining the development of local areas.
Amendments 193 and 195 probe if there is to be any role for parliamentary scrutiny of how conflicts between development plans and the NDMP are resolved and/or whether Parliament is to be informed of the Secretary of State’s intention to override the local process. They also probe what role there is to be for a CCA whose constituent member or members may find themselves in a conflict between their development plan and the NDMP.
In summary, what is the mediation process to be? Surely there will not be an automatic assumption in favour of the policies produced centrally with no reference to local people. There is not much in the way of devolution in that proposal. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 186, 187 and 187A because of pre-emption.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 186 and 187B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. When we concluded the debate last Wednesday, my noble friend the Minister explained the Government’s reason for the introduction of the national development management policies. I reiterate to my noble friend that I very much welcome and anticipate a further response to clarify how the NPPF and NDMP relate to one another, perhaps by particular reference to the example of the chapter on green-belt policies.
If I can paraphrase, my noble friend said that a key reason was to make local plans more local. She said that, when making a determination of a planning application, the local plan policies will “sit alongside” the national development policies. But what if they are not consistent? This group of amendments looks at that question. The present position is that applications for planning permission must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Clause 86 of the Bill inserts
“and any national development management policies.”
Therefore, applications must be made in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies. The material considerations would need to “strongly indicate otherwise”. We argued that point last Wednesday.
Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that, if a policy
“in a development plan … conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document”—
so it is simply a matter of which is the most recent. In future, that conflict may be between a development plan and the national development management policies. The Government, to resolve that question, state in Clause 86(2):
“If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
We have heard from the noble Baroness moving Amendment 185A that it proposes that proposed new subsection (5C) created by Clause 86(2) be deleted. Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would give precedence to the development plan. This turns the Government’s intention on its head. However, I have to say that it runs a serious risk of undermining national policies by virtue of local plan-making and turning the whole problem the other way around.
My Amendment 186, tabled with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, would add the word “significant” to make the phrase, “if to any significant extent” there is a conflict. That would have the simple benefit of avoiding the disapplication of development plan policies because of an insignificant difference between that and an NDMP. It would run the risk—I have to acknowledge—of debate over what “significant” means. However, if the Minister were to object to the insertion of the word “significant” because of the risk of litigation, I will return to the question of the litigation that might arise through the insertion of the word “strongly”, which the Government resisted on those grounds.
Amendment 187, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would reverse the primacy of NDMP over the development plan where there is a substantial set of devolved responsibilities given to a combined county authority. These are, in effect, the planning powers of the constituent local planning authorities, so I have to confess that I am not at all clear why, if the powers are vested in a CCA, as opposed to a local planning authority, the primacy should be switched simply on those grounds.
Overall, we have a group of amendments here that illustrate the problem but do not offer a solution. The development plan should not be inconsistent with the NDMP. The new Section 15C of PCPA 2004, to be inserted by Schedule 7, states this. On page 294 of the Bill, it can be seen that the intention of the Government is that there should not be any inconsistency between the two. However, in practice, such inconsistencies will arise in relation to specific planning applications. That is where the problem emerges. When they do, as the Minister herself made clear, this is a plan-led system, and a decision should, so far as possible, be made in accordance with the development plan. As the NPPF makes clear, where there is no relevant plan policy or no up-to-date plan—our Amendments 187A and 187B are relevant here about the necessity of an up-to-date plan—then the decision should be made by reference to the national development management policies, which will continue to be given statutory weight, by virtue of this legislation, even if the plan is out of date.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to reflect on this question and whether the primacy of the national development management policies should be achieved through the plan-making process—that is, sustain that question of there being no inconsistencies—but also where no up-to-date plan applies. However, if there is an up-to-date plan, then that should be the basis of the decision. That would retain the principle that those seeking planning permission should do so in accordance with an up-to-date local plan. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, when we come back to this on Report, that might be the basis for amending the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendment 187, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has attached her name. She is mostly handling the planning parts of this Bill, but she is otherwise engaged at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made a very interesting speech. It comes down to the question of what we mean by “inconsistency”. Do we mean that the local plan is trying to set higher standards than the national guidelines? If that is so, what we should have are national plans that set minimum standards. It should be within the power of local authorities to set higher standards if they so desire and if they think those are appropriate or necessary for the local area.
The noble Lord asked why this should apply particularly to CCAs, given that they are essentially a compilation of existing powers. The situation is that, where you have a CCA that has been created and handed the highways, environmental and other powers, certainly in local perception, in the understanding of people who have elected people on to those local bodies, the power that has been handed to this local body should rest in that local body.
Here, we have to look at the context of what it is like on the ground. I spent the weekend visiting various local areas outside London and hearing lots of complaints about local councillors’ lack of power to do what local residents want them to do. National planning rules have become far too bloated, and local councillors simply do not have the power to shape what happens in their local community in the way that residents expect them to. For example, people are surprised at how little power councils can have over the types of business established on a local high street. Massive international chains such as Starbucks can undermine the character and charm of a local scene, and the local planning authority and councillors are left wrestling over how the signage looks—which is not the issue that local people are most concerned about. There are more than 550 Green councillors around the country now, and this probably gets to the heart of what I hear from them so often: expressions of frustration at how power is centralised here in Westminster.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the main debate on the new plan hierarchy was clearly spelled out in this Chamber last week, but Covid prevented me from joining in, although I listened with interest. I will not waste time going over that debate, but I still want to reiterate certain facts. As was well demonstrated in the debate on the last group, it is a fact that so much detail is still missing and so many important matters are still out for consultation—that is probably why there are so many amendments and why there is so much anxiety around the content of NDMPs. In particular, as was well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, what will truly be left over for local councillors and their communities to shape their place? The Bill is very strong on the rhetoric of place shaping, but it feels that we are being disempowered to do that.
Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I will say that it is absolutely clear that the potential for conflict is significant. Without some clarity and legal clout from the Bill—not just ministerial promises that there will be more details in the revised NPPF, or that it will be more clear when we have the NDMPs—what will happen as a result of this is that there will be plenty of work for the planning chambers and litigators going forward. There will be a long transition period—the Government are quite sensibly allowing for that—because this is a new system, so there will be quite some time before we get precedents set, we get used to it and we get to see which way it is going.
The amendments have regard to the obvious potential conflicts between NDMPs and local development plans, and they also question the increasingly all-powerful Secretary of State role and the position of combined authorities. The issues concerning Secretary of State powers have also been well articulated, but, as drafted, Clause 86, which was previously debated, and Clause 87 very clearly—I do not think there is any ambiguity—favour NDMPs over development plans. But they also transfer significant policy-making powers directly to the Secretary of State—this is yet another area of concern and potential conflict because, as we know, NDMPs come with no minimum public consultation or primary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Despite the Government’s previous assurances that this undemocratic effect was not the intention of the clauses, no legal safeguards have been introduced, so this is an area in which we would certainly hope to see movement from the Government.
My first question for the Minister on this group is on the issue of local plan soundness, as it seems to me that a lot of conflict could and should be avoided if both the NDMPs and the local development plan are very clear about what they are trying to achieve, where the boundaries of their scope are, and where one might take over from another—I was envisaging the Venn diagram and hoping that there was not very much in the middle. It seems highly desirable that the overlap should be almost impossibly small, or as limited as possible, so can the Minister confirm whether a plan would be found sound under the new regime if it contained policies that were at variance with NDMPs?
The proposed introduction of gateway checks, which is an excellent suggestion, would seem to indicate that the intention is, on the one hand, to allow both parties an opportunity to point out unacceptable variance, or, on the other, for the local planning authority to present its evidence as to why local policies should deviate from the NDMPs and therefore receive advice and engage in constructive dialogue. From the thrust of the questions of the NPPF consultations and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statements, it seems that local variance is both expected and accounted for—good.
If that is the case, why do we need new subsection (5C), and why can we not just accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor? It is very definite and legally tight—too definite and legally tight to allow for circumstances when it might be absolutely legitimate to give the local plan precedence. Is that deemed to be a bad thing by the Government? If not, under the current system, in which decisions are now weighed and balanced, surely a degree of leeway is desirable—the more so, as has already been mentioned, as the main criticism around NDMPs is the worry that they will set a low floor and stifle ambition and innovation, which has always been, in the main, local authority-led. New subsection (5C) might sound definite, final and firm, and therefore intended to reduce conflict—but at what cost? Could there be unintended consequences?
If the Government do not accept that proposal, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, provides a more nuanced response to a very complex issue to allow for a time when the NDMP may not necessarily be “Top Trumps” because it is appropriate in those local circumstances. I believe that the weight of new subsection (5C) does not allow that for that discretion, so we will certainly support that amendment. As to the discussion of the word “significant”, I respectfully suggest that planners, inspectors and litigators have always weighed up, and probably always will weigh up, these words. It is part of their bread and butter, it is what they do all the time, and this will be no exception.
Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is a natural extension of that same logic. She can envisage times when a local plan can and should take precedence, especially if it relates to the additional responsibilities in a larger geographical area. On these Benches, we believe that there is real value in the Government incentivising, encouraging and supporting local authorities to work together to get a larger—and, dare we use the word, regional—spatial strategy of that sort. In effect, we would not want any barriers to be put in the way of that, because there is far more at stake in a local area, such as economic growth, than just meeting housing need.
The noble Baroness’s Amendments 192 and 195 are an interesting extension of this dilemma. I wonder whether her Amendment 193 could be logistically challenging, as the Secretary of State would have to actually hear and know about every single challenge and conflict. But the principle of a feedback loop regarding conflicts seems a good one, particularly during a period of transition, as all this will all new and very different territory for everyone. I think we would all like to know where the pinch points and places with the most disagreement are and, more importantly, how they are being resolved. We will be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this thread of feedback, reporting, learning and, presumably, revising.
Amendment 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seems very sensible. If the Bill is, as we hear all the time, to truly make the system a plan-led system, it absolutely makes sense that local plans must and should be up to date. My concern, particularly now, is with the removal of the tilted balance and planning by appeal, plus the supremacy of NDMPs. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise councils to keep their plans up to date? I cannot see how that will be done, as there appears to be no disincentives to do otherwise.
We will support any amendment to insert a process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny, as has been set out in the Planning Act 2008 and is already deemed necessary for national policy statements. If local authorities are rightly required to consult on such policies when preparing local plans today, in future it must be right that Secretaries of State be held to account by the public and Parliament in a similar way. As with national policy statements, we ask that Parliament be required to scrutinise NDMPs and that the public be allowed to consult on proposed changes to them.
There are loads of possible advantages of NDMPs, and there seems to be a general acceptance of this in principle, but the devil will always be in the detail. The unprecedented level of central control for planning that they introduce means that safeguards are needed to maintain local consent. These amendments touch on only a few areas of potential conflict, and we had plenty in the previous group. We have yet to touch on street votes versus local plans, neighbourhood policy statements versus the rest, and—one matter that is starting to come to the fore—the turning of supplementary planning documents into supplementary plans and all that this will entail. Those are debates for another day.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I want to add a short footnote to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and to try to understand in what circumstances the conflict that we have been debating can arise—that is, the conflict between the local plan and the national development management policy.
Page 294 of the Bill—I appreciate that we have not got quite that far yet—describes the process that a local authority must go through when it prepares its local plan. New section 15CA(5) states that:
“In preparing their local plan, a local planning authority must have regard to … any observations or advice received from a person appointed by the Secretary of State … other national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.
If that process has been gone through, the local plan should already be consistent with the national development management policies—it would have been spotted. So is it the case that the only time a conflict can arise is when, subsequent to a conforming local development plan having been adopted, the Government actually change the policy? Is that the only time that a conflict can arise? It cannot arise if a plan has gone through the process under the current NDMP.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on the conflicts that will inevitably exist between the national development management policies and local plans. I thank my noble friend for pointing out in great detail the difficulties that may arise.
At the heart of this is the fact that, at the moment, we have no idea what will be included in the NDMP. Frankly, that is fairly critical as to whether or not there will be conflict. It will depend on whether these will be very high-level national policies, as in the current National Planning Policy Framework. It will depend on whether they will set standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested. It will depend on whether they will simply reflect what is currently national planning policy but put it into a statutory situation for local planning authorities and local councils to agree to.
In Committee on the Bill last Wednesday, the Minister suggested that we would have a round table to try to tease out the detail and meaning behind the Government’s proposals in the Bill. It is absolutely vital that that happens as soon as possible. Throughout our debate on the plan-led process, it became clear that, if the intentions of the Government for the national development management policies are not understood, there will be conflict—as this group of amendments makes clear—around the degree to which local people have power and influence over local plans at this stage, and around the degree to which planning inspectors who are set to look at the local plans that are drawn up have power and influence over local plans. That is why it is really important that we hear from the Minister as soon as possible. What sort of policies are going to be included in NDMPs? At the moment, it is a fairly blank screen.
I have only one other thing to say, which has been raised by my noble friend. New subsection (3) inserted by Clause 87, which is about revoking or changing the NDMP, says that
“the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”
I hope the Minister will be willing to take away “if any” in that clause and reflect how important it is for local plans to be accepted by local residents. That means that the NDMP has to be acceptable to and accepted by local residents, as it is going to dictate the content or the direction of travel of local plan decision-making. There is a lot that hangs on the content of the NDMP, so I hope that when the Minister replies she is able to give us some hints as to what it will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendments 185A and 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seek to remove or reverse the precedence given to national development management policies over the development plan in planning decisions where there is a conflict between them. I welcome this further opportunity to explain the objectives behind this aspect of the Bill.
As I indicated in our debate on this issue last week, national development management policies are intended to bring greater clarity to the important role that national policy already plays in decisions on planning applications. A clear and concise set of policies with statutory weight will make sure that important safeguards, such as protections for designated landscapes and heritage assets, are taken fully into account, without these basic matters having to be repeated in local plans to give them the statutory recognition they deserve.
These amendments deal specifically with what to do in the event that there is a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. The amendments would remove the certainty created by the Bill that up-to-date national policies on important issues, such as climate change or flood protection, would have precedence over plans that may well have been made a long time ago.
Some local plans are woefully out of date; for example, some date back to the 1990s. Only around 40% of local planning authorities adopted a local plan within the last five years. It would, in our view, be wrong to say that, in the event of a conflict, national policy does not take precedence over out-of-date policies in these plans, which is what these amendments would achieve. This point is particularly crucial because we wish to use national policies to drive higher standards, especially on good design, the environment and tackling climate change, and it is important that these take precedence in the event of a conflict with out-of-date policies in plans.
Nevertheless, I expect such conflicts to be very limited in future as we are making it easier to produce plans and keep them up to date, and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies. Given the important role that national development management policies will perform and their benefits in providing certainty, I hope noble Lords understand that we are not able to support this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that few, if any, conflicts should arise under this new way of working.
Amendment 186 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley would give national development management policies precedence over the development plan only where there was a “significant” conflict between the relevant policies. Where a local policy and national development management policy are both relevant considerations but not in any conflict, it will still be for the decision-maker to decide how much weight is afforded to these policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. Our clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies where they contradict one another. My noble friend brought up the green belt. Policies controlling development in the green belt are standard nationally and will be set out in the NDMPs. Local plans could—will—define the boundaries of the green belt, as they do now, so I do not think there should be any conflict between those two issues.
We have explained why we believe it is important that NDMPs are prioritised in the event of such a conflict, and we expect such conflicts to be limited, as I have said.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I fear I was not clear enough about what I asked about last week and hoped to hear more about. Chapter 13 of the NPPF describes the green-belt policies. It forms two parts: the first relates to plan-making and the second, from new paragraph 149 onwards, to how these policies should be applied in relation to development in the green belt and the determination of planning applications. My assumption has been—partly answering the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we do not know what the NDMPs are; this is a good illustration—that the latter will be NDMPs, the former will not. There will continue to be guidance in the NPPF. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be advised; otherwise, it would be helpful to understand how these things divide up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry. Obviously, I got the issue slightly wrong in the last debate. I thought that we were talking about a conflict between two green-belt policies. I will go back to Hansard. Obviously, my answer is not relevant, therefore, but I will check that out and give my noble friend a proper answer in writing. I think that is the best way to do it, as we got it wrong.
Additionally, the suggested wording of Amendment 186 would also generate uncertainty and associated litigation, because the term “significant” would be open to considerable interpretation. Therefore, as the amendment would cut across the greater certainty which we hope to bring to planning decisions, it is not one that we feel able to accept.
My noble friend Lord Lansley also brought up the decision-making role of the NDMPs being constrained by matters not covered by an up-to-date plan. NDMPs will focus on matters of national importance that have general application. This will enable the local plans to be produced more quickly so that they no longer move to repeat the things that are in the national plans. It is important that there should not be—as there is now—this duplication in plans. I think this makes it simpler and less open to conflict.
Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which relates to higher-tier authorities with planning powers, would give precedence to the development plan over national development management policies, where a mayor or combined authority has strategic planning powers, or where a group of local planning authorities have produced a joint spatial development strategy.
As I have set out, we believe that there are good reasons why, in certain cases, national development management policies may need to take precedence over those in the development plan. National development management policies will underpin, with statutory weight, key national policy protections in cases where plan policies, including spatial development strategies, become out-of-date.
I note that the Secretary of State already has powers to direct amendments that must be made to draft versions of spatial development strategies before they are published, where he thinks it is expedient to do so, to avoid any inconsistency with current national policies. These powers have been used sparingly in the past, although they have been used where important national policies were duplicated but inappropriately amended.
For these reasons, we believe it is right that national development management policies would be able to override the development plan in those cases where it is absolutely necessary, even where there is a strategic plan-making body in place. Thus, this is not an amendment that we feel able to support.
I think I answered my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in a previous debate, but I will repeat what I said for those Members who were not here last time. Amendment 187B in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham aims to ensure that decisions on planning applications are taken in line with an up-to-date plan, with an up-to-date plan being defined as less than five years old.
As previously mentioned, we know that, for local plans to be effective, they must be kept up to date. Currently, plans must be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years and they should then be updated as necessary. We intend to replace this current review requirement, which is a source of confusion and argument. It has been described in this place as a loophole and I have some sympathy for that characterisation.
In the Bill policy paper published last May, we committed to set out a new, clearer requirement in regulations for authorities to commence an update of their local plans every five years. It is, however, important that we do not create a cliff edge in law that forces important aspects of plans to be out of date for decision-making purposes just because they are more than five years old; this would, for example, have the effect of weakening green belt protections very considerably.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but my point relates to having an up-to-date plan. My noble friend has made clear her rather compelling points about the national development management policies taking precedence over an out-of-date plan but, if there is in place an up-to-date plan that works and is both recent and relevant, why should an NDMP seek primacy over an up-to-date local plan?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
What I am trying to explain to noble Lords is that there should be no conflict because they deal with different things. The national development management policies are likely to cover common issues that are already being dealt with in national planning policies, such as the green belt, areas at risk of flooding and heritage areas. They would not impinge on local policies for shaping development, nor would they direct what land should be allocated for a particular area. They are totally different things. Looking to the future, therefore, I cannot see what conflict there would be.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I just want to explore this further, if the Minister will agree to it. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is at the heart of this issue. Where there is an existing, up-to-date local plan, why should that not have primacy over the national development management policies, because it will have taken cognisance of those in developing the local plan?
Can the Minister help me here? In the NPPF, there are 16 national planning policies. Does she anticipate that those will be translated into the NDMPs? It is at that level that we need to understand this because, when it comes to local plans, the NPPF is part of them; as the Minister rightly argued, it is put into local plans. But then they are then interpreted locally, for local reasons, which is why I am concerned about an NDMP having primacy over up-to-date local plans.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The national development management policies are dealing with the top-level issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are out to review those issues of consultation. These issues have come back. We have not got the list yet, but your local plan will accept those as being there and will then deal with issues that are local. As my noble friend said, there will be issues such as the green belt, but they will take into account the national policies on green belt and deal only with very localised policies on it, so there should be no conflict. I do not see where that conflict can be. But we are going to have a meeting on this to further discuss and probably have, not arguments, but strong debates—those are the words—on these issues.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am more confused than I was when the debate started. If there is no conflict, what is the point in having the clause?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The point is to make clear that there is no conflict.
Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to
“lay a Statement before both Houses of Parliament”
if there is
“a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan”.
As I have noted, actual instances of conflict between national development plan policies and those being included in the plans should be relatively unusual, as the Bill makes clear that planning policies should avoid such conflicts—something that will, in cases of doubt, be assessed transparently through public examination of those emerging plans as they are made. Should any conflicts arise when considering individual planning applications or appeals—for example, where the local plan has become very out of date—this will need to be made very clear through the report on the application, or the evidence before the planning inspector. These procedures will ensure transparency for communities. At the same time, it would be impossible for the Government to track every instance of such a conflict arising and to report to Parliament on it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand that this is not an amendment we can support.
Amendment 195, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to consult county combined authorities if it is deemed that there is a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan. As I have already explained, where any inconsistencies arise between an emerging plan and the national development management policies, these will be evident during the plan preparation and examination. We expect that any county combined authority will be engaged in this process at the local level. There is no need for an additional statutory requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State in the way the amendment would do.
I have also pointed out the impracticality of applying a requirement of this nature in relation to any inconsistencies which might arise in the handling of individual planning applications, the great majority of which will not be cases that the Government are party to. Consequently, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we are unable to support this amendment. I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 185 and for other amendments in this group not to be moved as they are reached.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked what intervention powers the Government will have to get involved. We think that local authorities know their area best and, unequivocally, are best placed to produce their own local plans. However, if local plans are not produced or are failing, or if something is absolutely wrong with that plan, the Secretary of State will retain the power to intervene if necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems that those of us who have been very involved in the planning system are having is that we cannot see how this all fits together and works in practice. In her last statement, the Minister said that local authorities know their area best, and those who have been involved in this system would certainly agree with that but, as we go through the process of looking closely at the Bill, it is getting more rather than less confusing.
We had a good discussion and some key issues have emerged, first around how little detail there is about the hierarchy of this new planning process. I accept that the Minister has offered to have a round table with us to discuss what that structure looks like and to listen to more of our concerns about how this is going to work in practice. There was a great deal of consideration of the issues around the strategic development plans for these new CCAs. A lot of work will go into the joint working on those strategic development plans, with their constituent members and partners. They reflect the significant new powers that they will have over transport, environment and issues relating to some other public bodies—potentially health, policing and so on. Some of us are struggling to understand why, after all the work that has gone in, there may be an intervention from the Government via the NDMPs to say that the planning process has to be intervened in or overturned. That is also of concern.
Another element was the consideration of whether this would be different depending on whether an up-to-date plan is in place or not. That is a key consideration and I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it may make a great difference as we go through the consideration of how these plans will work and what the review requirements are. We made the point in previous discussions, and I will make it again, that the big difference between the NPPF and the new NDMP is that the NPPF is guidance. As we have discussed previously, it can be flexible to local needs and often is, whereas the NDMP is going to be statutory. For example, how would it deal with applications made within the green belt? These are some of the practical issues with which some of us are wrestling, and I hope that a round-table discussion helps clear some of that up.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave a very clear exposition of how he sees the word “significant” making a difference. I appreciate that. Of course, lawyers will be lawyers—I know there are some in this Chamber, so I will not take this line too far—but they embrace any words that can be interpreted in different ways, as we know. Those of us who have been in legal battles around these things before have the scars to show for it. My concern about that amendment was simply that it would result in a great deal of litigation.
We were discussing the planning powers of constituent local authorities and, of course, the role of these new CCAs will be very different from the role of either district councils, when they are doing their local plan, or county planning authorities, when they do things such as mineral and waste plans. I think we need some careful consideration of how those much more strategic plans will relate to NDMPs.
I have commented on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about up-to-date plans; I think, where we have one, they should take precedence. The Minister also talked about how, if the neighbourhood plan is more up to date than the local plan, the neighbourhood plan would take precedence. By logic then, if the local plan is more up to date than the NDMP and there is a conflict between them, the local plan should take precedence. I cannot see why one would apply and the other would not.
Lord Crisp
“Duty to promote health and well-beingThe Secretary of State must ensure that national planning policy and guidance are designed to secure positive improvements in the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England.”
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, who have added their names to my amendments in this group. I very much look forward to their contributions today.
Amendment 188 sets out that:
“The Secretary of State must ensure that national planning policy and guidance are designed to secure positive improvements in the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England.”
There is currently no provision for promoting health and well-being in planning legislation and guidance. Even in the key paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where the Government set down requirements on strategic policies in local plans, there is no mention of promoting health and well-being but simply a reference to the provision of healthcare facilities. This seems to be a very old-fashioned view of health which equates health with healthcare.
If nothing else, the pandemic has accelerated public understanding that health in the broadest sense, and well-being, are central to place-making, communities and the levelling-up missions. Our homes and neighbourhoods deeply influence our health, for good and for bad, and this all influences our life chances. If we want to level up and create the circumstances in which people can flourish, health and well-being must have central roles in our planning system.
I recognise that this is a big change. The amendment is very carefully worded to say “designed” to secure positive improvements. This is not just an add-on: it places health and well-being at the heart of the system. There is an opportunity here to create the conditions for levelling up and for people to flourish. We can use the planning system to ensure that we are providing healthy environments and healthy homes that are fit for purpose.
I refer briefly to the amendments in this group that are not in my name. They cover very similar territory. While I will not speak to them, I support them.
I turn to Amendments 394 to 399, which are specifically about healthy homes. I will briefly explain the background to these and why I think they are necessary, before going into some detail.
I am delighted that the Government recognise that housing and health are key to levelling up, and that, in the Minister’s letter to Peers on 27 January, she wrote that the Government support the objective within the Healthy Homes Bill. However, she went on to say that this is dealt with by existing laws and/or alternative policy. With respect, I do not believe that that is the case. There is no overall statutory duty with regard to healthy homes, and it is clear to all of us that existing laws and guidance are simply not producing the results that we all want. There is some existing policy—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that addresses some of these issues, but even this is not mandatory and can be set aside by local decision-makers.
More directly, we can all see that existing policies are not working—we need only to look at some of the results. I have a photo book, which I will send to the Minister, of some of the worst examples around the country. I am happy to send it to any other noble Lord who wishes to have a copy. It contains examples of some recently developed homes. Many of them are permitted developments with, for example, redundant office blocks on industrial sites providing appalling accommodation, but this is not just about PDR.
It is reasonable to ask, and I have been asked, whether the requirements proposed in these amendments will add cost. The argument goes that you could perhaps get a larger number of homes for the same sort of money. But that is the wrong question. This is not about higher or lower cost or quality. The purpose is to eliminate homes being developed that are simply not fit for purpose. It is not about the relative cost.
I know that there are other objections around this being extra regulation, although this is not the principal barrier to development generally. I have met with high-quality developers around the country and looked at how they are developing homes and neighbourhoods. There is very little in this that they are not already doing, and they have internal processes to ensure that it happens. More generally, for the regulation system as a whole, I believe that an overarching requirement to promote health, safety and well-being will help align planning and building regulations better and could be used to reduce complexity.
Turning to the detail of the amendments, I think they provide a very sensible structure. I do not claim credit for it; it was proposed by Dr Hugh Ellis of the TCPA. In essence, they set out a duty on the Secretary of State to secure health, safety and well-being in new homes in accordance with 11 healthy homes principles, which the Secretary of State can then establish the policy on. This is not set in stone but can change from time to time as appropriate and can be interpreted differently by the Secretary of State for different areas, such as country and town areas. There is also a duty to report on progress. The key point is that this is all mandatory and that it should be reported on regularly.
Amendment 394 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to secure healthy homes. Amendment 395 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement explaining how the healthy homes principles will be used. Amendment 396 sets out the principles. Amendment 397 would require a draft of the statement on interpretation to be available to Parliament for possible comment. Amendment 398 describes the effect of the statement on different authorities. Amendment 399 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual progress report.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships as a way of securing new homes that are fit for purpose, which would also enhance health and reduce the burden on the health and care system, because we should note that unhealthy homes, far from being a cost-neutral or light-cost option, cost the NHS roughly £1.4 billion every year. Most importantly, the amendments would provide homes that offer a secure foundation for the lives of individuals and families, helping them to thrive. They would also play a significant role in levelling up. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 188, headed as it is by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young, sounds like an advertisement for a supermarket lettuce. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, I supported the Healthy Homes Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on 15 July, along with many other noble Lords who all spoke in favour at Second Reading. When the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, replied to the debate, after expressing his disappointment that the Government were not supportive of his Bill, he said:
“I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look for opportunities for this in current legislation.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1707.]
He then did what did not always happened when I was Chief Whip in another place: he followed my advice. His amendments would simply insert his Bill into this one, so today we have an opportunity to build on what was said on that occasion in July and take the debate forward.
I looked again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate:
“The Government oppose this Bill, not because they take issue with the premise of noble Lords’ arguments, but rather because they believe that the problems highlighted in the Bill are already being dealt with via alternative policy routes … Many of the proposed healthy homes principles are already covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF must be taken into account by local authorities in the preparation of their development plans, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions.”
She went on to say:
“We are intending to review the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system. This will provide an opportunity to ensure that the NPPF contributes to sustainable development as fully as possible.”
So two options are available. One is to do what the amendments would do and incorporate the Healthy Homes Bill into primary legislation. The other—and I hold no negotiating brief for the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—is for the Government to undertake that the revised NPPF will incorporate the relevant commitments in Amendments 394 to 399.
Those amendments build on what is already in the NPPF. In the Minister’s own words:
“The social objective focuses on supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places with accessible services and open spaces. More specifically, the framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. This should support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs.”
The Minister went on to say:
“This means that all plans should promote sustainable patterns of growth to meet local need, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; cols. 1702-03.]
But that is not a million miles away from what is in the noble Lord’s amendments. The Minister may want to reflect on the precise wording and have a dialogue with the noble Lord, but her objective of mitigating climate change, which I just referred to, is not a million miles from proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 396, that
“all new homes should secure radical reductions in carbon emissions in line with the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
If my noble friend the Minister has “resist” on the top of her speaking notes, is she prepared to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, how his agenda can best be taken forward?
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 484. I thank my supporters: the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I also declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet, and as a project director working for Atkins.
It would be helpful if I started with some definitions; I hope I am not teaching too many noble Lords to suck eggs. There are two types of emissions from buildings: operational carbon, which is those emissions due to energy and water use; and embodied carbon, which is those emissions related to construction materials. Operational carbon emissions are already limited by Part L of the Building Regulations, but there is no such parallel regulation limiting embodied carbon emissions.
For a long time, operational carbon emissions have accounted for the majority of buildings’ emissions. However, with decarbonisation of the grid, operational carbon has reduced in recent years and that trend is set to continue, particularly with the introduction of electric heating. As such, the embodied carbon emissions in construction contribute an increasing proportion of the whole-life carbon emissions for most buildings, with one study indicating that over two-thirds of a low-energy new building’s emissions are embodied.
UK embodied carbon emissions represent some 50 million tonnes of emissions per year, which is more than aviation and shipping combined—a huge quantity of emissions that is completely unregulated and has increased in recent years. We think of the huge effort that is going into mitigating the carbon emissions of aviation and shipping: we have a sustainable aviation fuels plan, jet zero and plans for corridors for emission-free shipping based on ammonia and hydrogen. But for embodied carbon the current plans in place are sparse—although industry is making some good progress in reporting—so we have a problem.
Lord Boyce, who sat on these Benches but passed away, sadly, late last year, had a saying which went something like, “There is no such thing as problems, only solutions in disguise”. The solution here is a fantastic campaign, which has been under way for a number of years, to add a new part, Part Z, to the building regulations; this would start with reporting and then move on to regulation of embodied carbon emissions. It has wide support across industry; 200 of the country’s leading developers, clients, contractors, architects, engineers and institutions have written statements of support. These include organisations such as British Land, Willmott Dixon, Sir Robert McAlpine and Laing O’Rourke—I could go on—and industry bodies such as the Construction Industry Council, the Concrete Centre and the Steel Construction Institute; so there is wide support right across industry.
Industry already has the tools necessary to respond to Amendment 484 and, indeed, is voluntarily using them. Regulation would simply unlock the final door to enable the existing mechanisms to run smoothly and to ensure a level playing field. It has already been the subject of a Private Member’s Bill put forward by Jerome Mayhew in another place, which has enjoyed wide cross-party support.
Many countries in Europe are already proceeding with the approach outlined in the amendment. These include France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Norway. It is not only about the emissions cost; we risk being left behind in the opportunities that the amendment will unlock if we do not proceed with it soon. These opportunities include the benefits of a standardised approach to reporting—rather than the patchwork quilt of the many approaches that exist currently—which would reduce overall costs to industry, and the treasure trove of data that would be generated and could then be used to inform further decarbonisation efforts, both in voluntary targets and in leading towards eventual regulation.
To add to this, the policy signal provided by this amendment would mean that the UK could then develop in growing markets such as steel recycling, an important area that could be developed in the UK. Rather than exporting scrap and importing recycled steel as we currently do, we could invest in that industry in the UK, as is currently done in the US and Europe. Low-carbon cement is another example; if the signal were given, attracting investment and moving that from lab scale to implementation would be much more of a priority—likewise, low-carbon building materials such as non-plastic insulation and the retrofit and reuse market.
So what is currently going on within government? The Government’s construction playbook calls for carbon assessments on all public projects. However, it provides no details as to how that should take place or what an appropriate carbon emissions level is. This leads to many inefficiencies in differing approaches to assessments, increasing overall costs to the taxpayer.
The key ongoing activity is a DHLUC consultation on embodied carbon reporting, which is due to report later this year. Our amendment has been drafted to align with that consultation; it states that regulations must be made within six months of the Act being passed. This amendment would give the Government a ready-made legislative vehicle to implement these regulations once the outputs of the consultation have been defined. All the pieces of the puzzle would then be in place; otherwise, I fear that we would have much longer to wait to make parliamentary time available—we need to move quickly and seize the opportunity here.
Working in business myself, one area of concern that I am very conscious of is to avoid placing additional burdens upon small and medium-sized enterprises. Whole-life carbon assessments will involve some additional costs to businesses, at least initially while tools and approaches are being refined. This is why we have placed limits within the amendment; it applies only to building works with a total useful floor area of 1,000 square metres or over and to developments with more than 10 dwellings. This shields smaller developers from the initial costs of undertaking whole-life carbon assessments.
Finally, I will go into a little more detail on how the amendment would work. The overall strategy is to “report first, limit later”. This follows the precedents set elsewhere in Europe and makes the transition towards zero-carbon construction easier, while sending a clear signal that legislated limits are coming. The amendment deals with the initial reporting aspect, with the intent that later regulations would cover embodied carbon limits, which would in themselves be informed by the initial reporting phase. As I alluded to earlier, approaches to many of the aspects in the amendment have already been developed and are being used voluntarily by industry; for example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has defined a methodology for calculating embodied carbon.
The emissions footprint that embodied carbon represents means that we need to move forward with urgency and help to enable industry to bring forward solutions. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is an ideal and timely enabler to make this happen.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 484 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, which was so comprehensively and expertly laid out before us. I declare my interests as president of the Sustainable Energy Association and a member of the Peers for the Planet coalition.
This amendment would require housebuilders and other developers to produce an assessment of the amount of carbon for which the construction of a proposed project would be responsible over its life. This includes the carbon embodied in the building materials used and the construction processes deployed.
Everyone recognises the necessity of building in ways that limit carbon emissions once the building is constructed, but that is only half the story. Half of total emissions—possibly more—associated with new building come from the carbon embodied in its construction. Concrete, steel and other materials use vast quantities of fossil fuels, as does transportation, sometimes across continents, of heavy building materials.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has shown that—as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said—the embodied carbon in new buildings accounts for more emissions than aviation and shipping put together; that is a great statistic. Yet this huge contributor to climate change is virtually invisible. Measuring and assessing embodied carbon alongside the subsequent emissions over a building’s lifespan should make all parties think harder when choosing building materials. There are many alternatives to the worst-offending components. This amendment will provide the basis for eliciting the evidence for more sophisticated decision-making.
The amendment could also lead to greater priority being given to making the best use of the buildings we already have before demolishing and replacing existing structures and adding to landfill. Demolition and construction also create dust and air pollution on a massive scale, amounting to some 30% of harmful particulates in urban areas. Retaining—rather than clearing and replacing—existing housing can also have social and community benefits. Demolition of Victorian terraced streets in the 1960s and 1970s is now seen to have been, in many cases, an unfortunate mistake. The amendment forces us to pay more attention in the wider levelling-up agenda to the regeneration of the homes we have today, rather than concentrating, as the Bill does, on the planning and delivery of new homes.
Action to upgrade existing properties—with green grants, regulations on energy efficiency for lettings, tax incentives and more—does not only address the decarbonisation challenge, it improves quality of life, reduces fuel poverty and saves NHS budgets. Recent research by the Building Research Establishment found that excessively cold homes, for example, are costing the NHS £540 million a year. The improvement of existing housing would also be accelerated, and the stock of available affordable homes increased, by the introduction of a national housing conversion fund to finance acquisition and modernisation of poor-quality, privately rented properties.
As the levelling-up programme moves onward, these regeneration measures will demand more of government’s attention. In the meantime, this amendment would achieve a more credible basis for judging the environmental impact of building practices and I strongly support it and the creation of a new Part Z to the building regulations.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his amendments, and join the noble Lord, Lord Stunell and Lord Young, in doing so. I spoke on the Healthy Homes Bill on Friday morning, so I will try to not repeat all of it, because some Members here in Committee will have been there on that occasion. I will just say that designing for the future and retrofitting for the present go hand in hand. It is a no-brainer that homes need to be both warm and well ventilated. It is a no-brainer that the community around the dwellings we have and those we build needs to be both sustainable and a contributor to the health and well-being of those living in those homes.
I recall one small occasion when my predecessor as leader of Sheffield City Council was getting deeply frustrated at the cost of building. He decided to design his own bungalow on the back of fag packet. This bungalow’s heating was to be provided by a gas fire that was strategically placed so that when the door of the one bedroom was open, it would heat the lounge, the bedroom and, if you were lucky, might get some heat into the small kitchen as well. When I took over, I am afraid we decided not to go ahead with these mini-dwellings, but we tried to put in standards that would be lasting, supportive of the well-being of individuals and their families, and sustainable in terms of the different uses to which they would be put.
In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the word “safety” is also used. We should be planning, as we age, to stay in dwellings—as well as moving to more suitable accommodation—because they have been planned or redesigned to allow that. Doing it from the beginning is obviously a great deal more affordable, but doing it now will save an enormous amount of resources in future. I said, on the Healthy Homes Bill, that if in Lanarkshire and west Yorkshire, Rowntree and Cadbury, and even Wedgwood—who was not the greatest of employers but understood entirely that his workers could not come to work and be able to work if they did not live in healthy homes—could do that all those years ago, surely we can get it right now. It is beholden on us to ensure that the guidance and support from the centre encourages the best possible practice at local level.
To finish, one of my very long-standing friends was canvassing in the local elections in Sheffield a week or two ago. He came across a Labour Party member who said she was not going to vote Labour on this occasion. When he asked why, she said it was because the Labour Party would impose 15-minute neighbourhoods in which people would be forced to live in a very confined area, and she was against it. Well, I am against it as well; it is not Labour Party policy. So I will put a word out as a vice president of the TCPA. When planners come up with very good ideas about how we should be able to reach good facilities easily and in a carbon-neutral way, and when we encourage people to rebuild the communities of the past in new ways—as people would aspire to do in villages if, as we discussed last Monday, they were not being taken over by holiday homes—we have to be very careful in the language we use, because there are people on the internet who believe that the best intentions of many people are somehow a conspiracy. We live in a crazy world; we need to get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I am glad that today we have the opportunity to consider the health and well-being dimensions of planning. It is my view that development planning cannot be truly successful if it does not also enhance health and well-being. I speak first in favour of Amendment 188 and Amendments 394 to 399 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The right reverend Prelates the Lord Bishop of London, the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford, the Lord Bishop of Manchester and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, who have previously spoken on these issues, regret they cannot be in their place today. However, I have no doubt they would want to give their support to these amendments were they in the Chamber.
I am sure noble Lords will recall stories of what can happen when living conditions deteriorate. Awaab Ishak’s death in December 2020 from a respiratory condition caused by “extensive mould” was an incredibly tragic story, as was that of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s death, partly caused by toxic air near where she lived. It is welcome that the Government are working to deliver Awaab’s Law through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and that Ella’s Law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, continues its journey through Parliament in the other place.
Today, we have the opportunity to put health and well-being at the heart of regulating our built environment: an essential step to preventing such awful outcomes and instead facilitating the flourishing of individuals and communities. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, set out the healthy homes principles for new housing stock. Those 11 principles range from safety
“in relation to the risk of fire”
to
“year-round thermal comfort”
and more. Surely these are planning standards that we all can agree are good to uphold.
Not only that but, as we have heard, these principles would significantly benefit the public purse. Research by the Building Research Establishment found that 2.6 million homes in England—roughly 11% of them—were of poor quality and hazardous to their occupants. As a result, those poor-quality homes cost the NHS, as we have heard, up to £1.4 billion every year. My view echoes that of the Archbishops’ housing commission that
“good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying”.
Such housing would significantly reduce the strain placed on the NHS. I believe these amendments to be a valuable addition to this Bill.
The Government have acknowledged that housing and health are key to the levelling-up agenda. However, the Bill as it stands contains no clear provisions that achieve that objective. I echo the challenge to the assertion made by the Minister’s all-Peers letter of 27 January that the healthy homes provisions are being dealt with by existing laws or alternative policy. While the NPPF and national technical housing standards cover some elements of issues addressed by these principles, these are not mandatory legal duties for local decision makers, and nor is there an overall statutory duty on the Secretary of State to uphold the healthy homes principles. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept these amendments.
Amendment 241, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, would also be an invaluable addition to the Bill. Its introduction of a new statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being would also help the Government to address poor health, described in their own levelling up White Paper, as we have heard, as
“One of the gravest inequalities faced by our most disadvantaged communities”.
By requiring local authorities to include policies that meet this objective in their local development plans, his amendment will help to transform our built environments into spaces that help create good health and well-being, and, as such, reduce health inequalities.
As pointed out by the Better Planning Coalition, this proposed new clause is a necessary addition given that pre-existing documents and provisions have not been sufficient to stop the growing health inequalities in recent years. I refer to research by Professor Sir Michael Marmot of the Institute of Health Equity, which found that the health gap between wealthy and deprived areas grew between 2010 and 2020. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider this amendment.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and the fact that I have a family member currently working in the energy efficiency space. I added my name to Amendment 484, which was so comprehensively explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It concerns an important and underrecognised area in terms of climate change and the reduction of emissions. I hope that the Minister will take it very seriously.
I have tabled Amendment 504GF in this group, which deals with the urgent need to make progress in energy efficiency through a warmer homes and businesses action plan. The contributions already made today show clearly the synergy between the amendments on healthy homes and my amendment on energy efficiency. The health of those who live in the UK’s housing stock which is damp, cold or leaky, and worse than the housing stock in most of Europe, is impacted day in and day out by the conditions in which they live. We should all be concerned about this, but it is not only the health of those of our fellow citizens that would be addressed by taking action on energy efficiency, such as insulation or new forms of heating.
Investing in insulation and decarbonisation has many other benefits for individuals and society. It reduces costs not only for bill payers but for the taxpayer, who is currently spending vast sums subsidising energy bills through the energy price guarantee. It helps to reduce greenhouse gases and improve our air quality. It contributes to our net-zero target and, in an increasingly unstable world, electrifying the heat in our homes and making them energy efficient has become an issue of national security as well. Yet we appear as a nation to be in a position of stasis on energy efficiency.
Short-term scheme after short-term scheme underdelivers, damaging confidence that the wider task can be achieved. Scandalously, hundreds of thousands of homes are being built every year which will require future retrofitting because we did not implement the standards early enough. We have our most vulnerable citizens living in fuel poverty in cold and leaky homes. We have an industry largely waiting for confirmation from the Government before they get on with what will be a huge job of scaling up the market and developing the skills we need. Insulating, retrofitting and installing low-carbon technology all play a significant role, but so too do the planning system, funding and government leadership. We need to make the progress that will bring with it good jobs, economic security and benefits in reducing our carbon emissions.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has put before the Committee a powerful programme, which is actually a renewal programme for our country and for every community and household within it. He set out a compelling case for doing so, obviously based on a lot of campaigning skill and professional skill as well. Other noble Lords have added a lot of detail about the benefits that would come.
I have put my name to seven of the amendments. I do not plan to say everything that has already been said. However, I will pick up one or two points that have already arisen. First, we can anticipate that the Minister is going to say, “Don’t worry, it is all fixed. Everything is already included”. I say to the Minister that our confidence in that would certainly be improved if we did not have a record of permitted development rights which have put into play not just a few but tens of thousands of homes that are deliberately below the standards mandated for and expected of all other new homes. The Government apparently support the Healthy Homes Bill in principle, but you have to get past the principle. All the work has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is all here. All the Minister needs to say is, “That’s fine, we will accept the amendments”.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby spoke about the impact on health in communities. I would add life expectancy in communities. There is a very significant connection between well-being and life expectancy and the number of healthy years that people can expect to live. It is surely the essence of the levelling-up agenda that those discrepancies and disparities are put right. I hope to hear some favourable words from the Minister, particularly as it is the next big step needed at a time when the traditional reliance on economic growth as the sole measurement of a country’s strength and resilience is losing traction.
It is losing traction not just with pale green fringe operators such as me but with tens of thousands of ordinary households around the country, which have seen all the economic growth bypass them completely. They have seen a standstill in their living standards, with little hope of progression. Building their resilience and well-being, leading to community growth, is the way ahead. It is, surely, a direction of travel that the Minister can accept. Almost by definition, the biggest losers of the mirage of growth of the last decade are those most in need of levelling up, which this Bill is supposed to be delivering. I urge the Government to listen to this debate with great care and convey to their colleagues in Whitehall the urgency of responding in a positive way to all that they hear today on this pivotal issue.
I have also put my name to Amendment 484 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The noble Lord made a compelling case for improving our 23 million homes and all other buildings in England to support the health and well-being of those who live in them and to make them carbon-neutral. If I had spotted it in time, I would have certainly added my name to Amendment 504GF in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with every word she used.
I remind noble Lords that I am an honorary fellow of the ICE and an honorary president of the National Home Improvement Council. I also lay claim to steering through the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 in the other place, which set in train the subsequent uplifting of building standards on energy performance. However, that does not give me any grounds for complacency.
As the noble Baroness said in introducing her amendment, we have been building homes to a lower standard in energy-efficiency terms than we needed to, because in 2016 the new Conservative Government scrapped the move to zero-carbon standards which the coalition Government had signed off. We have built, pretty slowly and with lots of hiccups, 1 million new homes since then to lower standards than would have been the case if those proposals had come into force in 2016. That means that those 1 million homes themselves will have to be upgraded before we get to the standard required by 2050.
Of course, I have already mentioned the rush of converted homes under permitted development rights. It is not just energy performance that is bad but even basics such as daylighting may be missing in their case. The Town and Country Planning Association drew attention to that in its brief. Again, I have been pre-empted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby quoting the Building Research Establishment figures of the millions of people living in unhealthy homes with hazardous conditions far away from the well-being that should be the case—all of whom would be beneficiaries of a fresh start with a healthy homes policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out that the existing regulations are not tough enough even to capture all operational carbon emissions, which are responsible for about 30% of our carbon emissions. It is not a small slice, but he is also right in saying that the slice is declining because slowly we are decarbonising the way that we run our homes. However, the still provisional date of 2025 to finally catch up with the standards that were going to come in 2016 means that every lost year is adding more poor-quality housing stock and building in costs for the future.
Amendment 484 aims higher and goes further in requiring the Secretary of State to get cracking on the regulations to measure and limit the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has laid out very clearly what that is and how it can be achieved. This is not a wild swing at an impossible task; it is based on serious and important work by those who have been developing the Part Z initiative to be a new part of the building regulations. It has, as he said, the backing of the industry as well as many others. I hope again that we can hear the Minister say that there will not be any more dilly-dallying in the department, that it is moving forward to see what its version of Part Z would be and will be bringing it to us in the form of regulations very shortly. Just for once I will not make my traditional complaint about too many regulations. This is one that is needed, and it is needed very quickly.
That is a practical first step to cutting carbon emissions from our built environment. It opens the way to thinking in new ways about how to use and reuse existing buildings—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Best, also made. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and I look forward to hearing that he is going to take back to the department and to his officials that the route to zero carbon needs to be taken seriously and that the need to level up by adopting the healthy homes standards set out in these amendments should be followed through. If, in response to all of this, the answer is no and the intention to act is “not at all”, Ministers can expect to hear more about all these issues on Report.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 241 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I support the various amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has tabled on healthy homes, and other amendments in this group.
I start by taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who said, rightly, that we need to be open and explicit in what we are asking for. That is quite a straightforward challenge. I suspect that most people in this country want to live in congenial and liveable neighbourhoods where kids can walk to school, where there is somewhere to play outdoors in the holidays, where older folks can pop along to a local shop, perhaps bumping into a neighbour along the way; neighbourhoods in which we design out pollution, obesity and crime. All of that is the art of the possible. Not doing so, even though in the short term it may appear that it will be more costly to get it right, has hidden long-term costs for the taxpayer, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned—whether that is obesity, pollution or crime. The fact is that these decisions, when they are made in the built environment, have consequences which last for a generation. Bad decisions have consequences which spill over for many years to come.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but am also attracted to others in this group. I note what the noble Baroness said about the synergy of the amendments in this group, which relate to health, housing and energy efficiency, and I think that is quite true. I declare my interests as set out in the register and note that I am also a member of Peers for the Planet.
The amendment in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is not overly prescriptive. It simply requires the Government to set out details of how buildings can be decarbonised and become more energy efficient. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has set out, this can be achieved in a variety of ways. It is for the Government to set out the precise trajectory, but it is important that that trajectory is set.
Your Lordships have debated similar amendments to other Bills, as the noble Baroness has said. There might be an element of Groundhog Day, certainly for the Minister; but I think there is an element of Groundhog Day for the rest of us as well, because it is normally met with the cry of either “It is already being done”—which I think is open to question—or “It does not need to be done”, which is certainly open to question. I hope, therefore, that we can, ahead of Report, agree some constructive moves on how we can improve some of the oldest housing stock in Europe; the need to update and enhance that housing stock is very clear.
The benefits of fixing the old and leaking properties are not limited to simply helping people with their bills, although it will of course do that. It is not simply a question of creating more jobs in the green economy, although it would do that too. It is also, in an increasingly unstable world, with geopolitical complexities that we see every day, important that we modify our buildings, that they become more energy efficient and that we are able to be more energy self-sufficient. Also, as has been noted by the noble Baroness, we are looking at this in terms of pressure on public resources. This will enable the Government and the country to spend less on subsidising people’s energy bills if those bills come down. So it is a win-win in just about every situation.
Homes with good insulation, a heat pump and solar panels will pay 60% of the average UK energy bill. That is a considerable achievement and something that we should be looking to do. We need progress in the area. The Government should demonstrate leadership in this area at a time when we have seen leadership fail elsewhere, notably in the United States when President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris climate change agreement. That now has been rectified by the current President, but there is every need for action internationally on climate change. There is a pressing imperative for us to do more. So I hope the Government will accept this amendment—certainly the spirit of this amendment—and sit down and discuss how we can achieve things, not just on this amendment but on others in this group. I lend my support to the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I particularly want to speak to Amendments 241 and 504GF, which essentially seek to embrace the planning system within wider health and well-being and health-inequality policies. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to be positive in his response.
I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rather took me back when he mentioned Herbert Manzoni, who was city engineer in Birmingham from 1935 to 1963.When I became a councillor in Birmingham in 1980, I was reliably informed in the induction programme that the Manzoni plans were kept in the safe in the city engineer’s office, and that policy on roads in the city continued to be dictated not by the political control of the city council but by what Manzoni had drawn in his plans.
I have seen academic arguments that suggest that, by the late 1970s, the city had started to change; but I think it was actually in the 1990s when the proposals to bypass Kings Heath/Moseley with a huge dual carriageway, along the lines of the Aston Expressway, were defeated by a group of people, including my wife Selina Stewart, called Birmingham United Against the Motorway Plans. When the noble Lord described the kind of neighbourhood that he thought we would all want to live in, he was, of course, describing Kings Heath as is, as a result of that campaign. Later in the year, of course, we will see the reopening of Kings Heath railway station, which will be the pièce de resistance of the wonderful community that I live in, in the most beautiful city in this country.
I want to make three points just to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said. We know that the scale of health inequalities in this country is frighteningly large. The work produced by Oxford University and the London School of Tropical Medicine last week showed that, in 1952, the UK had one of the best life-expectancy records of any country. We have now slipped down to the low 20s, and the widening gap between the poorest and the richest people is really quite frightening and extraordinary. In the context of a levelling-up Bill, surely we have to focus on it.
Secondly, we know that local authorities have long had a tradition of seeking to improve public health. Prior to 1974, they were the principal public health bodies; from 2012, they resumed that position. During Covid, the directors of public health in particular showed their mettle when they had to take some very tough decisions at the local level.
Various mechanisms enable local authorities to influence health: health and well-being boards and, under the new arrangements of the integrated care system, integrated care partnerships. Those are all designed to give local government more say in the direction of health and, by definition, in dealing with health inequalities. The issue is whether they have enough beef: do they have the levers to make their potential influence felt? We obviously know their role in planning, air quality, the environment, leisure and various other facets. We know that they can have a really important role for health, but so far that influence has been patchy. We are seeking here to put some levers in place to use the planning system to enhance the promotion of good public health and tackling health inequalities.
There will be discussions between now and Report because it is clear that warmer homes comes within that wider context. In the end, I hope the House can assert itself to ensure that, within the planning system and guidance, a reflection on the need for planning to contribute to overall health will be part of local authorities’ responsibilities in the future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the group and will speak briefly in favour of Amendments 188 and 241, on reducing health inequalities and improving well-being. These excellent amendments pick up the theme of Amendment 28, ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and to which I added my name. All of these amendments emphasise the importance of walkable neighbourhoods and safe walking and cycling routes in nature to improve health and well-being, which is one of the themes of this debate.
I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is collaborating with local health providers and volunteers to encourage not only disadvantaged groups but individuals with specific health challenges to make better use of the downs.
There is an increasing body of evidence to show that access to nature and green spaces has a positive impact on health and well-being outcomes. It can help to address a range of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety and loneliness. The Government themselves have accepted the health benefits of access to nature in pursuing the idea of social prescribing pilots, which also have the benefit of cutting back on expensive and often ineffective drug prescriptions. The NHS has supported social prescribing being rolled out on a local basis, but this can work only if there are the facilities and infrastructure to expand access to nature and walking therapies. These amendments would enable joined-up government policies, in a way that is all too often lacking. That would require local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of 20-minute neighbourhoods and access to nature.
This is not just an issue of health outcomes; it is also fundamental for inequalities. In her earlier contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, quoted a Public Health England report which says that
“the most affluent 20% of wards in England have five times the amount of parks or general green space compared with the most deprived 10% of wards”.
We know that those living in the poorest and most nature-depleted areas also suffer the impact of premature death and illness from air pollution.
There is an urgent need to rescue abandoned and neglected community areas to recreate green space and plant more trees. There is also a need to create green pathways and networks that can lead out to larger areas of green parks and waterways. We should encourage communities’ rights to reclaim unused and derelict land for microparks and growing spaces to feed their neighbourhoods. This should be built into the planning system in the way that these amendments require, and I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to support them. If the Government do not feel able to provide that support today, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young, will return to this on Report.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I feel compelled to say, “Hear, hear”, every time a noble Lord gets up to speak on this. As a chartered surveyor, I am, in effect, a witness of evidence to the fact here, having spent a very large part of my career looking at and advising on older buildings, defective modern buildings and everything in between. I support all the amendments in this group, which are at the heart of what we know needs to be delivered by way of appropriate housing standards. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his untiring efforts on the healthy homes standard; he deserves all of our appreciation for that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, there appears to be a clear consensus across your Lordships’ House that we need to improve the mental and physical health and overall well-being of citizens, and that we can do that, in part, by improving the area around where people live and the homes in which they live.
Amendment 241, to which I have added my name, and which was powerfully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, deals with the issue of the area around people’s homes and how it could be improved. A very good example of that is access to nature, and it is worth remembering that the Environment Secretary, Thérèse Coffey, very recently said:
“Nature is vital for our survival, crucial to our food security, clean air, and clean water as well as health and well-being”.
So access to nature is important for health and well-being purposes, as well as the other things that she mentioned.
When I was a Minister in what was then the Department for Communities and Local Government, I had a responsibility, for a while, for green spaces, and I had an opportunity to see some tremendous work being done by some planners. However, I was very acutely aware of the enormous pressures that they were under to achieve further access to green spaces. They faced huge conflicts, where many other issues often took priority over access to green spaces, and therefore priority over citizens’ health.
As part of the Government’s recently announced plans for nature recovery—which, in part, we were discussing in relation to earlier amendments—the House will know that the Government have set a target to ensure that everyone will live within 15 minutes of a green space or water, but, unfortunately, there is very little detail expressing how that will be achieved. So one of the benefits of Amendment 241, it seems to me, is that it will help the Government achieve that particular objective. However, as others have said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, this is about more than just access to green spaces: it is about access to amenities and being able to get to them easily by walking, wheeling or cycling, which are all forms of exercise that improve health.
It is worth noting that in 2021 Sustrans carried out a survey that found that walking, wheeling and cycling together prevented almost 130,000 serious long-term health conditions every year. Yet we are still building developments that are far from existing settlements, and where you cannot even buy a pint—perhaps I should say a litre these days—of milk, or at least you will not be able to until a later phase of development. So people have to resort to using their cars or, where it is available, public transport, thereby again reducing exercise opportunities.
Planning departments can play a role in enabling people to exercise as part of their everyday lives, but they need help. We know from the Sustrans survey that 64% of planners who responded called for “robust … guidance or regulation” to help them prioritise health and well-being. I believe that this amendment—which is based, as we have heard, on the 20-minute neighbourhood approach—would help achieve that, while also providing the flexibility that planners need because they know their area best.
As we have heard, subsequent amendments in the group look at ways in which we can improve the housing in which people live in order to improve their overall well-being. Like others, I pay enormous tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for the work he has done leading so many of us in the direction he has taken us with his string of amendments, which I very much hope will be incorporated, in some form, in the final version of the Bill.
I will pick up on one aspect that is not covered by his amendments, but is covered by Amendment 504GF, which was very well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to which I have added my name. It does not deal with new homes being built but looks at existing properties and how they could be improved to help the health and well-being of their residents and to achieve our net-zero target.
One of the reasons I am particularly attracted to this amendment—there are many others—is that it introduces into legislation targets for improving the energy efficiency of existing properties. As the Minister knows, this is an issue that I have raised on very many occasions in your Lordships’ House. I am always pointing out that there are 17 million homes that are currently below the acceptable energy efficiency level. In one of my many attempts to do this, I referred three years ago to the report by the Climate Change Committee, UK Housing: Fit for the Future?, which assessed the preparedness of our housing stock for the challenge of climate change. It concluded that the measures to reduce
“emissions … from the UK’s 29 million homes”—
responsible for 17% of all carbon emissions—had
“stalled, while energy use in homes”
had increased, and adaptations of housing stock to meet the impact of climate change were
“lagging far behind what is needed to keep us safe and comfortable”.
Three years on, the CCC’s most recent report shows that the situation is still dire. The decline in work to retrofit existing properties has hardly been halted. It says:
“Installation rates for building insulation have plummeted over the last decade, and are far below the level they need to be”
to deliver on UK climate targets.
Of course, as I have said in your Lordships’ House on previous occasions, I welcome a number of recent initiatives by this Government—ECO+, for example, and the announcement only three days ago of £1.4 billion to improve energy efficiency in social housing, although it is from a pot that was previously announced—and I look forward to hearing plans from the newly established Energy Efficiency Taskforce.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I hope the Lords spiritual will forgive me for borrowing from their script, but I feel like I am in green heaven, because everything I have just been hearing from all sides of the Committee is what I and the Green Party have been banging on about for the last decade and, indeed, much longer. I was looking back at an interview I did with Red Pepper just after I was elected as Green leader in 2012, talking about how people were being left in cold homes, mourning something that has not been mentioned tonight but that we really should talk about: the hideous level of the UK’s excess winter deaths. That picks up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the way our society is going backwards in life expectancy, particularly healthy life expectancy.
Green policy for decades has said that environmental and social justice are indivisible. By environment, we mean the physical built environment as well as the natural environment. So you will not find any Green names on any of these amendments, because we did not need to be there. Nearly all these amendments have full cross-party backing, including from the Conservative Party, and non-party backing—and I join many others in applauding the huge amount of work done by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the issue of buildings. All this fits together. In Oral Questions earlier today, in a debate about diets, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that it is not just about diets; it is also about exercise. Well, how about we have homes built with active transport in mind; how about we have walking paths, cycling paths and safe ways to get around?
The noble Lord just referred to access to nature and a children’s right to nature. How about we write that into law and say that every child has that right? The proposals in this amendment point us in that direction and put them, crucially, into the Bill. I am not going to repeat everything that has been said, because so much has been said. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, picked up something I have long been banging on about, and that is security by design. Rather than talking about bobbies on the beat, rather than trying to deal with the problem we have already created, let us build out the problem of neighbourhoods that work for people and that are secure.
I am going to really restrain myself here, because I could just get so excited hearing so many things that I agree with from every side of the Committee, but I will not: I am going to do the classic Green thing and point out some hard truths. One of these is that, while I said this was green heaven, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, put some silver sprinkles on that heaven by bringing up growth. We have had growth for decades; we have chased GDP growth and look where it has got us. Look at the actual fabric of our society, the utter ill health, mental and physical, of our society. I say to both of the largest parties, who are currently waging a political duel about who can offer more growth: let us talk about the healthy society that the amendments here would collectively put together in the Bill.
The other awkward truth is what is behind all this. Who is building these homes that immediately need to be retrofitted to be even basically liveable and healthy? Who is building these homes in places where there is no public transport and no provision for active transport? We have a handful of mass housebuilders who are driven by profit. It is the legal responsibility of the directors to maximise profit, which is why we need these amendments to the Bill. All parts of our society need to see that there are controls on the profit motive, so our society works for people and planet and does not keep being milked for profit at the cost of the rest of us.
We have to have these controls and rules, and these rules have to come from government, and from Parliament if they are not going to come directly from government. I would say that your Lordships’ House has a huge opportunity with this Bill, and not just this Bill: tomorrow, we will be on the Energy Bill; and how about Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, who has a big drive on for solar panels on every suitable new home? Why on earth not? We need to join all this up and make it happen: this is our responsibility to the people of today for the climate, and our responsibility to the people of the future.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have been listening to an excellent debate, and I just want to say one thing that relates to Amendment 484 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others. I just hope that, when my noble friend is responding or takes some of these very important points away, he responds not simply to the question of what is required in Building Regulations but what is achievable in terms of the sustainable framework for buildings. I declare a registered interest as counsel to Low Associates, which, between 2018 and 2020 was working with the European Commission on Level(s), which is a European Commission sustainable framework for buildings.
Such certification schemes exist. In this country, we have the Building Research Establishment’s environmental assessment method; the Americans have Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; in France, they have gone further and legislated in RE 2020. The point I want to make is that, yes, we should focus on what is needed in order to secure an assessment of whole life-cycle carbon emissions in a building, but actually that is not enough, in my view. We should be increasingly looking at greenhouse gas emissions in total, at a circular economy and the reuse and recycling of materials, including in the demolition of buildings or the repurposing of buildings. We should be looking at water use and water resources. And we can put these, as many organisations increasingly do in certification schemes, in formats that are also very relevant to the performance assessment, including the cost assessment, of buildings, for those who have to invest in buildings, and indeed, in the public sector for those whose job it is to procure buildings.
We have structures that are available. We can see both voluntary schemes and—in the case of France and one or two others—legislative schemes that can focus on the broader environmental, health-related and social objectives of our buildings. These schemes recognise that, across Europe, 36% of greenhouse gas emissions are derived from our building stock. We have to deal with this; it is a central part of our environmental objectives. I hope Ministers are looking at both the statutory minimum requirements and a certification process that encourages the whole industry to move to a higher level of performance.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, yesterday I had the privilege of walking along a body of water called Frenchman’s Creek, which—some noble Lords may know—was made famous by the novel of Daphne du Maurier. I was walking through what is one of the remains of the UK’s temperate rainforest. I was in a green space, and I was next to a blue space, which fed out into the Helford River, which went out into the channel. You could see the ocean beyond that. That is why I support Amendment 241, in particular. This amendment is all about giving everybody access to those green and blue spaces, which is a privilege I have, living in the far south-west of this nation. I was walking, but I might have been running or cycling, although I do not think I would have been wheeling. All those types of exercise are absolutely vital to everybody.
To me, the theme of this debate has been that if we really want to level up, as my noble friend Lord Stunell mentioned, health and life expectancy are fundamental to that. That is why I support Amendment 241 and many others here as well. I hope that the Government will be able to positively respond to that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very important discussion—a very long discussion—with an awful lot for the Minister to consider, both in his summing up and afterwards. It has been important because it is about how our planning system affects our health. It has also brought some specific tangible changes which could be prioritised to make a difference, and which are currently ignored in the Bill and in the National Planning Policy Framework review. This is despite the fact that there are not just missions on decent homes but missions on narrowing the gap of healthy life expectancy and on improving well-being. If this is a levelling-up Bill, these threads need to go through it. The planning section is an important area whereby we can make changes to health and well-being. I think the link to planning is particularly relevant when you look at homes, home standards and the standards of our future homes. The amendments here address these gaps. If we are genuinely going to make a difference here, we have to put people right at the centre of our planning system.
First, I will look at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I have an amendment in this group to probe the supply of healthy homes, but the debate around the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, have clearly covered what my amendment was looking to probe, in a far more effective way. As has already been said, we need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on his tenacity and refusal to give up on the fact that people’s health and well-being need to be put right at the heart of how we regulate the built environment. We should also congratulate the Town and Country Planning Association and its campaign to do the same. This is a very important issue.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the owner of let residential property. As we have heard, all the amendments in this group draw attention in their different ways to the healthy homes agenda, whether relating to the health of the population or that of the planet, as regards both planning policy and the physical delivery of new homes. There is a lot to cover, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if my response is fairly lengthy.
I begin by paying tribute, as other noble Lords have, to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for the assiduous work he has done in championing the healthy homes agenda—including through his Private Member’s Bill, which is currently proceeding through your Lordships’ House. Amendments 188 and 395 to 399, which articulate the key principles for healthy homes and are supported by Amendments 241 and 281D in this group, transport us back to the Second Reading debate of that Bill, which took place last July. Members of the Committee will recall from that debate that what separated the noble Lord’s position from that of the Government was not any issue of principle around the desirability of healthy homes. Where we had to part company with him—and, I am afraid, must continue to do so—was on the extent to which new legislation should duplicate legal provisions already in place, and, to the extent that it does not duplicate it, how much more prescriptive the law should be about the way in which new housing is planned for and designed.
Healthy homes and neighbourhoods are important for our communities, and it is because of this that our existing laws, systems, planning policy and design guidance all focus on achieving that objective. Indeed, the whole purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework already contains very clear policy on sustainable development. It includes good design; how to plan for sustainable modes of transport, including walking and cycling; an integrated approach to the location of housing; economic uses; and the requirement for community services and facilities. It recognises the importance of open space and green infrastructure for health, well-being and recreation, and it contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places.
One part of achieving sustainable development is ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. Local planning authorities should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places and make sufficient provision for housing. The framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes, while at the same time ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.
The framework sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future. It should help to shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience, encourage the reuse of existing resources and support renewable and low-carbon energy. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I really appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into but would he concede that these initiatives are all by way of announcements rather than actual programmes for action? Every week, I hear from people who work in the industry about their uncertainty over the actual programme that the Government have and the strength of belief that they should put into the assurances issued because there have been so many false dawns. I do not want to rejoin the debate completely but I urge the Minister not just to read out a catalogue of initiatives and press releases but to tell us some hard news about progress planned and delivered.
Earl Howe (Con)
I have already spoken for rather a long time. If I can add some further detail to what I have already said, I think it would be appropriate for me to write to noble Lords about that. I hope and believe that the Committee will welcome the announcements that the Government have made and the direction of travel that we have set. We could be criticised if we had not announced such a direction of travel because there is no disagreement in principle between any of us as to how important this agenda is.
On the goal that I have set out—the phasing out of fossil fuel boilers and the scaling up of heat pump deployment—we are currently taking steps towards decarbonising heat, including through the £450 million boiler upgrade scheme and a new market mechanism in the heating appliance market, along with heat network trials zoning. The Government are already working with industry and local authorities to develop new heat networks and improve existing ones, investing more than £500 million in funds and programmes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that real money is being put behind these programmes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I want to make one point on the quality of building, in particular the safety of new-build homes. In 2021, the average new-build property had 157 defects, up 96% from 2005. Would the Minister care to tell me when he thinks we might get back to the defect levels of 2005 and how the Government will achieve that?
Earl Howe (Con)
I would love to tell the noble Baroness how that is to be done. I will consult my officials and do my best to do so.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, there have been many tremendous debates in your Lordships’ Chamber, and this has certainly been one of them. I am very grateful to everyone who spoke in support of the amendments that I and other noble Lords tabled. I am also grateful for the personal comments that noble Lords have made, and I will pass those straight on to the TCPA, which actually did the work behind the scenes on this entire campaign.
I was thinking of how to sum this up without going through everything. If the Government will forgive me, in today’s debate were the makings of a very decent levelling up Bill. If we could bring these things together, it would have ambition and vision, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others, talked about. It would also be strategic and systemic; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a point about the environmental and energy issues being deeply integrated with health and well-being. We need to see some systemic change if we are to make the differences that we are talking about. There are also practical things that can be done here—people have talked about levers and specifics. They are also guided by experience. I was very heartened to hear very experienced Members from different backgrounds, including noble Lords who understand these issues because they meet them in their professional lives. So, such a Bill would have a lot of important ingredients and a broadly shared vision.
I was struck by another thing, which planners will be pleased about. Planning is often seen as a negative, but all noble Lords described it as something that could enable the creation of the flourishing individuals, society and communities that we all want.
I will not take up any more time, except to respond to the noble Earl’s response. At Second Reading of the Healthy Homes Bill, I got a very similar response from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. My response was that:
“I was not necessarily surprised and therefore not necessarily disappointed”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1706.]
I am not surprised, but I would like to think that there is some route for discussion. The big difference here is between guidance and what is required. In my comments, I have been trying to hammer in that we need to build houses that are fit for purpose. We also need to return to the health and well-being issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and by me. I would be very happy to meet the Government if it were useful to discuss these things further. Maybe there is some useful discussion to be had around the NPPF. I am not sure whether there will be but, if not, I expect us to debate this again in this Chamber sometime after the Coronation—I am not quite sure when. I suspect that we may also be debating health and well-being.
I finish by returning to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who was kindly encouraging me to negotiate. I will look to him for advice on how best to do that, but I cannot resist replying to his very first comment, which noble Lords may remember—two hours and 17 minutes ago or whenever it was—that, as “Young and Crisp”, we sound like a supermarket selling lettuces. It reminded me of another Member—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—making a similar comment a few years ago. In a debate on Africa, he said something similar about sandwiches and crisps. I can only say that I am extremely fortunate in my business partners.
On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 196A, 197 and 197A relate to implications from clauses in the Bill that impact specifically on London. The devolution proposals are, perhaps understandably, focused on areas outside London, with an emphasis on mayoral authorities, and do not always recognise the unique governance arrangements within London. London councils continue to make the case for further devolution to London and that boroughs should have a central role in this alongside the mayor.
Amendment 196A would clarify the ambiguity in the current wording of the Bill regarding the spatial development strategy for the development and use of land in Greater London. Policies that the mayor considers to be of strategic importance are included in that statement.
Amendment 197 would ensure that there are no unintended consequences of precluding policies that may apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London uniquely.
Amendment 197A refers again to an issue that we discussed extensively last week. We were very clean to clarify it, but I am not sure we did to any great extent. It would remove the words that specifically preclude any clause from the NDMP being put into the spatial development strategy. In the case of London, as elsewhere, the Bill is saying that the strategy must neither be inconsistent with nor repeat anything in the NDMP. Surely all development plans will necessarily set out how they are using the NDMP and adapting it for their local context. In some cases, this may mean repeating what is in the NDMP.
My next amendment in this group, Amendment 199, would remove the restriction in Schedule 7 that a combined authority may not prepare a joint spatial development strategy. Combined authorities set up under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 may have established working arrangements that could well be used to work constructively towards developing joint spatial development strategies. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view about why they should be explicitly excluded from doing so in this clause.
I am interested to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to her Amendments 198A and 198B, but to confer powers to develop spatial development strategies on county councils would be yet another major change to the current planning system. Combined authorities will already have authorities within them that have planning powers. County councils, as the system stands, have powers only over mineral and waste plans. Is it the noble Baroness’s intention that we should also have this major restructuring of the planning system in two-tier areas?
Amendment 200 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would include a permissive clause to enable the joint spatial strategy to include strategic employment sites. This goes over and above the more general provision in Schedule 7 for new Section 15AA(2)(c), which is a general power to promote or improve economic well-being in the area. This seems a very sensible inclusion for the Bill.
Similarly, my noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 200A is a permissive amendment to Schedule 7 to allow the inclusion of specific sites for health and social care purposes—including, importantly, palliative care services—in joint spatial strategies.
The amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, point to the need for those preparing joint spatial strategies to identify sites for vital infrastructure needed to support development at an early stage in strategic planning. This helps communities that are engaged in considering developments to be reassured that the infrastructure has been considered in detail and gives certainty, in the case of employment sites, to investors, and, in the case of health and social care sites, to both public and private providers, that their needs are being fully considered.
Amendments 202 to 204, my next three in this group, refer to the sub-paragraphs in Schedule 7 on consultation and engagement with all those who may have an interest in the plan. Amendment 202 is designed as a catch-all to ensure that all community groups are considered. The current provision refers to voluntary bodies; groups representing racial, ethnic or national groups or religious groups; and business organisations. Every area is different and has its own network of community organisations, so this would make sure that every relevant group is included.
Amendment 203 is very important. It removes the inexplicable sub-paragraph in the Bill that states:
“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public.”
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 contains specific provisions relating to when representations may be disregarded, but it seems a singularly swingeing provision for the Bill to suggest that no one has a right to be heard. I suspect that the intention is that the emphasis is on “right” rather than “no one”, but, at a time when we are trying to encourage more engagement of the public in planning and democracy generally, the wording here is particularly off-putting.
One of the huge issues that councils face is that the public often do not engage with the planning process at all until an application that immediately affects them is submitted. We should be encouraging more public engagement at a time when, for example, sites and land uses are being designated, so that the public feel that they have been able to contribute their local knowledge and views. I have another amendment in a later group on this. Will the Minister reflect on this wording?
People should absolutely have a right to be heard at an examination in public. For that reason, we have included Amendment 204, which adds an additional subsection to proposed new Clause 15AC, after proposed new subsection (7). At the moment, it states that only
“participating authorities, and … any person invited to do so by the person conducting the examination in public”
may attend. We believe that this should be amended so that people who have made representations to the inquiry in public and wish to attend should be able to. We appreciate that consideration may have to be given so that the examiner can decide not to hear representations, for example where they are not legitimate planning matters or are vexatious. In those cases, the individual should be informed of the reasons why they are not invited to appear.
Amendment 205, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, sets out a new provision in the Bill to ensure that all relevant authorities in a travel to work area of a joint spatial development strategy are engaged in the preparation of the strategy. It has been a feature of planning in recent years that, increasingly, travel to work areas are a key consideration of the planning process. Indeed, as far back as 2014, in a letter addressed to the Planning Inspectorate, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis, urged that local plans take account of travel to work areas for their strategic housing market assessments. As borders between authorities become more fluid due to their economic profile, housing markets, transport and infrastructure; because the factors associated with climate change mitigation cannot operate within tight boundaries; and because of the strategic nature of joint spatial strategy preparation, it makes sense to us to incorporate this provision, which we would support.
In a similar vein, for the reasons that I have just explained, my Amendment 206 writes into the Bill a duty to co-operate where there is no joint spatial development strategy in place. In effect, most areas are already undertaking such joint planning exercises, and it would be unusual for a planning inspector or public inquiry not to look at this in some depth. It seems sensible to ensure that this is now enshrined in the Bill to give it the necessary foundation in law, and certainty to local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 200 and 205 which are tabled in my name. I will also talk about one or two other amendments in this group, which were very helpfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who set out not only the purposes of her amendments but gave a very straightforward description of all the other amendments. I am most grateful for that.
As noble Lords will have heard, Amendment 200 would enable a joint spatial development strategy to
“specify or describe employment sites the provision of which the participating authorities consider to be of strategic importance to the joint strategy area”.
The reason for this is that at this point in Schedule 7 there is reference to infrastructure that is relevant to the joint strategy area as a whole, not just to one participating authority. There is then a reference to affordable housing. I am not quite sure where that came from, since it is not obviously the case that affordable housing necessarily has implications of strategic importance beyond the participating authority in which the affordable housing is to be provided, but leave that on one side.
If one is to identify and specify in this part of Schedule 7, which is about making a spatial development strategy and looking at what is of strategic importance, it seems fairly obvious that employment sites—which, by their nature, will be the large employment sites—absolutely give rise to a need for them to be identified in a joint spatial development strategy. That links directly to the question of infrastructure and, in due course, to housing need. The infrastructure point is where the SDS really comes from. The SDS is about enabling that strategic planning to be achieved.
On a later group I will reiterate a broad point, which I will return to on a number of occasions in our debates, which is that, if we do nothing else, I hope we can identify and move towards opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated, not just land use planning but transport planning, utilities planning, power supply and water supply. These all need to be properly integrated to have the best overall effect.
How is this to be achieved? I should remind noble Lords again that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum; that is a registered interest of mine. Back at the beginning of the year, we had a very good presentation by Graham Pointer from WSP, who worked on the integrated planning processes in New South Wales. The essence of it was very straightforward: integrated planning of land use, transport, power, water and the environment and ensuring that these plans were then able to be funded together. We are not going to get into the funding mechanisms, but we can certainly ensure that there are integrated plans, ideally on integrated timetables.
One would imagine that this is very straightforward and it should be possible to make it happen. It almost never happens in the places I go to. There are constantly different tiers of administration in local areas that are conducting different aspects of planning at different times and with different parameters. We really need to try to integrate planning. If my noble friends on the Front Bench can push that forward, using spatial development strategies, that would be really useful. At the Westminster Social Policy Forum, I chaired a discussion on the OxCam corridor the Friday before last. It was one of the strongest messages to come out. Here is a key economic area. On travel to work areas, as a consequence of, for example, the east-west rail development, those areas may well be extended, so that the travel to work area for Cambridge extends potentially to new sites and settlements in Bedfordshire, and the travel to work area for Oxford and Harwell might well extend increasingly to settlements in and around Milton Keynes.
Increasingly, we have different authorities in different counties whose planning processes need to be co-ordinated and integrated together. Spatial development strategies are a way of doing that. I am old enough to remember when we had the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities and we used to do planning processes through regional mechanisms. We do not have regional planning now but that does not mean that we need to abandon the concept of strategic planning. Strategy does not require us to have integrated and large-scale authorities; it just means that the authorities need to come together.
Amendment 200 is specifically about employment sites, because of their relative strategic importance to an area or combined areas. Amendment 205 is about bringing additional authorities with a role to play into the process. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for its assistance in shaping an amendment for this purpose. I added the reference to travel to work areas, so I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, commended that it should extend specifically to those authorities within a travel to work area, even if they are not one of the participating authorities. That is why we want to focus particularly on district councils, which may not join in the SDS but need to be consulted in the process. Also, counties and county combined authorities should be included in the consultation.
This engagement and consultation is in relation to their functions but it does not make them participants in the spatial development strategy itself. It does not give them a veto over the spatial development strategy but is confined to their bringing to the party the things that they can do. Given that for counties it includes something as integral as transport planning, this is fundamental to a spatial development strategy being able to work effectively. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing that amendment. I confess that I cannot see that we can put counties into the spatial development strategies as such, because of the difficulties of their not having planning powers—this is a combination of those that do have the planning powers—but it is absolutely right that they should be involved.
Apart from my own amendments, I want to say a word about Amendment 199. When I read it, I asked myself why the combined authorities are not part of this. The only reason I can think of is that they already have a non-statutory spatial strategy power. Frankly, I think that should come to the party. If noble Lords have a moment, I suggest they look at pages 288 and 299 of the Bill, and the new subsections at 15AI to be inserted. This is about what happens when a combined authority is created, and where these areas are already engaged in a joint spatial development strategy. It is awful. Basically, it collapses and it is cancelled; it is all withdrawn. That is the last thing you want. Where participating authorities are working together on a spatial development strategy, the creation of a combined authority should supplement that and enable them to accomplish it more effectively, not cause it all to be withdrawn or cancelled. The language is terrible, but the intention seems to me to be wrong too. I would much rather combined authorities joined in.
In the Cambridge area, we have the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The need for planning in that key economic hub extends out from Cambridge to Royston in Hertfordshire, to Haverhill in Suffolk, to Thetford in Norfolk, and to Bedford and Cranfield. It is obviously a candidate that is not only economically important but requires the joint working of local authorities and integrated planning across a wider region. It seems to me that spatial development strategies are a good thing, designed to enable that to happen, but we need the legislation to be more permissive. I would particularly focus on Amendment 205. I hope my noble friend will indicate that Ministers are sympathetic to the ability of counties, and other county combined authorities, to get involved in this way.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow 11 minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explaining the amendments. I have tabled amendments in this group and supported others because of the potential importance of strategic planning in tackling the climate emergency. We need to embed it in everything that councils do, alongside solving the acute housing crisis in this country.
Mine are probing amendments to find out how the Government see the role of county councils within the production of a joint spatial development strategy. County councils sit one tier above planning authorities, but many have strategic functions—for example, transport, health, social care or education. It seems slightly odd that they do not have a planning role as well.
Schedule 7 as currently drafted would need participating planning authorities to consult the county council once a draft strategy has been produced. It seems to me that this perhaps misses the opportunity to involve county councils actively in the development of the strategy, which I think they could very much contribute to. Taken to its highest level, the county council could even initiate the process and convene the planning authorities to work together. It seems to me that that is likely to happen anyway.
I would like to know the Minister’s thinking on how the Government see the role of county councils in strategic planning and whether they might explore the opportunity of more fully involving counties in spatial development plans.
For most Bills, the more I get involved the more fascinating they become. This Bill is an example of that not working at all. I am finding it incredibly difficult, and I sympathise with the Minister dealing with it. It is very difficult to find a coherent thread through this whole Bill. I applaud her and the Labour Front Bench for toughing it out.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder if my noble friend would accept that it sounds a bit odd to those of us who live in the countryside that counties should be left out. I know why it was; I can see the civil servant saying to her, “Well, you know, counties don’t have planning powers, except for minerals, so it really doesn’t count here. It’s the district councils that have it”. I know what they have said; they would have said it to me all those years ago—that is what they would do. I say to my noble friend that I will not easily be dissuaded from the fact that the county council is crucially important if you go in for spatial planning. I do not see how you do it otherwise.
Take the planning authority for Ipswich. Several of the housing developments and industrial sites that anybody else would have thought were in Ipswich are not; they are outside it, in another district council. The county council has to provide many of the services that service the whole group. If the county council is excluded from this, it is not just a bit odd but it will not work—the county council is crucial.
The second reason why I ask my noble friend to look again is a simple matter. We had the welcome announcement of a new relationship between national and local government. I am distressed by the way that national government often treats local government as if it is a sort of incubus, and I am afraid that civil servants often have a view of local government officers which is other than entirely polite. They say, “Better not, Minister—you never know what they might they do. Therefore, don’t give them any powers without us being able to pull them back.” I am afraid that is the view of many of the civil servants who serviced Ministers and continue to do so, so I want to break into that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, how do I follow that? I will not, as it is dangerous territory.
This is a very interesting and important debate because it is about creating part of the hierarchy of a plan-led process. At the moment, we have quite a mixed pattern across England. Obviously, London has the ability to make a spatial strategy policy and plan; so do just some of the metro combined authorities, as they are known. In 2018, there was a statutory instrument which enabled three combined authorities to create spatial strategic plans: they were Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England. The others do not. Why not?
Here is an opportunity to create a more coherent approach to spatial development strategies across the country. I am speaking as someone living in a metro area, in West Yorkshire. It does not have the ability to make a spatial development plan but is getting round it by creating lots of plans which it hopes will be adopted by the constituent authorities so that it, in essence, has one. That is not satisfactory because what is needed is an overarching approach that all the constituent authorities can agree on. At the minute, it is a series of plans for different elements—for example, flooding, transport or economic development.
It is not just the county areas which are being omitted from a coherent approach. I hope that, given this debate, the Minister will be able to give us some hope that there will be a bit more coherence attached to this for all the metro mayors and—as has quite rightly been argued—for the counties. It is a nonsense otherwise. I do not know how you can plan, certainly for economic development and transport infrastructure, unless you have an overall approach which a spatial development strategy would enable.
I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about thinking about which elements we would want included in a spatial development strategy. He quite rightly included economic development in Amendment 200. I do not know how you could have a spatial development strategy without thinking about economic development and setting aside sites for business development. That must be included.
Having said that, you need to include transport infrastructure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, climate change must be a part of that as well. Alongside that, if you have housing sites and a broad approach to spatial development and business development, you need to think about public service facilities. At the moment, even in a big metro area such as where I am, these are often so piecemeal, and it is so frustrating. Why can we not have people think about what you need for schools, hospitals, and local general practices, for instance? What about thinking about provision for nature, which was the subject of the first group of amendments this afternoon on local nature recovery plans? That ought to be integrated into an approach to spatial development, as well as leisure facilities. All that needs to be there.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who talked about using travel to work areas as the boundary. That makes it extraordinarily difficult if those are not coterminous with the local authority boundaries which are being used. I will give noble Lords an example from my own experience. Travel to work areas in West Yorkshire include York, Barnsley in South Yorkshire and even Doncaster. People from Manchester come and work in West Yorkshire and Leeds and vice versa.
One of the challenges for the Minister is to try to come up with an answer to what boundaries are used because Schedule 7 talks, quite rightly, about the constituent authorities and members of a combined authority, a combined county authority or even—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben—just a county council. You need to know what boundaries you are using.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I think it is actually a bit simpler than that. The participating authorities that choose to be in the spatial development strategy choose to be in it and bring their territory with them. Everybody else, from my point of view in Amendment 205, are other authorities that are consulted. They are not making the strategy, they are consulted about it, so their geography does not matter so much.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My experience is that that was not quite how it worked. In West Yorkshire, Harrogate—which is just north of Leeds—was included, even though it is in North Yorkshire, because it is part of what they call the “golden triangle”. I think it is a challenge, and I hope the Government will just decide which boundaries they use—I presume it will be local authority boundaries, because that makes sense—and the others are just part of a negotiation.
Those are the key points I wanted to make. It is an interesting group to think about how it all works. I notice in the schedule it says that spatial strategies have to be mindful of, and consistent with, the national development management plans. I would like to hear from the Minister how spatial strategies will operate across a wider region, because if you are talking about transport—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, picked up on this—you need to think in a wider area than just a small combined authority area.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns strategic planning and spatial development strategies. As these are to date a very rare form of plan, it might be useful to set out some background. The Government recognise that it is often desirable to plan over areas, as we have just heard, wider than a single planning authority in order to properly address the strategic and cross-boundary issues that have been brought up in this debate so far. However, it is important to stress that a spatial development strategy cannot allocate sites; instead, it can set broad indications of how much and what type of development should go where.
Once a spatial development strategy is adopted, local plans within its area must be in general conformity with it; that is, they must generally follow that strategy and its policies. Most of us will not actually have dealt with a spatial development strategy, because only one exists at the moment, and that is in London, which the mayor refers to as the London Plan. Other combined authorities are able to request the equivalent spatial development strategy powers as part of their devolution agreement. Three areas have done so already—Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, and the West of England, as noble Lords have heard—but for various reasons, none has produced a strategy as yet. Moreover, the Government have agreed to give a spatial development strategy power to the West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.
Through the Bill, we are extending the powers to produce a spatial development strategy, on a voluntary basis, to other local planning authorities, as we are aware that in other parts of the country—such as Hertfordshire, Essex, Leicestershire and around Nottingham—some of them have already sought to progress strategic plans over recent years. The Government would like to support and enable these efforts at more strategic planning.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend has just said how much she wants the counties to be involved, but why can they not just be part of it? I do not understand this—it seems that there is no reason for it, except that it is in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I disagree. The district councils, about which we have been hearing, are the planning authorities in those areas, and the county council is not. So it is important that we make sure that this is district-led but that the county has the important role of statutory consultee. But that will be different in different counties, depending on whether they are unitary authorities; in which case, they will of course be the planning authority and therefore can lead on this spatial strategy.
Lord Deben (Con)
The county authority is the mineral planning authority, so how can we talk about spatial planning if we exclude the things for which the county authority is a planning authority. Making the distinction between being consulted—having a consultant role—and being part of the decision-making seems to me to be a false distinction. As the planning authority for minerals and similar things, it has to be part of such a spatial plan. I just do not understand the distinction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think that there is a distinction. They can be, and will be, part of it. I am sure that they will be part of whether that particular geographic area or group of councils will decide to go to a spatial strategy in the first place—that is how local government works. But I will give it some more thought; I am sure that we will come back to the issue on Report.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on from this point about counties, can she confirm whether, when she says that they are a statutory consultee, she is referring to new Section 15A), to be inserted by Schedule 7, where they are consulted after the preparation of a draft, which is then deposited with various people? That is substantively different from securing the advice and participation of counties, related districts and others in the preparation of that draft spatial development strategy.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will take the point back and consider it further, because some important issues have been brought up. I will make sure that, having given it some thought, we will discuss it further before Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before we move on from this topic, I will add another observation: the county members are the ones that have the places on the combined authority. The districts do not have voting rights on those combined authorities. So I do not understand how it will work if the counties will not be included and cannot make decisions over planning when they are the constituent members with the powers to put the plan through. I think that this needs a little more thinking through.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I quite agree, and that is why I will take the point back and think further on it. As a county person myself, I have a lot of sympathy.
To make sure that our plan for a joint spatial development strategy happens, we are giving county councils the formal status of statutory consultee, as I said, so they can bring forward their expertise, particularly on matters relating to transport, highways, flood risk management, education, and minerals and waste, as noble Lords have said. Planning inspectors examining a joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence that the work on these key issues has been done, and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.
Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would leave out new Section 15A(2)(b), which is inserted by Schedule 7. This would enable local planning authorities within a combined authority to be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In an area with elected mayors, we believe that it is vital that the mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why the authorities within a combined authority should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the mayor, with the support of the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for the spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal. Obviously, we do not want to see competing spatial development strategies in any area.
Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would extend the list of groups that local planning authorities must consult to include community groups. Although I understand the reasons for this, the list of bodies in new Section 15AB(3) that participating authorities should consider sending a draft joint spatial development strategy to is already comprehensive and can reasonably be assumed to include most community organisations. It is not, however, an exhaustive list, and authorities are free to send drafts to whichever organisations they feel necessary.
The noble Baroness’s Amendments 203 and 204 would give people a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development plan. The current procedure for the examination of a spatial development strategy is now well established and, although it is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies.
The final amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness is Amendment 206. This would introduce a new clause mandating a duty to co-operate where no joint spatial development strategy exists. Unfortunately, the duty to co-operate is widely agreed to have been an ineffective mechanism for achieving co-operation. It has been criticised as an inflexible and burdensome bureaucratic exercise, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. We intend to replace the duty with a more flexible policy requirement within the revised National Planning Policy Framework, providing local planning authorities with greater flexibility.
Clause 93 introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making to ensure that the key stakeholders whose involvement is vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure, are required to be involved. This places a requirement on specific bodies with public functions—an example would be Historic England—to assist in the plan-making process if requested by a plan-making authority. Taken together, these measures mean that there is no need to revert to the duty to co-operate in any circumstances.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
How does the Minister see the role of town and parish councils within all this? Clearly, they will have an interest, yet they are not mentioned anywhere.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I foresee that their views would go up through the stages, and any good district council would ask for their views. Also, of course, they would probably be involved in any neighbourhood planning that is happening as well, so those plans would also move on up into it.
Amendment 200A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the provision of sites for health and social care within a joint spatial development strategy. There is already broad provision for considering these needs in a joint spatial development strategy, through new Sections 15AA(1) and (2) which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. These provisions are written deliberately broadly to enable planning authorities to consider the full range of land use and infrastructure requirements that are important to an area. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will accept that the current wording in the Bill continues to enable the consideration of issues relating to the provision of health and care services in an area.
Amendment 200, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, is intended to ensure that any joint spatial development strategy includes provision for employment sites which are of strategic importance for the economic development of an area. I can reassure my noble friend that new Section 15AA(1) already provides that a joint SDS may include policy relating to
“the development and use of land in the joint strategy area”.
This is a flexible provision that allows the planning authorities to include whatever policies they feel are necessary, with some caveats relating to those policies being of strategic importance and relating to the characteristics or circumstances of the area. For this reason, I do not think that we need a more specific provision at this point.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for a good debate on these topics relating to spatial planning. They are very important issues, and this is a key part of the Bill.
There are some key themes that have emerged as part of this discussion. The first is the integration of plans and timetables and how important that is going to be as we move forward with these proposals.
Secondly, we have had long discussions around the services that county councils deliver and their engagement in the process of the strategic development strategies. As well as transport, highways, minerals, waste and so on, we had an earlier discussion in the Committee about healthy homes. Our county councils look after a huge range of services that relate to social care provision and so on, and that is another reason why it is essential they get involved in strategic planning at this level. I should have referred to my interests in the register as a county councillor and a district councillor; I wear both hats in this respect.
The third overall point was around the inclusion of combined authorities. I know it is late but I want to relate the experience in Hertfordshire. Without having any of the processes of the Bill in place, the 10 Hertfordshire authorities and the county council have got together, separating Hertfordshire into two clusters, to work on employment, housing sites, climate change, transport—including a new mass rapid transit facility that we have been planning for—community wealth-building, town centre regeneration, digital infrastructure and a number of other things. In Hertfordshire, we are helped by having coterminous boundaries with both the local enterprise partnership and policing. We do not have coterminous borders with health, but I do not think anybody does—that is a little more complicated. We do not necessarily need legislation to do this. However, I am anxious that, as a part of the Bill, we do not stop people doing things which are ambitious and have vision for their areas.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think that is an important point. That is what I was saying: the Bill will not stop that; it will give the opportunity to do something. Many authorities do great things informally, but sometimes, if there is a formal agreement to it, other doors are opened. That is part of what we are trying to do.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance.
We had some discussions around borders—I will say more about that in a moment—but Herts has boundaries with London in the south of the county and with very rural areas in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire in the north of the county.
The other key point we mentioned was the urban-rural split, on which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke very powerfully, and the value of counties understanding how this helps move the development agenda forward for rural areas as well as urban ones. I echo the point that people feel that this is largely related to urban areas. It is important for us to make sure that people in rural areas feel that their interests are taken into account in both levelling up and regeneration.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated. I have referred to the points on healthy homes that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made earlier in the debate. We need to give some more thought to that before Report and to how we can make sure that we take the opportunities the Bill might offer to better co-ordinate planning processes. The point about timetables is very well made. We have lots of different plans that run on lots of different timetables in local government and in other parts of the public sector, and it would be helpful if we could think about how we might bring some of that together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about the very important potential of the Bill to enable us to tackle climate change and the housing emergency in a more co-ordinated way. I do not want to miss those opportunities, which is why these points about planning are so important. She mentioned the ability of county councils to convene councils to work together. That has certainly been my experience, and I hope we can find a way to develop that.
I have mentioned the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about making sure that we focus on rural as well as urban areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the travel to work areas. The point is not that we do not want to make plans for boundaries, but you have to think beyond the boundaries and take them into account, particularly with employment sites—otherwise, for example, you will not be planning properly for your transport arrangements. We have to think about what we are doing in a wider sense than the boundaries of local authorities as they would appear on the Boundary Commission register.
To summarise briefly, we have to be careful. We could miss opportunities for combined authorities and for the ambition we all have for levelling up to reach right across the huge areas of our country that are covered by two-tier local government—or three tiers in some cases, as we know. I know the Minister wants to reassure us that rural areas will be included, but the picture in this planning realm can still be a bit confused, particularly with the way that there are different plans for different places, which do not seem to be particularly well co-ordinated. I hope we can give that some more thought.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her detailed answer to all our amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 196A.
“Deliberative democracy: local planning(1) Before preparing any development or outline plan, a local planning authority must undertake a process of deliberative democracy involving the community to set—(a) the balance of economic, environmental, infrastructure and special plans,(b) the type of housing to be delivered,(c) the infrastructure that is required to be hosted,(d) the type of economic space, and(e) environmental considerations, including making sites sustainable.(2) A process of deliberative democracy under this section must—(a) invite all residents of the local authority area to apply to be a representative in the deliberative democracy process,(b) include measures to try to ensure that there will be a diverse representation of that community in the process, and(c) provide for a forum of representatives that—(i) will determine its terms of reference, number of meetings and agenda at its first meeting, and(ii) will produce a report from the deliberative democracy process.(3) A report under subsection (2)(c)(ii) may determine the scope of development on a site.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce a deliberative democracy forum comprised of members of the public prior to the formation of a new development plan or outline plan.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that we come to these amendments so late in the evening. Amendment 198 and the subsequent amendments are things I feel particularly strongly about. Amendment 198 would introduce the principle of deliberative democracy as part of the planning process. Recent years have seen a wave of interest in doing democracy in a more deliberative way, enabling citizens to participate in a reflective and informed discussion about key policy questions before any of us, who are decision-makers, reach those decisions.
The Constitution Unit at University College London has been at the forefront of applying such approaches in the UK. In two recent projects, it took part in running citizens’ assemblies to explore how such bodies could help resolve complex policy problems. In other projects, the unit has examined ways in which deliberative approaches to politics could be applied in the UK context. Rather than go into the realms of theory and testing everyone’s patience at this time of night, I shall briefly give the rationale and two quick examples of how this type of engagement with complex issues can help develop understanding and buy-in with complex policy decisions.
In terms of planning, as I said earlier, residents often do not engage with planning at the stage of the local plan and by the time they are faced with a planning application they object to, the land use, housing numbers, infrastructure requirements, environmental policies and so on are already set out and have been through the extensive local plan process. They have often been through the inspectorate and a public inquiry as well. This leads to a great deal of frustration for residents, who may feel that the process, in this case the local plan, has been done to them, rather than with them. Even where residents do engage with the local plan process, the formality of proceedings can be daunting and impenetrable.
The introduction of a deliberative democracy element into the planning process would give the opportunity for local people to get more involved in a meaningful way much earlier in the process. The format can be designed to encourage debate and contributions and careful facilitation can draw out the minority views as well as those with the loudest voices. All this can help inform the local authority or the combined authority as it goes into the formal stages of developing its plan. This approach also enables participants to be provided with information that is accurate, relevant, accessible and balanced. It helps to tackle misinformation and enables deliberations to be informed by accurate, fact-checked data; for example, that provided in the UK by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
In Stevenage, we have used this method to enable debates on our budget process. As the cuts to local government funding deepened, we wanted to hear our residents’ views on how we should tackle the subsequent budget exercise, so we asked an independent agency to pull together a group of around 50 people from a mixed demographic. Using independent facilitators, we took them through an exercise of information sharing on the challenges we faced and carried out exercises of budget prioritisation with them, to see what their preferences would be. The learning was considerable on both sides. Some participants told me at the end of the day that they were glad it was not them who had to make the decisions. The other impact was that a group of people was then out in our community with all the facts of decision-making to take into conversations at work and in social settings, et cetera.
The Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change involved a randomly selected representative sample of 50 Oxford residents, who learned about climate change and explored different options to cut carbon emissions through a combination of presentations from experts and facilitated workshops. Oxford was the first city in the UK to deliver a citizens’ assembly on climate change. As the evidence around man-made climate change is clear and overwhelming, it was treated as a given, and the assembly was not asked to consider whether or not that was a reality, but participants considered measures to reduce Oxford’s carbon emissions to net zero and, as part of this, measures to reduce Oxford City Council’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030. In that case, Ipsos MORI was appointed to undertake the recruitment of participants and provide overall facilitation for the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change. Following that approach, Oxford has been able to undertake an ambitious programme of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
We want the Bill to be ambitious in the way that it tackles levelling up in all its aspects. We believe that a move to deliberative democracy in the planning system will create a whole new dimension for community engagement and provide a channel for our residents to contribute to tackling the complex challenges of the modern planning process.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will contribute to this group in relation to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. In existing legislation, Section 19(1B) and (1C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that:
“Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area… Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).”
Therefore, the legislation has it that strategic priorities must be set out and policies must be set out to meet them.
Paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy Framework in the consultation document recently issued says that:
“Plans should make explicit which policies are strategic policies. These should be limited to those necessary to address the strategic priorities of the area”.
Paragraph 17 states that the development plan
“must include strategic policies to address each local planning authority’s priorities for the development and use of land in its area.”
Therefore, the legislation is carried through into the National Planning Policy Framework. Also, the NPPF is clear that there is an important distinction to be made between strategic and non-strategic policies. I will not dwell on those now, as it is not relevant for this purpose. Suffice to say that “strategic” in front of policies seems important.
However, the Government have decided to omit “strategic”, to omit any reference to strategic priorities or a requirement that the local plan in a plan-making process should identify those priorities and show how policies meet them. I cannot for the life of me understand why. I admit that these are probing amendments to find out why. I do not think that, as a proposition, the structure of the NPPF in paragraphs 17 and 21 should be left stranded, with the relevant legislative provisions in Section 19 of the 2004 Act being omitted and not being substituted with anything in the current legislation that gives rise to that part of the NPPF.
The Government may say, “Well, it’s guidance and that’s fine—that’s what we’re saying”. Until now it has been perfectly understood that there is a legislative structure, and that the guidance follows it. I am not sure that we should arrive at a position where there is guidance with no legislative structure underpinning it. I cannot see any mischief in putting the strategic priorities and strategic policies back in. I see no mischief in putting “strategic” in front of “policies”. It avoids any lack of clarity about what kind of policies we are talking about. I cannot see why the Bill should not be amended to put it in line with where the current situation is and where the NPPF intends to go.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I briefly follow-up on that question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has left hanging.
We seem to have several moving parts here. I do not want to detain anybody any longer than necessary. We have the guidance of the NPPF, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has outlined its current impact on how local plans are developed. We now have the statutory NDMPs. Eventually we will get used to that acronym, I guess. Earlier this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, told noble Lords that she thought that the occasions of conflict between the NDMPs and local plans would be very rare, so rare that they did not need referencing but, on the other hand, possibly so onerous that it would be burdensome to make every one be referred back to your Lordships.
However, the political context of the NDMPs is of trying to retrieve a situation that was created last year by multiple changes in direction within the department, and by Ministers, about what they wanted local plans to achieve. Do they want them to achieve a very large number of houses, no houses at all, or as many houses as the local area thinks are appropriate?
All that will be resolved when—eventually—the NDMPs are published, because that is when we will be told what the Government intend local plans to produce. At that point it seems foreseeable—I say only foreseeable, not certain—that there will be areas of conflict between the citizens’ assemblies brought forward by the noble Baroness’s amendment and the common consultation process that we have traditionally followed, as the local plan emerges and the NDMPs dictate a different course of action. Where does the guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred fit into that? Which fits into what and at which part?
In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, perhaps not with the conviction that I had hoped to hear, that, in the event of a neighbourhood plan being more up to date than a local plan—hence in date—it would stand up against an NDMP central government directive. I would be delighted if that is true, but I would be substantially surprised if she says that she did say that; I must have misheard something.
We have some moving parts here, and it is a terribly inconvenient time of the day to resolve those difficulties. A lengthy letter may be the solution, but I just pose those questions. This is the fundamental way in which the current Government are aiming to square a circle out of their national planning policy. Whether they want more houses, where they want them and how fast—all those things—are driven by what comes out of local plans, and they will be framed by what is in the NDMPs, which are not published. Forgive me if I am jumping to a conclusion here; perhaps the planning management policy that comes out will say, “It is okay, guys; do your own thing and send your local plans in when they are ready”, but I have a feeling that that is not the context in which they are being drawn up.
Anything that the noble Earl or the noble Baroness can say to clarify that situation, either this evening or in a subsequent written report, would be gratefully received on this side, because we are baffled and bemused by how this is all supposed to hang together, as things stand.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and myself but, before I do, I will speak briefly to two amendments mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
Amendment 198 is about deliberative democracy or citizens’ forums as they are sometimes known. When I, as somebody who has been a councillor and an MP, first heard of this, I was slightly suspicious of this alternative form of problem-solving. It struck me as slightly random and unaccountable. But the more I looked into it, with the help of Graham Allen, the former Labour MP who championed the cause of deliberative democracy, I began to change my mind. The Government have actually been funding three experimental projects using deliberative democracy—one in Dudley looking at the future of two shopping centres, one in Cambridge looking at how to solve congestion, and one in Romsey looking at how to solve problems around a local bus station. It struck me that these were actually ways of complementing and reinforcing local democracy, rather than substituting it.
At a time when democracies are struggling to retain public confidence, we should look at every possible means of refreshing democracy in a way that is relevant to the modern world. This is what that amendment wants. Like others, I have been to planning meetings where people have been shouting at each other; there must be a better way to find a way through. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness who moved this amendment, as she obviously has considerable experience. Perhaps the Minister will let me know, following the three trials funded by the DCMS, whether her department will engage with the Local Government Association to see how we can best take that debate forward.
I am afraid that I disagree entirely with Amendment 223 and the suggestion that the adopted plan should be up for review after a local election. The one thing going through this debate since it began is the need for certainty and clarity about the local plan. It has to go through a process to become adopted. If there is a local election just after it has been adopted and control changes hands and it is up for review, what then is the status of that local plan? I very much hope that my noble friend will resist, perhaps more politely than I have done, the suggestion in Amendment 223.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been trying not to get into a lot of the groups on the Bill but I regret not getting into this one. Amendment 198 makes such good sense because politics is a fairly dire arrangement these days. A lot of voters have lost interest and do not trust us. Getting people involved at the local level is an excellent way of stimulating their appetite for more politics at different levels, so I very much support Amendment 198.
I quite like Amendment 209, but somehow “environmental issues” is just thrown in—you have to say it, do you not? I do not know what it means. I would like it to mean a lot but I am not sure that it means very much at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quotes to us the Conservative Party manifesto when the Government have broken so many promises and back-tracked on so many things. I hardly think it is a very good example for any of us to hold up as something we need to follow. Plus, his comments about the green belt were absolutely outrageous. It is not for people with gardens or people with country estates; it is for people who live in inner cities, who have no gardens or green space to walk about in. The green belt has a huge value for them, so please let us not forget that.
Amendment 211 is from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have huge respect, by the way. My telling him that the Conservative Party manifesto might as well be thrown in the bin—as it has been by the Conservative Party—does not mean that I do not have huge respect for him. Again, this amendment is about economic growth. We went through this in the Budget. Growth is not about well-being or prosperity; it is about grabbing more and more of the earth’s resources. It is not necessarily something that we want to keep promoting. If we are going to talk about growth, can we please talk about well-being, green spaces and environmental support, and not just constantly about businesses, inward investment and that sort of thing?
Let us please try to remember that we have a climate crisis. It does not matter whether you believe it or not; the fact is that the IPCC has published a report that was gone through by dozens of Governments and hundreds of scientists. They all quibbled over it, but they finally came to a report that is absolutely devastating. We really should be looking at that. Every time we put down an amendment, we should have that at the back of our minds, so that we say things that will help us in the future and help our children and grandchildren. At the moment, we are not doing that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but the noble Lord, Lord Young, summed up one of the problems with this Bill in general: we have an important Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that does not tackle the crisis of housing supply—something I talked about at Second Reading.
I want to clarify at this stage in the evening that, while the points made by the noble Lord about the green belt are not by any stretch of the imagination that every part of the green belt should be built on or concreted over, it is a misnomer to suggest that the green belt is a beautiful green area for people who do not have country homes, gardens or parks to go to. Lots of it is actually unusable by the public. What the noble Lord suggested was a review. If the review indicated that it was valuable for the well-being of the nation, that would be fine, but it would be able to show that huge swathes of the green belt are misnamed and could be productively used for housing for young people and people who are desperately in need of homes.
My final quick point is that economic growth has to be the solution for austerity and the cost of living crisis. You cannot tackle the fact that people are too poor unless you produce more. That is called economic growth. Austerity is unpleasant, nasty and brutish, even when dressed in eco clothes. We need more growth, not less, especially at this time. People’s well-being will not be tackled or helped if they do not have the proceeds of economic development and growth.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
This is utter nonsense—absolute nonsense.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that we disagree. I thought the point was that we would disagree well in Committee. I have sat and listened to this debate for many hours. I just wanted to clarify why I think economic development is important: we will not be able to build any houses and nobody’s well-being will be helped if we stand still economically or go backwards. I do not relish austerity for the masses. Therefore, I think we need economic growth, mass housebuilding and the supply side to be tackled.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
It is with trepidation that I follow the last two speakers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox. I will say just one small thing about the green belt. The green belt, as part of local plan making, is reviewed and, as appropriate, areas are taken out of the green belt for housebuilding and development. That is what happens. It happens at the right time and place when there is proper public consultation.
I start with Amendment 198 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I have lots of sympathy with the idea of deliberative democracy. It is always worth exploring new ways of engaging with local people, involving them in developing ideas and understanding about what is going on, and helping to inform decisions before decision-makers finalise plans. I am concerned that the plan the noble Baroness lays out in Amendment 198 will probably work okay in a district council, but in an area such as the one where I am a councillor, for 450,000 residents, it becomes more challenging.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses local plans: the critical planning documents that local planning authorities prepare with their communities to plan for sustainable growth.
Amendment 198, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require deliberative democracy forums to be involved in the early stages of plan-making. Yes, I have seen this work, and very successfully, but there are other ways of doing it as well so I do not think we would want to be too prescriptive. However, I thank the noble Baroness for this amendment because it provides me with the opportunity to talk about community engagement.
The English planning system already gives communities a key role so that they can take an active part in shaping their areas and, in so doing, build local pride and belonging. We are not changing this; in fact, we are strengthening it through the Bill. Communities must be consulted on local plans and on individual planning applications. However, we know that current levels of engagement can sometimes fall below our ambitions. That is why, through the Bill, we will be increasing opportunities for communities to get involved in planning for their area to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bill reforms the process for producing a local plan so that it is simpler, faster and easier for communities to engage with. A number of measures in the Bill will create wholly new opportunities for people to engage with planning in their communities. Neighbourhood priorities statements will make it easier and quicker for local communities to set out the priorities for their area. Similarly, mandatory design codes will ensure that communities will be directly involved in making rules on how they want the new developments in their area to look and feel.
Measures to digitise the planning system will also transform the way that information about plans, planning applications and the evidence underpinning them is made available. We have funded 45 pilots, including in councils that have some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country, to demonstrate how digital approaches to engagement can make the planning system more accountable, democratic and inclusive. We have also committed to producing new guidance on community, which will show the different ways in which communities and industry can get involved and highlight best practice, including the opportunity that digital technology offers.
I hope that I have made clear the work that we are already doing to drive forward progress in improving community engagement. With regard to the three pilots from DCMS, I will undertake to ask that department where they are and what they intend to do with them, including discussing them with the LGA. I will come back to the noble Lord when I have an answer.
On Amendments 209 and 211 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham—I keep thinking that we are getting to the 2000s of these because we have been going so long—the Government want the planning system to be truly plan-led, to give communities more certainty that the right homes will be built in the right places. To achieve that, plans will be given more weight in decision-making. They will be faster to produce and easier to navigate and understand. We expect that future local plans should continue to provide a positive vision for the future of each area, and policies to deliver that vision. However, as was remarked in the other place, currently communities and applicants can face an alphabet soup of planning documents and terms, leaving all but the most seasoned planning professionals confused; so the Bill introduces a simple requirement for authorities to prepare a single local plan for their area, and provides clear requirements on what future local plans must, and may, include. Authorities may wish to include strategic priorities and policies in future local plans. There is nothing in the Bill to stop them.
There was quite a discussion provided by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on homes, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on things such as build-out. I have looked forward, and these issues will be discussed in much more detail in future debates, so if those noble Lords do not mind if I do not answer them today, I might answer them on Thursday. Perhaps we could wait for the relevant groups of amendments on those two things.
On the specific subject of local plan polices to deliver sustainable economic growth, I make it clear that we are retaining the current legal requirement at Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for authorities to prepare plans with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
I turn to Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This amendment would amend Schedule 7 to the Bill to allow a local planning authority—
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend said that there was nothing in the Bill that stops local authorities specifying what are strategic policies. My point is a completely contrary one to that. It is that the NPPF says that they should set out what their strategic priorities and strategic policies are; so why does the Bill not say that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think that we have got to the NPPF yet. It is out for review, and let us see what is in it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My point is that we know what the Government are proposing to say in the NPPF. The Bill is inconsistent with that. Is my noble friend suggesting that she has already decided that the NPPF will not make a distinction between strategic and non-strategic policies? Frankly, that is not going to happen. If she looks at the green-belt section, the distinction between strategic and non-strategic policies in relation to green-belt designation is an absolutely central distinction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I am saying that we have not made that decision yet, but this is as it is in this part of the Bill.
Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would amend Schedule 7 to the Bill to allow local planning authorities to use their local plan to amend the details of existing outline planning permissions, so that they are in accordance with the adopted local plan. Our planning reforms seek to ensure that plans, produced following consultation with local communities, have a greater influence over individual planning decisions to ensure that development reflects what those local communities want. In particular, our new decision-making framework under Clause 86 will deliver to a more plan-led system, providing greater certainty for these communities.
Enabling local plans to effectively revise existing outline planning permissions, even where development has already started, undermines this certainty. It also runs counter to the long-standing position that the grant of planning permission is a development right that also provides the certainty that developers need to raise finance and implement the permission. I fear that small and medium-sized builders would be especially impacted by such a change and would face significant wasted costs and delays at a time when we need to support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for a very interesting debate on very important aspects of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response on all the amendments that have been discussed in the debate.
I will address the key themes coming out of the debate, starting with my first amendment in this group on deliberative democracy. I was very grateful for the comments on this from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Like him, I was a bit of a convert to this; I was a bit sceptical about it when I first heard about it. However, the intention of deliberative democracy is to complement and support the work of decision-makers, not to take it over, and it can provide a very useful technique. Now that we have all been through Covid and we all know how to use things such as Teams and Zoom, it can be greatly assisted and facilitated by digital engagement as well. So it is a good technique for developing a wider picture and for engaging our citizens in the important aspects of planning.
On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this subject, from my understanding of how deliberative democracy works, it does not matter what size your authority is, because you would engage a representative group and there are plenty of places where you can go to get help to draw together your representative group. There is nothing in deliberative democracy that excludes the contribution of parish councils; they have their own methods of communicating and engaging with the planning process. While I accept there are a variety of techniques to engage local citizens in the planning process, I think that it will be important for us all to consider how we will refresh and review not just the ability for people to get involved but the methods we use to engage them. We all know that there are flaws at the moment in the way we try to engage people, and anything that can help to improve that would be useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to having a legislative structure which should underpin what is in the guidance, and we would certainly support that. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have seen that there are not always clear links. We are told that one aspect is in guidance and that another aspect will be in the Bill, but the links between the two are not always as clear as they should be. We should be using the process of the Bill in Committee to help to resolve some of those issues where it is not as clear as it should be. I think that a clear distinction between policies which are strategic and not strategic will be quite important for those people tasked with delivering the plans going forward, so I hope that some thought might be given to that.
We had some comments on the need for certainty and clarity on the local plan in response to my noble friend Lady Hayman’s amendment on the possibility of amending after local elections. There were some fair points made there, and we will go back and look again at aspects of the Bill that enable local authorities to review parts of their plan. Although we do not want to overturn the plan every time there is an election, it will be important that people can look at things. As the picture changes in a local area, it may be necessary to undertake reviews for that reason, not just because there has been an election. I think we need to have another look at that as the Bill goes forward.
It really rang a bell with me when the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the need to boost the supply of homes. We have further groups of amendments that cover that topic. He referred to not weakening or removing levers for housing. Those of us who have been trying to deliver more housing over the last few years feel as though sometimes we have had our hands tied behind our backs on housing delivery and that that has gone on for too long.
We must be ambitious and work on delivering the housing we need, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is quite right to say that growth must incorporatethe issues that we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House on the environment, sustainable employment and sustainable housing growth. However, that makes planning more important, not less. Communities should be planned, not just the delivery of housing. After the Second World War, at a time when more than 100,000 homes a year were being built, there was still time set aside for master-planning and building for communities, not just delivering housing in dormitories. I suggest that deliberative democracy might play a part in that process.
The other aspect that was discussed extensively in this short debate was environmental outcome reports. I hear the Minister’s words of reassurance around how they might be incorporated in the planning process, but I think we would want to go through some of the other discussions around climate change to make sure we understand how that works. The Minister described the plans as an alphabet soup, which is probably a good description. We heard her talking about neighbourhood priority statements. This aspect of the Bill is another layer of planning that sits in this new hierarchy. It is difficult to understand from what is in the Bill exactly where it sits, so we look forward to the round table that will help clarify some of these issues. As for neighbourhood priority statements, it saysthat any of the authorities involved can make these neighbourhood priority statements, but it is not clear exactly how that works.
This has been a good debate on these very important planning issues. As I said, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, and I am sure that some of the issues we raised will come up again in future debates. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.