Monday 22nd May 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-XIV Fourteenth marshalled list for Committee - (18 May 2023)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by addressing Amendments 415, 416 and 417 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Clause 176 sets out the criteria and conditions that must be met before high street or town centre designation can be made. Local authorities are uniquely placed to make this designation based on their deep knowledge of their area and we must empower them to do so. The needs of both local people and local businesses may have also been considered by local authorities in the development of their local plans and regeneration programmes. These amendments add complexity and burdens for local authorities, so the Government are not able to support them, or Amendment 437, which is consequential on 415 and 417.
Amendment 418 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, seeks to clarify what is meant by “occupied” for the purpose of assessing the vacancy condition. Clause 178(4) is aimed at excluding occupation by trespassers or property guardians for the purpose of this assessment. Amendment 418 would refine that position so that this type of occupation can count where the landlord is taking steps to remove such occupiers through possession proceedings. The Government see these exclusions as necessary to ensure the policy aims of filling commercial premises for high street uses. We also consider it reasonable to expect landlords to keep their premises secure to prevent squatters, or to take court action where necessary. The Government recognise that there may be more complicated cases of trespassers, but we also consider that many local authorities are unlikely to conduct a high street rental auction on a property that has such complications. While the Government do not feel able to support this amendment at this time, I would add that we do recognise that there may be many challenges caused to landlords by trespassers. We trust local authorities to use these permissive powers sensibly where there are complications caused by certain types of trespassers. I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, and I will give his amendments further consideration.
Amendments 419 and 424, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seek to remove the Henry VIII powers for the Secretary of State to alter the circumstances of vacancy, and the flexibility within grounds of appeal, which are set out in Schedule 16. This power may be needed in future in the light of experience in operation: for example, to alter the vacancy period to ensure that it is targeting the right premises and can respond to changing market conditions; or, in the case of grounds of appeal, where there may be a need to increase the safeguards available to landlords, or to revise these grounds where they are found to undermine effectiveness. We appreciate the importance of parliamentary scrutiny regarding the grounds of appeal, and any amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In the light of that, the Government are not able to support this amendment.
Amendment 420 amends the local benefit condition in Clause 179 so that a property can be let only if it supports regeneration. Currently, the local benefit condition will be satisfied if the local authority considers that occupation of the premises for a suitable high street use would be beneficial to the local economy, society or environment. The local benefit condition is framed by reference to aims that are usually associated with regeneration. Another statutory example demonstrating the use of similar language is Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We wish to avoid introducing further considerations for local authorities, inadvertently narrowing the scope; so the Government cannot support this amendment.
Amendments 421 and 423 reduce the period after which an initial letting notice would expire and the period of time after which a final letting notice can be issued. We consider that making the process too quick will place an unreasonable strain on local authorities that are looking to exercise these powers. We also do not consider that these reduced timescales will provide the landlord with a reasonable amount of time to let the premises themselves and, in appropriate cases, to work with the local authority, increasing the risk that high street properties go through the auction process unnecessarily.
Amendment 422 would prevent landlords from transferring premises between related entities while an initial letting notice was in force. An initial letting notice is not affected by any change in landlord, as made clear by Clause 199(7). We do not want high street rental auctions to prevent landlords from selling their interest in the property, provided that the initial letting notice continues to bind.
Amendment 426, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would add a further ground for appeal against the use of a high street rental auction. Schedule 16 sets out the grounds on which a landlord can appeal against a final letting notice. The amendment would require local authorities to consider whether a landlord had taken reasonable steps to rent the property before undertaking a high street rental auction, preventing them from taking place where a landlord has done so. The amendment would introduce a complex test which could place significant burdens on a local authority and would likely discourage use and lead to it becoming ineffective. There is already a wide range of grounds for appeal, which ensures fairness for landlords. The amendment also raises matters that should feed into a ground of appeal, such as planning. These matters are already being given careful consideration by the Government. In the case of planning, the Government are currently consulting on extending permitted development rights.
Amendment 427 would require that regulations relating to the rental auction process were laid within 90 days of Royal Assent. Clause 188 sets out the principles of the rental auction process. Significant detail in relation to the process will need to be provided, which will be more appropriately dealt with through regulations. While we will make regulations as soon as possible, it is not possible to commit to a timeline of 90 days because the regulations will be informed by extensive engagement with the sector, which will then need to be reflected in the drafting of those regulations. The Government are therefore not able to support this amendment.
On Amendment 429, we consider it more appropriate to provide landlords with a general entitlement to seek compensation for damage where local authorities have exercised their power of entry and to let the Upper Tribunal decide whether there are any circumstances affecting the landlord’s entitlement to compensation, rather than providing specific exemptions. That is the approach adopted in other legislation, such as the compensation provisions in Section 176 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which relate to the power to enter and survey land. The Government do not feel able to support this amendment.
On Amendment 430, I assure noble Lords that high street rental auctions are being designed to minimise costs incurred by local authorities by streamlining the process and through distributing the costs across landlords and tenants. We agree with the intention of the amendment, which is why the high street rental auction consultation contains questions relating to the distribution of the associated costs and details of a standardised lease, and it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the result of the consultation. We are also making up to £2 million of funding available for support with the costs of rental auctions, and full details of this will be announced in due course. The Government are therefore not able to support this amendment.
On Amendments 431, 432, 433, 434, 435 and 436, the measures in the Bill seek to support lively high streets with activity that attracts people and businesses and avoids long-term vacancies, complementing existing government support that directly addresses the concerns raised in these amendments. There is support available to regenerate high streets, including £3.6 billion-worth of investment in the towns fund, a £4.8 billion investment in the levelling-up fund and a £2.6 billion investment in the shared prosperity fund. That is together with the £13.6 billion support package, announced in the Budget this year, to protect ratepayers facing bill increases over the next five years.
The High Streets Task Force continues to provide essential support to local leaders, with 123 local authorities having received expert advice in topics such as place-making and planning. I recognise that these amendments highlight key issues faced by many of our high streets, but I hope I have provided enough reassurance that these concerns are, or will be, addressed through current government actions.
Finally, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise to the Minister for interrupting, but before she sits down, can she address this point? One of the key arguments made—in that group of amendments to which the noble Baroness referred—by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and by myself and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Thornhill, was about the huge disparity in business rates between online retailers and high street town centre retailers. I will repeat a comparator that I have mentioned previously. A well-known online retailer—not many miles distant from me—pays £45 per square metre in business rates on its premises, whereas a small town high street shop near me pays £240 per square metre. It is that vast difference that is penalising our town centre shops. This is the heart of the problem that this clause is trying to address, and we are supportive of that—but unless we deal with this big difference, nothing much will change. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do about business rates.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are simplifying the issue of the high street. I have listened a number of times to what has been said about business rates, and I have explained how much the Government are putting in to supporting properties in the high street through the revaluation process, et cetera. The Government provide rate relief to help property owners all the time, but the issue of empty properties in the high street is much more complex than that, so there are a number of things we want to address, and one of them is what we are doing in this Bill.
I was saying that I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because I would like some further information from the Department for Transport.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which covered an important part of the levelling-up agenda. I am just thinking about the Minister’s comments. A number of times she said that it was not appropriate to accept the amendment at the moment because it pre-empted the findings of the consultation that was going on. I have said this before, but I think it would be helpful if legislation were brought forward after consultation, rather than during or before it, because that consultation could then inform the legislation. It just seems a bit backwards, as if it is around the wrong way.
Also, there are the levelling-up funds, the towns fund and various other funding pots, but they do not necessarily always go to the most needy or provide the long-term support that is needed. It is how we provide that long-term change that is important. Too often there are sticking plasters with bits of pots of money.
Workington is obviously a town near me; I used to be the Member of Parliament for Workington in the other place. An industry report by planning consultancy Marrons showed that Workington was near the bottom of the 360 provincial towns that it looked at. It has had some funding recently, for example from the levelling-up fund, and we are of course grateful for that, but the money is going to be spent on improving key routes, bringing in new cycling routes and building a new café. Well, that is lovely, but it will not solve the fact that Debenhams and Laura Ashley have gone. If people find they do not need to come into the town centre because those key shops have now closed, they are more likely to go somewhere else to shop. We really need to look at this in a much broader way. Again, that is why business rates are so very important and they are one of the main sticking points.
Again, on the issues around corporate landlords and pension funds, I absolutely agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said on those. We are pleased that the Government are looking to do something about empty shop units. As an example from where I used to live, two shops next door to each other are owned by the same landlady and have been empty for over 20 years, purely and simply because when her shops failed she did not want to let them out to anybody else. So the fact that the Government are trying to do something about this is important, but it has to be done with the support of local authorities and the local community and it has to be done in a way that genuinely makes a difference. It is also important, as other noble Lords have said, that we do not end up with exploitable loopholes or unintended consequences but do have proper oversight. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Power to require provision of certain classes of information(1) Regulations may require the provision of information that is within the scope of a permitted purpose.(2) So far as the regulations are to extend to England and Wales, the permitted purposes are—(a) the beneficial ownership purpose (see section (The beneficial ownership purpose)),(b) the contractual control purpose (see section (The contractual control purpose)), and(c) the national security purpose (see section (The national security purpose)).(3) So far as the regulations are to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the only permitted purpose is the national security purpose.(4) Regulations under this section must, for each requirement they impose, specify—(a) the person on whom the requirement falls,(b) the occurrence or circumstances that gives or give rise to the requirement,(c) the time limit for complying with the requirement, and(d) the person to whom the required information is to be provided.(5) The occurrence or circumstances specified under subsection (4)(b)—(a) must, in the case of a requirement to provide information within the scope of the national security purpose, and(b) in any other case may,be (or include) the giving of a notice in accordance with the regulations to the person on whom the requirement falls.(6) In relation to such cases, the regulations may also make provision deeming notice to have been given at a certain time in certain circumstances.(7) The person specified under subsection (4)(d) must be—(a) the Chief Land Registrar, or(b) another person exercising public functions on behalf of the Crown.(8) Regulations under this section may—(a) make provision about how information is to be provided (including provision requiring it to be provided by electronic means specified in the regulations);(b) provide for, or make provision about, the application of the regulations to persons outside, or information held outside, the United Kingdom; (c) relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause and the other new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204 recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes (along with other minor changes).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce government Amendments 438A, 440ZA, 440ZC, 440B and 440E, which provide clarity and certainty about how the powers relating to interests and dealings in land can and will be used.
First, the Secretary of State will have the ability to require by regulations the disclosure of beneficial ownership information, where it is not already available. These changes will supplement and reinforce the current transparency regime. Secondly, the amendments give the Secretary of State the ability to create regulations to require information on certain arrangements which control land, short of outright ownership. This will enhance the available information on those arrangements. Thirdly, the amendments would allow regulations to enable the Secretary of State to require certain details of ownership and control about a property, where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is a national security threat linked to that property. That could apply, for example, to critical national infrastructure or sensitive sites.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. We have heard that Part 11 sets out a framework for creating powers to require disclosure of certain relevant information relating to ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information. Of course, if this is implemented, it is another significant layer of disclosure around land ownership and control in England and Wales, supplementing the information that is currently held or is going to be held in a number of public registries. It appears that the Government’s ultimate goal here is to ensure transparency around land ownership and control in England and Wales. We would support this aim.
My Amendment 440 probes the retrospective application of this section. As drafted, the provisions could require the disclosure of information relating to events prior to the enactment of the Bill. Clause 206(4) says:
“Regulations under section 204 or 205 may relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this Part”.
This amendment probes the benefits of doing this retrospective application and what the Government are aiming to achieve through this.
My second amendment, Amendment 439, probes how local communities can request land ownership information. It would be really helpful if the Minister could provide a bit more information for us to understand how communities are expected to access this information and how that fits in with the role of the Secretary of State.
I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the government amendments. Amendments 438A, 438B, 438C, 438D and so on insert clauses before Clause 204. They
“recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes”.
Do these provisions apply to government agencies, such as Homes England, as well? If conditions are attached, they can get in the way when regeneration schemes are being considered. It would be good to have some clarification on that point.
We would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in what he is trying to achieve in Amendment 440A. If the Minister could either provide clarification to the noble and learned Lord or look at tightening up the wording, as he suggests, that would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in response to Amendment 439 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I confirm that it will be in the public interest for some of the information that is collected to be published. For example, we intend to publish data on arrangements such as option agreements that developers and others have over land. However, there is some information that we will not be able to publish, so we need to strike the balance between transparency, legitimate privacy, confidentiality and practical or security considerations. Therefore, some information will be shared only
“with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.
At this stage, I want to answer a couple of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She asked why we need beneficial ownership. We believe that the property market in England and Wales should be fair and transparent. A lack of transparency can make it hard to identify rogue landlords, the owners of empty properties and those liable under the Building Safety Act, and it can leave the market vulnerable to criminal activity. We believe that this will deter individuals from using complex structures to obscure ownership of property, and it will provide criminal offences and sanctions for failure to comply.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“The beneficial ownership purpose(1) Information is within the scope of the beneficial ownership purpose if it appears to the Secretary of State that the information would be useful for the purpose of— (a) identifying persons who are beneficial owners of land in England or Wales, or(b) understanding the relationship of those persons with the land that they beneficially own.(2) For the purposes of this section, a person beneficially owns land if either of the following subsections applies.(3) This subsection applies where—(a) the land is owned by a body corporate or partnership, and(b) the person is, in relation to that body corporate or partnership, a beneficial owner within the meaning given by regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations.(4) This subsection applies where—(a) the land is owned as part of—(i) a trust, foundation or similar legal arrangement, or(ii) the estate of a deceased person in the course of administration, and(b) the person is, in relation to that trust, foundation, arrangement or estate, a beneficial owner within the meaning given by regulation 6 of the Money Laundering Regulations.(5) In this section—(a) expressions that are also used in regulation 5 or 6 of the Money Laundering Regulations have the same meaning as in that regulation;(b) references to ownership of land (except references to beneficial ownership) are to the legal ownership of a freehold or leasehold estate in the land;(c) “the Money Laundering Regulations” means the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/692).”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that details of transactions involving land can be obtained under Part 11 (notwithstanding the recasting of the powers of that Part by the new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new clause in the Minister’s name before clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new Clause in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Offences(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed under section (Power to require provision of certain classes of information) commits an offence.(2) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person provides information in response to a requirement imposed under section (Power to require provision of certain classes of information),(b) the information is false or misleading in a material particular, and(c) the person knows that the information is false or misleading or is reckless as to whether it is. (3) But an offence under this section is committed under the law of a given jurisdiction only if the requirement in question is imposed by regulations extending to that jurisdiction.(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).(5) In subsection (4)(a), “the maximum term for summary offences” means—(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, 6 months;(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).(7) If—(a) an entity within subsection (8) commits an offence under this section, and(b) a person who is, or is purporting to act as, a relevant officer of the entity authorises or permits, participates in, or fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence,that person also commits the offence.(8) The entities within this subsection are those specified in the first column of the following table; and “relevant officer”, in relation to such an entity, means a person acting in a capacity specified in the corresponding entry in the second column.
Entity | “Relevant officer” |
A company. | A director, manager, secretary or similar officer. |
A partnership. | A partner. |
A body corporate (other than a company) or unincorporated body whose affairs are managed by a governing body. | A member of the governing body. |
A body corporate (other than a company) or unincorporated body whose affairs are managed by its members. | A member. |
This new Clause provides offences of non-compliance with regulations under Part 11.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision superseded by the new Clause in the Minister’s name after Clause 207.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a definition that is no longer required as a result of the new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the second amendment in the Minister’s name to Clause 209.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a full debate on the numerous issues bearing on pavement licences. I shall begin by addressing Amendments 449 and 450 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, to whom I listened with great care and respect. These two amendments relate to the definition of “relevant highway”. The Government support making it as easy as possible for businesses and local authorities to facilitate outdoor eating and drinking through the use of the streamlined pavement licence process. We believe that local authorities should maintain the flexibility to control pavement licences on highways which are both publicly and privately maintainable. The Business and Planning Act 2020 does not currently distinguish between those two types of highway, and as such any enforcement powers available to local authorities would apply equally, ensuring that local authorities can take appropriate action where there are issues with licences.
There are already a number of ways a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street, including to facilitate the placement of furniture on the highway for alfresco dining. They include consideration of important issues such as whether vehicular access is required. Pavement licences can then be granted to highways that have been considered under those processes. We have seen the success of this in practice across the country, including in Soho in London and in the Northern Quarter in Manchester.
Turning to Amendments 451 and 452, which relate to fees and are also in the name of my noble friend, I can say to him that in developing proposals to make the streamlined pavement licensing process permanent, we have worked closely with local authorities, businesses and leaders from the hospitality sector and communities, and many of the points made in this debate have been raised during that process, including the issue of fees. We are increasing the fee cap from £100 to £500 for first-time applications and to £350 for renewals, having undertaken a detailed analysis of actual costs, to create a sustainable process which will cover the costs to local authorities in processing, monitoring and enforcing the process, while remaining affordable and consistent for businesses around the country, which were seeing inflated fees reaching thousands of pounds per application under the previous process. Local authorities maintain flexibility to set fees at any level under the fee cap to respond to local circumstances. For example, we have seen some areas making licences free to support their local high streets. At a time of rising costs, we are not seeking to impose additional charges on businesses, particularly given that the hospitality industry was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic.
My noble friend asked specifically whether we could include maintenance and schemes for profit-sharing in the licence. The fee cap, on which we have consulted extensively as I have mentioned, is set at a level which will cover the costs to local authorities for the administrative burden that they undertake in issuing licences. As I have emphasised, we are not looking to impose additional costs at this time.
On Amendments 453, 454, 456 and 457, also in the name of my noble friend, the pavement licence process that we are seeking to make permanent has been successful in the past few years because it provides a simpler, more streamlined process to gain a licence. Amendment 453 would introduce an unnecessary new administrative process for local authorities in requiring that receipts are sent to all applicants. It also has the potential to create a delay in the process, meaning that licences could take longer to be determined should receipts not be processed in reasonable timescales. However, we are seeking to double the consultation and determination periods compared to the temporary process to ensure that communities have sufficient opportunity to comment on applications. The total period allowed for consultation and determination will change to 28 days.
We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the consultation period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with these groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that the process is sustainable for the long term and gives communities an opportunity to comment on applications. That is why we are setting the consultation and determination periods at 14 days each—double that of the temporary process. Amendments 454 and 456 would create a slower process than that which it would replace.
Regarding Amendment 457, the deemed consent provision would encourage local authorities to make determinations within the 28-day window from submission. In the rare circumstances where local authorities do not make a determination and the application is deemed to be granted, this will be subject to all national and locally published conditions, including the “no obstruction” condition, which seeks to ensure that the pavement remains accessible for all. Where this condition is not met, local authorities can revoke licences.
I turn to Amendments 455, 458 and 460, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes. Free flow of pedestrians and other users of the highway is important, which is why the Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take this into consideration when determining applications through Section 3(5) and (6)(a), and prevents licences from being granted where they would prevent pedestrians or other non-vehicular traffic from entering or passing along the highway, or having normal access to premises adjoining the highway.
With respect to Amendment 458, we are aware anecdotally of conditions which would, for example, require that licensed furniture be removed when not in use, and conditions which go further than our national smoke-free condition. We consider that local authorities have local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions should they consider it necessary. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions for these issues, as there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate.
With regard to Amendment 460, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for raising the very important issue of accessibility and impact of pavement licensing on disabled users of the highway. I listened carefully to the powerful speeches of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, among others. The existing legislative framework requires local authorities to take these matters into account and they cannot grant a licence if pedestrians are prevented from using the highway as they usually would.
We have taken this issue very seriously in the light of experience since the pandemic. The Business and Planning Act 2020 sets out that all licences are subject to the “no obstruction” condition, which protects pavement users to ensure that they are not prevented from using the highway. In particular, it states that local authorities must have particular regard for disabled people when considering applications, and must have regard to the guidance published by the Secretary of State. This guidance, developed in close collaboration with Guide Dogs and the RNIB, sets out considerations that local authorities should take into account, including whether they should require barriers separating furniture from the rest of the highway—such as colour contrast and tap rails—or more rigid physical barriers. I hope that, taken together, these comments are helpful to my noble friend Lord Holmes and, indeed, to the Committee.
I turn next to Amendment 459 tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The streamlined pavement licence provisions under debate may be granted, as he will know, subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in Section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. As he rightly mentioned, we are aware that a number of councils across the country, including Manchester and Newcastle, have put in place local conditions that ban smoking in pavement licence areas. We believe it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them, using local knowledge and the powers that they already have to impose conditions.
But that is not all. Any licences granted under temporary pavement licence provisions will be subject to a smoke-free condition whereby the premises will need to make reasonable provision for seating outdoors where smoking is not permitted. This condition ensures that customers have greater choice so that smokers and non-smokers are able to sit outside. As I have indicated, local authorities are also able to consider setting their own local conditions where appropriate and where local decision-makers believe that it is reasonable to do so.
I turn next to Amendments 462 and 463 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The Government recognise the importance of having a system that can be properly enforced to both deter and tackle the unauthorised placement of furniture. Powers introduced in the Bill enable local authorities to serve notice requiring that businesses remove furniture that has been placed on the pavement without a licence. If this notice is contravened, local authorities can remove the furniture themselves or instruct to have the furniture removed, and can then recover the costs of this and sell the furniture and retain the profits.
It is the Government’s position that the introduction of the powers proposed will lead to appropriate protection of our communities by giving local authorities powers that both work as a deterrent and directly tackle where notices are ignored, ensuring that the licensing system operates appropriately. Highways authorities already have powers in the Highways Act 1980 to tackle obstructions on the highway, including Section 148, which creates an offence of depositing, without lawful authority or excuse, things on the highway that cause interruption to users of the highway.
I turn finally to Amendment 448, 464 and 465 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. These amendments seek to introduce requirements for assessments of impacts relating to various aspects to be taken by local authorities, by businesses or by government in advance of the measures being made permanent through the Bill. The Government agree that accessibility is incredibly important, and that our towns and city centres should continue to be accessible for all residents. As I set out earlier, we have made it a requirement—set out in Section 3(5) of the Business and Planning Act 2020—that the local authority must consider the impact of the proposed licence on accessibility of the highway to non-vehicular traffic before granting a pavement licence. As I also mentioned a second ago, we worked closely with the RNIB and Guide Dogs on the guidance that supports this.
We also recognise the importance that these measures will have on the vitality and vibrancy of high streets across the country, and encourage businesses and local authorities to embrace the opportunities that this regime offers while considering the impact of new licences on the community. We do not think it necessary or appropriate to require, through legislation, local authorities to consider to what extent a licence will increase high street footfall for the purpose of regeneration, because this would introduce additional burdens on both businesses—in the form of likely needing to undertake analysis and provide evidence of this—and local authorities in assessing this.
Finally, on Amendment 465, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these important issues, which reflect previously tabled amendments that we have discussed on consultation periods, the introduction of tactile markings and the removal of deemed consent. We do not think it appropriate to require a report to be published on these matters as they have already been actively considered, as I have made clear. I hope these comments are helpful to her as regards the amendments in her name and that, specifically, she will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 448.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for, as ever, a thorough response to the issues that have been raised during this interesting debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated.
I appreciate the frustrations of Government Whips, but the purpose of your Lordships’ House is to give proper scrutiny to legislation that comes before us. This is a long and complex Bill with diverse issues, many of which go right to the heart of our communities’ concerns, and it is only right and proper that we raise the issues that we know they would want us to probe and explore in this House.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hayter for her very detailed and clear explanation of the concerns felt by a number of noble Lords about why this clause is in the Bill at all. I thank the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, for their very detailed knowledge and perspective from their professional point of view; that was extremely helpful and I think this is a very important debate.
I added my name to the clause stand part notice because we are also extremely concerned by the wording of Clause 213 as currently drafted. As we have heard, it provides a power for the Secretary of State to instigate a review of RICS at any time and with very few limits in terms of scope, rationale or process. At the same time, it fails to set out any related statutory protections for RICS or for the chartered surveying profession more broadly. Our concerns stem from the fact that this seems a very significant step for a Government to take—to actually create powers to instigate reviews of an independent, member-funded institution, which does not itself, as we heard, exercise any statutory powers. Noble Lords have said they are concerned that this could risk creating a perception of RICS’s inability to act independently and in the public interest. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it has nothing to do with either levelling up or regeneration and could set a highly unusual precedent for any other royal chartered body in the future.
We have heard about the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the previous review mentioned by my noble friend. She went into the detail of what the independent reviews have said. Also, recommendation 14 of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, required an independent review of RICS to take place every five years. My noble friend said that it has agreed to do that even more frequently, every three years, so I do not really understand what the Government’s concerns are. It strikes me that, despite the concerns the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, laid out about recent issues within RICS, it has taken concerns raised extremely seriously, has accepted the recommendations in this report and is amending the RICS charter and by-laws to reflect the recommendations in full, subject to the approval of the Privy Council.
So my first question to the Minister is: why do the Government feel the need to interfere in this process? RICS itself, having accepted the recommendations in the review, is looking to ensure that it is held accountable in a transparent, orderly and appropriate manner, so I genuinely do not understand why the Government feel they need to legislate, as other noble Lords have said. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could properly explain.
I also found it very concerning to hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter that there do not seem to have been any recent meetings between RICS and the Government. Can the Minister confirm that and explain what meetings have been held to discuss this and when? It does seem quite an extraordinary step. We support either the removal or the amendment of this clause so that it aligns with the wording of recommendation 14 of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, if it is going to stay in here. Surely the regulation of professions should be overseen by independent governance and decision-making that uphold the public interest and also guard against any risk of improper interference. Can the Minister explain why this clause is in the Bill? Will he also comment on the suggestion of hybridity, because this is extremely concerning?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the discussions my noble friend Lady Scott and I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, prior to this debate. I appreciate that they and others have hesitations and reservations around this clause; however, I hope I can persuade the Committee that those reservations should not be given weight.
The Government consider that Clause 213 should remain in the Bill because retaining the Secretary of State’s power in legislation to initiate reviews demonstrates that the Government are committed to supporting RICS in regaining and retaining its reputation after some very serious public failings in 2018-19. The clause also gives the Secretary of State discretion to set specific matters for the independent reviewer to consider that are connected to its governance and effectiveness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that there was no rationale for this. The provision is to ensure that a review could specifically include issues that become a public concern, such as providing leadership to the market for the benefit of consumers, rather than always seeking to satisfy members.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that she viewed the clause as interfering with an independent, free-standing institution. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a similar point. While the clause clarifies the Secretary of State’s power to initiate a review, it would create no power to intervene in the workings of RICS, so I disagree with the premise that Clause 213 interferes with the independence of RICS. Indeed, the clause is clear in clarifying the independence of any proposed reviewer and, with regard to the review itself, mandates only the remit and a requirement to publish, and not, for instance, how the review is undertaken.
I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the power conferred by the clause is strictly limited. The Secretary of State would be required by the clause to publish the independent reviewer’s report but, as he mentioned, the Government are not legislating to act on the review’s outcomes or the independent reviewer’s report, because we cannot, as he said, pre-empt any findings or recommendations. Should the Government require any legislative powers to enact any of the recommendations from a review, we will need to return to Parliament for permission. Once again, this approach will ensure RICS’s ability to operate independently from government while strengthening its accountability to Parliament. The noble Earl asked whether any report would be made directly to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The answer is no: the report would be independent and the Secretary of State is simply required to publish it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that there would be no reason for the Secretary of State to establish an inquiry under the terms of this clause. RICS is uniquely influential across construction sectors and their links with financial service markets. It is the sole body for bestowing chartered surveyor status in the UK and its reputation took a big hit as a result of the failings of 2018-19, which, given its unique role in these matters, is a very serious issue. We cannot and should not gloss over those failings. Historically, RICS took a very limited view of providing leadership to the market for the public good, being constrained by its internal practices and policies, such as on EWS1 forms, and this contributed to difficulties for leaseholders in selling their flats.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that the Government do not need this power: he asked what the point was of including the clause. In this clause, we are setting out the scope of any review, and this should act as a reassurance as to the limits of what the Secretary of State is empowered to do. I say again: RICS’s independence of working is not in question. At the same time, the Government are signalling the importance we attach to RICS in protecting consumer interests through its guidance and standards, as well as the regulatory functions it undertakes across the market, improving and managing the built environment and land.
Earl Howe (Con)
As I mentioned, the way the clause is phrased should give reassurance to those who feel that there might be a danger of the Government interfering with the operation of RICS. The clause does not permit that.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, that does not answer my question. Could my noble friend answer my question?
Earl Howe (Con)
I believe I have done so. The clause is justified for all the reasons I have mentioned.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am fascinated by the possibility of using this same mechanism on the chartered accountants, of whom I am a fellow and whom government often wishes would conduct themselves otherwise when looking after and examining the health of companies on behalf of shareholders; and on bodies such as psychiatrists’, which are currently adopting some very strange policies that seem to run counter to the national interest. But do we really want to rob these bodies of their independence, in a way that this clause starts us down the road to doing? Or do we want to encourage—and I have nothing, I am glad to say, to do with the role of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—these bodies to heal themselves when they are sick, as appears to have happened in this case? There are a lot of bodies that have grown up over the years doing very important work within their segments of British public life. Are we really saying that this is the start of bringing them all under the Government, or are we happy to say that they may go wrong sometimes but what matters is that they sort themselves out and stay independent?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I would simply encourage my noble friend to read my remarks in Hansard. There is no promise in this clause to the effect that the current or a future Secretary of State will initiate a review, but that there should be a power for them to do so. I would encourage my noble friend to reflect on the justification I gave in the terms that I gave it, which is that we are clear that the independence of RICS in operating as it does is not in doubt.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Hayman, for their contributions on what I think is a rather significant and important issue. I also thank the Minister; “nice try” is how I would summarise what he has tried to do. Much more serious than that, though, I think he gave the game away.
I did not talk about EWS1, quite deliberately, at the introduction of this because I thought it would put the Government on the wrong foot. I felt that that was not a debate we should get into. I must declare an interest, as I live in a cladded building, so I was very involved from day one with the issue of cladding. I remember EWS1 and I remember before that. I remember when the threshold was 18 metres, which affected where I live. The Government asked RICS whether it would say a building was safe below, I think, 14 metres. RICS felt it could not, in all seriousness, give that assurance. I, as a consumer and a resident of a tall building, was reassured that a standard setter—a surveying organisation—did not give in to the Government and did not say that a building would be safe when it was not.
I deliberately did not use that at the beginning of this debate because I did not want to start a ding-dong about something in the past that I thought the Government had got wrong at the time. They were trying to put together a package, which was very complicated after Grenfell. There was the matter of how much money would go towards the buildings that would be affected, and that would come out of a £6 billion fund that was not there at the time. I understand the Government were having difficulties, but it is giving the game away that the Minister has mentioned that, because it is a row that happened then.
RICS may have been completely wrong—it could have been absolutely safe. It could have said that all these buildings under 14 metres that are cladded are absolutely safe. RICS could have been absolutely wrong, and the Government could have been right to ask them to sign off the form. I think we were on Advice Note 14 at the time, so we have been through a lot of these. I, as the consumer, would prefer an independent organisation, even if it is wrong, to tell me whether my dwelling house is safe, rather than the Government, who obviously had a vested interest because of the amount of money they were going to put into it. I was not going to raise that issue, because I thought it was going back. I do think this has given a lot away.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has asked why we need this, because the Government can do it anyway. The Minister has said that the Government have no powers to do anything; even if they set up an inquiry and it proved everything, they still cannot do anything. So the only thing it does is give a chill factor, a threat factor. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who called it the sword of Damocles. We have had this from the Government before; twice, I have had to deal with it. I dealt with it once before I was in this House, when I chaired the Legal Services Consumer Panel. At that stage, the coalition Government tried to make us—the consumer panel and the Legal Services Board itself—put our websites on GOV.UK. That may not sound very serious, but for an independent regulator of lawyers, it was seen as a real threat to the independence of regulating lawyers. We fought the Government off and just refused to do it.
We then had it again during the passage of the Bill on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was the Minister. The Government were trying to take a power over the regulators to decide whether they should, for example, accept nurses, vets and other professionals as part of a trade deal, so they would have been regulating the recognition of the qualifications of people coming here from another country as part of a trade deal. We saw off the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, at the time, and the Bill was much changed, as he admits. We wrote into that Bill a clause saying that the regulators must remain independent of government. So, here we have the itchy fingers of government trying to tell independent regulators what to do. The Minister says there is no power to intervene, and so there is no interference—but the threat is a power to intervene.
I am not going to answer all the points that have been made, because I think they speak for themselves. The Government will understand the unease around the Committee about this proposal. I do not think they have made any argument for the need for this. Frankly, if the Government intervened in every organisation that had gone a bit awry, we would have them looking at the CBI at the moment, which is another important institution in civic society. It is going through much more of a meltdown than anything poor old RICS did, but I assume that the Government are not going to try to interfere in any chartered institute or anything else, or just an independent organisation that has had some troubles.
I do not think the Government have answered how this clause is going to promote the levelling-up agenda. Indeed, if there is any loss of confidence in surveyors, it will do exactly the opposite. The Minister has failed to give assurances that it will not be used as a big stick to make RICS do their bidding in the future.
I am delighted that the Minister has reported, finally, that there will be a meeting between his oppo in the Commons and the chief executive of RICS. It is a bit late, frankly, when we already have a clause in a Bill—I am not going to push it to a vote now, so within a minute or two it will be in the Bill—to have a meeting. We need this self-regulation; that is the right way for independent regulation. I think the Committee and the Minister will not be surprised by me saying that I will return with an amendment to delete the clause on Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (6A) into Clause 214.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 467B and 467C address consequential amendments to the marine licensing cost recovery powers. Clause 214 gives the Secretary of State fee-charging powers for post-consent marine licence monitoring, variations and transfers. We are now adding a consequential amendment to clarify the position where there is an overlap between the general post-consent marine licensing fees and oil and gas marine licensing fees for the same activity, to provide that the oil and gas fees will apply in those circumstances.
Amendments 467D, 467E, 504GK, 504M, 509D and 513 will support the Government’s response to the eventual recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Building Safety Act 2022 set up the building safety regulator and its functions within the Health and Safety Executive. We continue to support the Health and Safety Executive in delivering these new functions, and I take this opportunity to thank it for its work over the last two years. To future-proof the building safety regulator and its critical work and protect the other important work of the Health and Safety Executive, the Government consider it essential that we have the option to move the building safety regulator to an existing or new body in the future. This will allow the Government to respond quickly, if needed, to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, which we expect to be published at the end of this year. I recognise that there will be concerns about how broad these powers are. To provide reassurance, the powers are affirmative and include a 24-month sunset provision, which can be extended only if needed and only after Parliament’s consideration.
In speaking to Amendment 467F, which introduces a new clause after Clause 214, I will speak also to Amendments 509C, 504N and 514. This new clause addresses a concern of schools that occupy premises held on special trusts for the purposes of those schools. Local authorities have a discretionary power to provide premises for academies, but there is currently no requirement to transfer the land, as exists for maintained schools. Instead, the local authority tends to offer the academy trust company a lease. If trustees hold particular premises specifically for a school and the school moves to other premises, they cannot carry out the purpose of their charity if nothing else is done, as their premises end up without a school.
The new clause ensures more consistent treatment across the system, where the local authority must transfer the new premises it is providing to the charitable school trustees. In exchange, the trustees must pay the local authority the proceeds of sale from the existing premises—or, if the local authority agrees, the trustees can simply transfer the existing premises to it.
I turn to Amendment 504HA. In the light of the successful passage of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill through the Senedd Cymru, the Government are giving further consideration to the approach to the power under paragraph 7(2) of the new schedule to be inserted after Schedule 15 by government Amendment 412B. As such, I do not intend to move Amendment 504HA at this time.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments 504K and 504L. The United Kingdom faces constant threats to its national security, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made us all too aware. These amendments will ensure that Ministers can require information about properties that may be used to threaten national security, wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I want to comment on and ask some questions about the amendments in this string that relate to the building safety regulator: Amendments 467D, 467E, 504GK, 504M, 509D and 513. The Minister somewhat skated over their significance; I have some serious questions to ask. It is worth pointing out that these amendments tabled by the Government are so out of scope that one of the amendments is seeking to extend the Bill’s scope so that they can be included.
Briefly, these amendments would give the Secretary of State powers to scrap the building safety regime set up by the Building Safety Act, which was passed just 12 months ago. That regime, with a new building safety regulator under the auspices of the Health and Safety Executive, was a specific and central recommendation of the Hackitt review, which the Government accepted in full at the time and which had the sustained support of your Lordships’ House at every stage of the Bill’s passage. There was criticism of that Bill as it went through this House but it centred on the inadequate compensation provisions and the uncertainty created by the delay in bringing the regulatory regime fully into force, which does not actually happen until later this year. No concerns were expressed about the regulatory mechanism being set up.
The 18-month delay in the coming into force of that regulator was said by the Government at the time to be necessary to allow time for the regulator to set up shop and because of the need for the construction industry to train up qualified personnel and then deliver, in accordance with the regulator’s requirements. Bringing the building regulation system under the Health and Safety Executive was warmly welcomed on all sides. Again, the criticism was that its reach was too limited and should not be confined to high-rise and high-risk buildings; it was said that the regulator’s remit should be expanded. No voice was raised that this was the wrong model, still less that it was unfit for the essential job of upgrading building standards drastically and rapidly following the Grenfell Tower fire.
Last year, the Government resisted the expansion of the regulator’s role on the grounds that it had to learn to walk before it started to run. Since the regulator was appointed, multiple workstreams and training programmes have begun throughout the construction industry in what is undoubtedly one of the most challenging catch-up operations that it has ever faced. The industry has faced up to it because of the unflinching, no-holds-barred approach of the regulator—strongly supported, of course, because of the certainty that primary legislation gives it—means that it had no choice. There is no risk—or, in some quarters of the construction industry, no hope—of the regulator going soft over time because it is there through primary legislation with a very strong remit.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank noble Lords for that interesting debate on the government amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why this measure is necessary. The Health and Safety Executive has a strong identity and a regulatory background focusing on safety. That is why it was well positioned in 2020 to deliver the building safety regulator quickly, and why the Building Safety Act specified that the Health and Safety Executive—which, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, comes under the DWP—would be that regulator.
However, it is clear from the evidence given to the Grenfell Tower inquiry that the Government must provide stronger stewardship across the wider built environment, addressing safety alongside issues such as housing standards and the intergenerational impact of new buildings. That may require longer-term reform and could impact on building-related regulatory functions that are currently spread across multiple regulators and arm’s-length bodies. The Government must continue to consider the best vehicle to deliver that intent.
That does not affect the ambitious timeline for the building safety regulator. That is important work. We expect the regime to be fully operational by April 2024 and are determined not to impact on that programme. I say again that we are grateful to the Health and Safety Executive for all that it has done to bring this regime to life.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I ask the Minister to consider the timeline a little more carefully. If the current regulator is not going to be in full flow until April next year, and if the Grenfell inquiry’s final report comes—as she suggested it would—some time next year, are the Government confident that they can maintain a viable building safety regulatory operation using the existing structure based on the HSE, properly staffed and properly led, through that transition period? Is she further satisfied that a two-year window following the publication of the Grenfell Tower final report is sufficient to undertake the very wide-ranging review that she has just been outlining? Would it not make more sense to pause that process and, once the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s report is received, take a measured look at all those together and produce a further Bill in good time, with proper consideration by your Lordships?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, my Lords, because we are not actually putting anything in place in this Bill. We are giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to do so if the Grenfell Tower inquiry comes out with something that it requires. I have no doubt that the building safety regulator will continue to work as it has always worked—with professionalism —to deliver that, and I am not hearing any issues from the building safety regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why these measures were not included in the 2022 Act. The Government recognised the need for major reform of the building safety regime to be delivered as quickly as possible, following the tragedy of Grenfell. The priority is now delivering this new regime effectively while remaining open to going further and faster wherever any evidence makes it clear that we should do so. We are just making sure that we are ready if the inquiry decides that we need to.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned transition, and of course it is important that, if there is to be another system, there is a good transition. The regulations will be taken through the affirmative procedure, as set out in these amendments, in close consultation with the HSE, and we will work with Parliament to ensure that they are delivered in a seamless and exemplary manner.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I am sorry to trespass on the time of the Committee, but can the Minister give a clear understanding that the existing complete independence of the building safety regulator will be maintained when the Government come up with their new alternative? I remind her that considerable time was spent in this Chamber safeguarding the professional independence of the regulator and freeing it from the possibility of interference, by either the Government or other bodies.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
What I can assure the noble Lord of is that, if we do have to go down this route, both Houses of Parliament will have a say in that. I am sure that we will have long debates on it. The noble Lord also asked about accountability to the House. As I have said, the powers will be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure that the House is given full and proper opportunity to scrutinise any proposals if they come in due course.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 31st report of this Session. I reassure noble Lords that the powers that we are seeking to take in Amendment 467D are intended to allow us to change only the home of the building safety regulator, as created by the Building Safety Act. There is no intention or plan for fundamental policy change in that.
Moving on, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked whether Amendment 467F was entirely about schools with religious foundations. There are also non-religious schools that have these charitable site trustees. We are not talking about academy trusts here: we are talking just about the charitable site trustees. They are mainly religious, but there are others that are not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked whether the trust required proceeds from the original premises to fund—no, I am sorry, this is something that I asked. It might be interesting to the noble Baroness that, if the trust required proceeds from the original premises to fund new schools, I was concerned about that. It has been made clear to me that capital funds come from local authorities where there is a need to provide sufficient school places, so I hope that will also put the noble Baroness’s mind at rest.
I was asked where the local authority fits into this. It will be in no worse a position than if the same schools had relocated as maintained schools or as foundation and voluntary schools, where the local authority would be obliged to provide the new site and transfer it to the trustees. Land would be held for the purposes of the academy, with appropriate protections for public value, including that the land could ultimately return to the authority if in future it is no longer needed for a school, so the local authority is protected on that.
The noble Baroness also asked whether it is a compulsory swap and what local consultation there would be for the local authority on the swap. It would be a compulsory swap only if the trustees are being asked to surrender their interest in the current site in exchange. We would expect such arrangements to occur only after the usual processes for relocating a school, which would include consultation and a consideration of the impact of moving places from one site to the other. All those issues would have been looked at.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked whether—I cannot read this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It was about giving the HSE some other responsibility.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are not placing further responsibilities on to the Health and Safety Executive. The intention is purely to allow the Government to move building safety functions from the HSE to another body in future, if that is needed. That is the important thing.
I think that I have answered all the questions but I will look in Hansard. If I have not, I will certainly write to noble Lords.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(6A) In section 110A (fees: oil and gas activities for which marine licence needed), in subsection (4)—(a) after “67,” insert “72(3), 72(7) or 72A(2)(a) or (b),”;(b) after “67(2)” insert “or 72A(4)”;(c) after “67(5)” insert “or 72A(6)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes amendments to section 110A of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) to clarify the interaction between the different fee charging powers under the 2009 Act in consequence of the expansion of the Secretary of State’s fee charging powers under the 2009 Act by Clause 214.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Power to replace Health and Safety Executive as building safety regulator(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a body (“the new regulator”) to replace the Health and Safety Executive as the building safety regulator for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022.(2) The new regulator may be—(a) a body established by the regulations, or(b) another body specified in the regulations.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with subsection (1), including provision—(a) conferring new functions on, or modifying existing functions of, the new regulator;(b) establishing or modifying the constitutional arrangements of the new regulator;(c) establishing or modifying the funding arrangements of the new regulator;(d) conferring a power on the Secretary of State to give directions to the new regulator.(4) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act.(5) No regulations may be made under this section after—(a) the end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is presented to Parliament in accordance with section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005, or(b) such later time as may be specified or described by the Secretary of State in regulations made before the end of that period. (6) In this section—“constitutional arrangements” , in relation to the new regulator, include matters relating to—(a) the name and status of the body;(b) the chair, members and staff of the body (including qualifications and procedures for appointment and functions);(c) the body’s powers to employ staff;(d) remuneration, allowances and pensions for the body’s members and staff;(e) governing procedures and arrangements (including the role and membership of committees and sub-committees);(f) reports and accounts (including audit);“funding arrangements” , in relation to the new regulator, include provision for it to be funded by a Minister of the Crown and the extent of such funding;“Grenfell Tower Inquiry” means the public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 as set up on 15 August 2017 for the purposes of section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005;“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to replace the Health and Safety Executive as the building safety regulator and a power to make further provision in connection with such regulations. The regulations must be made before the end of 24 months from the day the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is presented to Parliament, or such later time as may be specified in regulations made before the end of that period.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Open access mapping(1) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 9 (maps in conclusive form) insert—“9A Review of maps (England)(1) This section applies where a map has been issued in conclusive form for the purposes of this Part in respect of any area in England.(2) Natural England must before 1 January 2031, to the extent that they consider appropriate, carry out a review of whether—(a) any land shown on that map as open country or registered common land is open country or registered common land at the time of the review, and(b) any land in that area which is not so shown ought to be so shown.(3) Regulations may require Natural England to carry out subsequent reviews, in respect of such matters and in respect of such circumstances as may be prescribed.”(3) In section 10 (review of maps)—(a) at the end of the heading insert “(Wales)”;(b) in subsection (1), after “area” insert “in Wales”;(c) in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—“(a) in the case of the first review, not more than ten years after the issue of the map in conclusive form, and(b) in the case of subsequent reviews, not more than fifteen years after the previous review.”(4) In section 11 (regulations relating to maps)—(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (j) insert—“(ja) the procedure to be followed on a review under section 9A (including provision as to the period within which, and the manner in which, representations may be made to Natural England in relation to such a review),”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)(ja) may make provision—(a) for appeals in relation to a review, including by making provision applying, or corresponding to, any provision of, or made under, Schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (coastal access reports) (with or without modifications);(b) enabling Natural England to make a determination in preparing a map on a review that any boundary of an area of open country is to be treated as coinciding with a particular physical feature (whether the effect is to include other land as open country or to exclude part of an area of open country).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new provision into the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to make provision about when Natural England must carry out reviews following the issue of a map of any area in England in conclusive form, and the matters that such a review must cover. The amendment also makes provision for regulations to set out the procedure on a review and makes consequential amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for setting out the case for his amendment. However, I am afraid it still looks to me as if he is trying to fix something that is not broken and in doing so is going in the opposite direction of travel to a Bill for devolution.
Taxi licensing in two-tier areas is operated efficiently and effectively and enables local authorities to meet local needs. It also enables local taxi businesses to call into their local authority and have direct contact with it. The enforcement is also done very effectively. The proposal in the levelling up White Paper to transfer taxi licensing powers might be relevant to mayoral combined authorities, but I cannot see the case to justify it for shire counties. Current arrangements for licensing in shire counties work well and do not need to be disturbed. There are more important issues that would benefit shire counties than taking up time on such a consultation; for example, allowing councils to set licensing and planning fees or reforming funding for regeneration so that bidding is not necessary. I could go on, but it is late so I will not.
Even in London, it is not possible to buy an integrated ticket covering tubes, trains, buses and taxis. There will never be an integration of ticketing for obvious reasons of affordability; the cost of taxis and private hire vehicles make them the most expensive form of transport per mile. The White Paper presents no evidence that decisions on licensing prevent the integration of those transport modes into local transport plans. County councils as highways authorities are competent at providing taxi ranks at transport hubs and other appropriate locations in town centres; they do not need taxi licensing powers to achieve that integration.
District councils are not likely to ban taxis from operating half an hour either side of a train arrival, to try to stop private hire vehicles from picking up at or near bus stops, or to say that taxis cannot run at 2 am on Saturday or Sunday mornings to pick up people leaving nightclubs. So could we have more clarity on why Whitehall thinks that there is an integration problem?
A government Minister in the other place has talked of the inconsistency between licensing authorities because there are so many of them. Reducing the number of licensing authorities to 80, as that Minister mentioned, shows the fallacy of the suggestion. One could argue that inconsistencies are local authorities meeting the needs of their communities in relation to taxi operation. However, even if there are problems of inconsistency in policy or practice, the way to address them is by legislating for consistency.
In shire counties, it is likely that the review would be unwelcome and unnecessary. It would remove local decision-making that is sensitive to local requirements and policies and based on local knowledge. It is the opposite of devolution; it would not be an improvement to see decisions on licensing being taken remotely, with no guarantee that they will be people elected by the districts concerned or that they would have any knowledge of the district.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan would require the Secretary of State to consult on the proposal in the levelling up White Paper
“to explore transferring control of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing to both combined authorities and upper-tier authorities”.
I reassure my noble friend that the Department for Transport plans to engage stakeholders on the proposal set out in the levelling up White Paper to explore transferring the responsibility for licensing taxis and private hire vehicles to upper-tier and combined authorities. The aim is to do so during the course of this year. Clearly, as my noble friend will understand, it is essential that the proposal is considered in detail before any decisions are taken about whether to proceed with the change. I am sure that the issues highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, can be picked up in that engagement process. My colleagues at the Department for Transport reassure me that they are currently working on this, so I hope that that, in turn, reassures my noble friend Lord Moylan sufficiently to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who was speaking almost as if I were suggesting that this power be transferred from local authority to some remote Whitehall bureaucracy and administered by statutory instrument in a way displeasing to your Lordships’ House. We are both committed to local government; it is simply a question of which tier of local government, where more than one exists, is the appropriate authority for doing this.
None the less, I am delighted to hear what my noble friend the Minister said; he offered me the assurances I wanted to hear. The discussions, consultations and engagement will proceed, and he has given a timeline. I have achieved as much as I had hoped to achieve in the course of this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 473, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament—within three months of the day on which this Bill is passed—on the existing barriers to the establishment of regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom. I want to make it clear that the Government are supportive of the choice provided by mutual institutions in financial services. They recognise the contribution that these member-owned, democratically controlled institutions make to the local communities they serve and to the wider economy.
However, regional mutual banks are still in the process of establishing themselves here in the United Kingdom, with some now in the process of obtaining their banking licences. It is, therefore, too early to report on the current regime and any possible limitations of this for regional mutual banks. I know that my noble friend Lord Holmes was interested in how regional mutual banks have performed in other jurisdictions and how we could use these examples to consider the UK’s own capital adequacy requirements. In this instance, international comparisons may not be the most helpful to make. The UK is inherently a different jurisdiction, with different legislative and regulatory frameworks from those in the US, Europe or elsewhere.
Abroad, some regional mutual banks have been in existence for centuries and have been able to build up their capital base through retained earnings. In the UK, regional mutual banks are not yet established and are continuing to progress within the UK’s legislative framework. However, the Treasury is continuing to engage with the mutuals sector and other industry members to assess how the Government can best support the growth of mutuals going forward. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on behalf of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond—to feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for her response. I suddenly thought that I probably should have declared my interests as a member of the Co-operative Party and as someone who believes very strongly in the benefits of the mutual model. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will read Hansard very carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I hope noble Lords will bear with me because there was some confusion over the position of this group in the list. Some of us had an earlier list, where it appeared much later.
I have tabled Amendment 504GJH, about the state of schools and hospitals. At the heart of levelling up is the need to provide good-quality education to young people across the country and that means good-quality buildings in which children can go to school. Where schools are in disrepair and cannot be used appropriately, children are at a disadvantage, particularly, say, in secondary education with science blocks that are out of date so that children will not be able to do modern science experiments.
The quality of school buildings in this country is very important and a department report from December 2022 highlighted the critical level of disrepair in many of our school buildings across the country. This prompted me to lay this amendment to this part of the Bill. The annual report said that officials have raised the risk level of school buildings collapsing to “very likely” after an increase in serious structural issues being reported, especially in blocks built in the post-war years, 1945 to 1970.
The type of structure used has led to the quite rapid deterioration of those buildings. I said earlier that I was a school governor for a number of years. The school had a science block built in the early 1970s that was condemned for these very reasons, so I know how accurate this is.
If we are talking about levelling up and regeneration, at its heart should be public services, school buildings and the quality of the education delivered within them. It is school buildings that I am pointing to today. The report said that the risk level for school buildings had been escalated, as I said, from “critical” to “very likely”.
The difficulty is that, because so many school buildings were built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with this sort of metal structure, there is a huge call on government funding. It is called a light frame system, I think; it is a steel structure anyway. Every one of us will have buildings like that where we live. I want this Bill to focus on doing something about school buildings and hospitals that we know about. The Government have committed to 40 new hospitals—five more have just been added—because they are falling down. That is not right. We are talking about regeneration and levelling up. Having school buildings and hospitals collapsing shows the level of investment that will be needed if we are genuinely going to try to level up across this country.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 476, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks to give a minimum height for letterboxes. It is important to ensure that doors in homes include letterboxes at a height that does not cause injury, risk or inconvenience. We have researched the safety and accessibility of letterbox heights to establish the evidence with which to amend existing statutory guidance applicable in England. The Government are committed to reviewing their building regulations statutory guidance and any references to third-party guidance on the position of letterboxes. We intend to include the recommended height for letterboxes in statutory guidance.
I turn to Amendment 487 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Clause 124 and Schedule 11 to the Bill introduce the infrastructure levy in England. The new infrastructure levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current system of developer contributions, meaning that there will be a greater contribution from developers towards the type of infrastructure to which the noble Baroness referred. Under new Section 204Q in Schedule 11, local authorities will be required to produce infrastructure delivery strategies. These strategies will set out how they intend to spend their levy proceeds. In preparing these strategies, local authorities will be expected to engage with the relevant infrastructure providers to understand what infrastructure will be needed to support new development in their areas. In this way, local authorities will be able to take a more strategic view of the infrastructure that will be required to support development in their areas.
On Amendments 489, 490, 491, 493, 494 and 495, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government agree that regeneration is important in our new towns, coastal towns and market towns and recognise the contribution that markets can make to the vibrancy and diversity of our high streets, which is essential to levelling up the country. In this legislation, we are committed to going further in supporting places to tackle blight and to revive our high streets within these areas. The legislation builds on a far-reaching existing support package for high streets and town centres, including £3.6 billion investment in the towns fund, £4.8 billion investment in the levelling-up fund and £2.6 billion in the shared prosperity fund, along with support from the high streets task force.
On Amendment 496 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, this Government have recently set ambitious new targets for air quality through the Environment Act 2021. These will drive action to reduce PM2.5 where concentrations are highest—often within our busiest towns and cities—reducing disparities as well as reducing average exposure across the country. The Environment Act 2021 established a framework for setting these and any future environmental targets. There is already a comprehensive legal framework governing air pollution, which works in a coherent and complementary way with established national emissions ceilings and concentration targets for a wide range of air pollutants from a variety of sources.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for reminding us how we got to where we are. He was absolutely right on every single point he made. This is terribly important, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for giving us the amendment. If I have one criticism, it is that I am not sure we are yet at a Bill stage. Although it says “draft legislation” in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause—I understand that—I personally favour a royal commission or something that would actually look at the nature of local government and central government powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, has rightly identified the difficulty of devolving and at the same time levelling up, which, as he said, requires a greater element of centralised control. I have said several times over the course of this Bill, and before, that you cannot run England out of London; with 56 million people, we are steadily learning that. One of the reasons we are having these constant changes in the Government’s intentions for Bills is that they do not know either what they want to do—so, in the end, the Civil Service carries on and Ministers carry on trying to move forward.
There are elements in the Bill which are very important in assisting us down the road of greater devolution, and they lie in the combined county authorities. The more we have combined county authorities—much though I do not like the centralisation which can result, because they do not have, for example, a Greater London assembly; they do not have a structure such as that to underpin them—the more we will have a move away from Whitehall.
I do not want to say any more about that; I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has proposed in this amendment. I think we should note what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about the overall situation that we are in, but I hope that the Government and the Minister will see the importance of trying to bring all this together, because inevitably we are going to come back to this on Report anyway, as we look at the first parts of the Bill that, in Committee, we debated many weeks ago. I welcome the amendment and I hope the Government will see that there would be benefit in moving us forward, not just with structures like the combined counties but actually with real devolution of real things.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to place an obligation on a Minister of the Crown to publish draft legislation for a devolution Bill within 120 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. We support the principle behind this amendment—that combined county authorities can request further powers which would enable activity to help drive economic growth and support levelling up.
In fact, we have already gone further than this in the devolution offer set out in the levelling up White Paper. This sets out a clear menu of options for places in England that wish to unlock the benefits of devolution, whether that is moving towards a London-style transport system to connect people to opportunity, improving local skills provision or being able to act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need. Any area, including those considering a combined county authority, is welcome to come forward and ask government to confer local authority and public authority functions as part of devolution deal negotiations. The levelling up White Paper has confirmed that the devolution framework is not a minimum offer. These asks are typically made as part of devolution deal negotiations.
We recognise that our existing mayors are already playing a powerful role in driving local economic growth and levelling up. That is why the Government plan to deepen the devolution settlements of the most mature institutions. The White Paper committed to trailblaze deeper devolution deals with the Greater Manchester and West Midlands combined authorities. These agreements were announced on 15 March 2023 and include many areas which will support these regions to drive growth and prosperity, including on skills, transport, housing and net zero, alongside single funding settlements and stronger accountability focused on outcomes.
These deals will act a blueprint for other areas with mature institutions to follow. This will include combined county authorities, once established. Ultimately, our aim is to achieve the local leadership levelling-up mission: that, by 2030, all parts of England that want one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.
I say to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that, actually, devolution is what we want to deliver the local leadership that is required to level up this country. Devolution is part of the levelling up in the Bill, along with many other things to enable the levelling up of the United Kingdom. As such, I hope the noble Baroness agrees that this amendment is unnecessary and feels she can withdraw it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in the debate and to the Minister for her response. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was absolutely spot-on to point to the tension between devolution and levelling up. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have felt that tension; we kept coming back to it, because there is an essential tension there. He mentioned the number of funding streams—planning fees, bidding fees, pothole action funds, the towns fund—which are all funds that local areas have to bid for, and they are not a buoyant source of local revenue. They are not renewable: if you want more, you have to go back to government and ask for more. What we actually need are those local revenue-generating sources that would enable that economic regeneration in our own areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, suggested that this might need some sort of a commission to run to in order to demonstrate what you need to do to shift this.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 478 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require new homes and buildings in England to have solar panels as of April 2025. I acknowledge straight away that the spirit of this amendment is unimpeachable. Renewable energy, such as that generated from solar panels, is a key part of our strategy to get to net zero.
We should be aiming to see new homes and buildings built in a way that contributes to the net-zero agenda. The difference between the Government and the noble Baroness, in working towards that aim, is one of approach. I am sure she will recall that the Government introduced an uplift in energy-efficiency standards, which came into force in June 2022. The purpose of the uplift is to deliver a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. Critically, though, it also provides a stepping stone to the future homes and buildings standards, which we are aiming to legislate for next year and which would come into force in 2025.
It is important to understand that our approach to achieving higher energy-efficiency standards has remained consistent—that is to say technology neutral—to provide developers with the flexibility to innovate and choose the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions for their sites. Some buildings may not be suitable for solar panels—for instance, homes that are heavily shaded due to nearby buildings or trees, or where the roof size or shape does not lend itself to solar panels. We fully expect, however, that to comply with the uplift, most developers will choose to install solar panels on new homes and buildings or use other low-carbon technology such as a heat pump. Introducing an amendment to mandate solar panels would therefore be largely redundant. I hope that is helpful in explaining why we do not think that this amendment is the right way to go.
I turn to Amendment 504GJE in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This looks to allow local planning authorities to request the installation of solar panels on roofs of commercial buildings and adjoining spaces in a designated area. I am sure that we can agree that decarbonising our energy supply is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. I am not, however, convinced that giving local planning authorities powers effectively to require commercial property landowners and tenants to fit solar panels to their existing buildings and facilities is the best way to achieve this. Not all commercial landowners or tenants will be in the position to take action.
Instead, we should focus on empowering those who have the means to do so by ensuring that planning and building regulations are not a barrier. That is why we have policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, as well as permitted development rights and building standards, that support the rollout of renewable energy, including installing solar panels. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that local planning authorities should have a positive strategy in place to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources, such as solar panels. The NPPF is also clear that when determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should approve the application if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. This can include the installation of solar panels.
To help facilitate the take-up of renewable energy, permitted development rights allow for the installation of rooftop solar and stand-alone ground-mounted solar in the grounds of domestic and non-domestic buildings. The Government have recently consulted on changes to the permitted development rights for solar equipment to support the solar energy objectives set out in the British energy security strategy. The consultation included proposals to amend the existing permitted development right for the installation of rooftop solar on commercial buildings and introduce a new permitted development right for solar canopies on non-domestic car parks, such as supermarkets and retail parks. The department is now considering the responses and further details will be announced in due course.
It is also worth my reverting to the point I made in response to Amendment 478. The energy efficiency changes to the building regulations that the Government recently implemented, and which came into force in June 2022, will mean that to comply with these new standards many, if not most, developers will choose to install solar panels on new commercial buildings. So, again, while I have some overall sympathy with my noble friend in bringing forward his amendment, given all that I have laid out I hope he will understand why the Government do not feel able to support it.
I listened with much interest to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Her Amendment 504GJK proposes to create a new pilot scheme to retrofit an existing town, powered by renewable energy and heated by a ground source heat network. I am happy to bring the Committee up to date on where we are with this area of policy more generally.
The Government’s general approach to the transition to clean heat is to follow natural replacement cycles, working with the grain of markets and consumer behaviour to minimise costs and disruption and avoid early appliance scrappage. On heat network zoning specifically, the Energy White Paper, heat and buildings strategy and net zero strategy committed us to introduce heat network zoning in England by 2025. It is a key policy solution to help reach the scale of expansion of heat networks required to meet net zero.
The zoning policy will be delivered via powers in the Energy Bill to make regulations, including in relation to the development of a nationwide methodology for identifying and designating areas as heat network zones. The objective of the methodology will be to determine where heat networks are lower cost than low-carbon alternatives in an area. Incidentally, to answer a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, there is a difference between heat network zoning and converting an area to hydrogen heating. Unlike technologies such as community renewables and heat networks, using 100% hydrogen for heating is not yet an established technology.
Given the existing work under way and the Government’s general approach to the transition to clean heat, we do not believe the proposal for a pilot will deliver additional value.
Similarly, Amendment 504GJL proposes to create a pilot scheme to construct a new town powered by renewable energy and heated by a ground source heat network. I am afraid the Government do not believe that this proposal will deliver benefits additional to those already in prospect. From 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that all new homes are net-zero ready, meaning that they will become zero carbon when the electricity grid decarbonises without the need for any retrofit work. So, although the Government cannot support these last two amendments, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, will take some encouragement from the work and plans that are already under way.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I am not convinced that the heat network zoning that the Minister refers to is the same as the ground source heat pump networked grids that I am talking about. I wonder whether it would be worth having a further conversation outside of this Committee and whether the Minister would do me the courtesy of arranging that. I think this is an important point.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I would be very happy to arrange a meeting with the noble Baroness and appropriate officials to discuss the point that she has just made.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his answer to my amendment. I take much comfort in what he said about new build and planning permission and so on, and I can see how that all might work, but I do not see any sign of proposals that will work in persuading people to retrofit, and there is huge potential there. I very much hope that in due time the Government will turn their thoughts in that direction. I would just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that if she knows someone who can build a new town in three years, will she please introduce them to the restoration and renewal team.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend the Minister needs to respond but, while he does so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and I could have a usual channels chat.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill creates the powers for the Government to amend retained EU law and will remove the special status of retained EU law in the UK. On 17 May, the House agreed a government amendment to replace the previously proposed sunset of retained EU law in the Bill with a list of retained EU law for revocation at the end of 2023. This provides clarity to the House and certainty for business by making it clear which legislation will be revoked. Powers in the Bill that allow us to continue to amend retained EU law remain, so further regulation can be revoked or reformed in the future. This will mean that we still fully take back control of our laws and end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law by the end of 2023.
As noble Lords will be aware, the REUL Bill had Third Reading in this House this afternoon. Given that both Bills are still passing through Parliament, the Government are working through what the interactions are between them. I do not think it appropriate to amend the Bill in this way, but I will commit to writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, by the end of this year to set out the interaction between the two Bills. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful response. He has completely taken on board the point that I am trying to make, and I appreciate that. A letter explaining exactly how it will all work together by the end of the year will be extremely helpful. I thank the Minister very much, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.