Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I hope I am okay in asking the Minister to pass on my condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and his family at this particularly sad time for them all.

I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As my noble friend Lord Fox has indicated, a radical overhaul of taxation of business properties is long overdue. Successive Governments have tinkered with the multipliers and valuation periods. In addition, the increasing discrimination of the system against town centre businesses has been recognised and the response has been in the shape of various levels of relief. All that demonstrates, however, is that the non-domestic ratings system is no longer fit for purpose. The Government have admitted that to be the case. Unfortunately, this Bill does not address fundamental reform— at which point, I commend to the Minister the Liberal Democrat policy of a commercial landowner levy; I am sure she will read that with interest.

However, the Bill makes a small step in the right direction by attempting to make a significant change to the balance of rates paid by some small businesses, with a larger share demanded, rightly, of the warehouse distribution sector.

What it fails to do is assess the impact of those changes with the loss of relief that is also proposed. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend both said, you cannot deal with one without dealing with the other, and it is very difficult to assess what changes these proposals will make.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long argued that online retailing should have business rates comparable with those of small businesses in town centres. The Bill proposes that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses based in town centres—whatever that means—should have a multiplier that is up to 20p in the pound lower than it is now. The Government’s argument is that these changes will help to support small businesses in local centres and encourage the community and economic value they provide. However, this change is restricted to a sector of businesses located in town centres. Can the Minister first provide a definition of them? I believe she did say, in her opening speech, that a definition of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will come later. To be frank, I do not think that that is acceptable when we are being asked to understand changes that are going to be made, yet we are not sure of a clear definition of those businesses. Do they include, for instance, council-run indoor markets? Those are retail businesses in town centres: my understanding is that they might be excluded. I would love to know from the Minister, because for me it is an important question.

Can the Minister say why professional businesses in town centres are not able to benefit? Solicitors and accountants are at the heart of the commercial operation in small towns, as are post offices and doctors’ surgeries. If the aim is to support our high streets, all these businesses should be included.

Many local centres also include small manufacturing businesses of various sorts, which provide local employment and are often the source of innovation. Can the Minister explain why these businesses in town centres are excluded? How much better it would be to have a blanket of small businesses in town centres all being part of this reduction in the multipliers.

Out-of-town warehouse distributors have long had a competitive advantage over their bricks-and-mortar counterparts. The Bill proposes that the multiplier for these businesses should be up to 10p in the pound greater than it is now. However, the Bill fails to link the valuations of these warehouses compared with to those in small centres. I think I have quoted this before in your Lordships’ House, but an Amazon warehouse in South Yorkshire is valued at around £25 per square metre, whereas a small shop in my town centre has a valuation of £250 per square metre. That is at the heart of business rates because, if those do not change, tinkering around the edges with multipliers will still leave disadvantages for town centres. That is at the heart of the problem we would seek to address in order to redress the balance between online retailers and those in our town centres.

The other issue concerns larger stores, often located in large town centres, and out of town retail centres. It would be interesting to know how those will be judged in this new Bill. Will they be in that 1% or not? If they are, that will put the business model of some of them in jeopardy. The basis of the valuation of rental values makes life very difficult. Can the Minister explain why it is that, despite the number of empty shops in many towns, the rental valuation does not appear to be on the same declining path? My noble friend had a potential answer to that question when he said that the problem is that properties in many market towns are increasingly owned by a single owner. Certainly, in my local small town, most of the properties are in the ownership of two people, and that makes competitive rental values difficult to achieve. I am sure that the Minister will ask her officials about that.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who I met, and his officials for their time in understanding the impact of all these changes, but the main question I had was not satisfactorily answered, I am afraid. It was, “Where is the impact statement?” I was told that, because impact assessments are not published for tax changes, there was not going to be one, but the Government must have done their sums, so let us see them. Otherwise, we cannot understand. We are all making estimates of the various moving parts, as various noble Lords have said, and how those are going to change. The Government must have done those sums, so it would be really good if they would share them and, if the Minister cannot share them today, perhaps she will be able to before Committee.

I will move on. It is also vital that councils know what the impact will be on business rate income, as that contributes a very large slice of funding for local services. I was told that the overall impact will be neutral, but, in her opening speech, the Minister suggested that, although the overall impact would be neutral, it would be difficult to ensure that no council loses out by these changes. Actually, as I know the Minister understands, every pound for a local council is now critical, so, again, I hope she will be able to find the answer to that before Committee.

I will move on, I think. The other major sector of the Bill is about private schools, about which we have heard various noble Lords speak this afternoon. As we know, it removes the business rate exemption for those schools which are charities, and Liberal Democrats are opposed in principle to the taxation of education. I think in particular of the 100,000 or so children with SEND in private education without education and healthcare plans. Those families will be hit hard by the proposals in the Bill when they are already facing more challenges than most of us. Private education provision has already faced the introduction of VAT and the NIC increases on employers. The removal of business rate exemption is the third financial hit in as many months. Well-endowed private schools will weather the financial storm, but others may not, resulting in increasing pressure on state school places.

In conclusion, this Bill is a small step in the right direction, but it fails to assess all the moving parts. As many speakers have said, the Government should think again about the exemption of relief to private schools, and we urge the Government to rethink the totality of the impact of the Bill on business.

Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

I pay tribute to the local leaders, councils and officers for their hard work and the significant part they play in making the Government’s ambitious agenda to widen and deepen devolution a reality in their areas. I also thank all those who took part in the consultation process. It is great when we get a good response from the public, local businesses and voluntary organisations to these consultations. It is vital that they have their say. I look forward to answering any questions noble Lords may have and to participating in our discussion of these four instruments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

These four statutory instruments are politically and historically interesting. First, they recreate in whole or in part the historic counties of Devon, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire. That is a positive change. It is another reversal of Thatcherite policy, which, in this instance, abolished county councils. Strategic planning and provision of such key local services as public transport, housing and economic development can be much better made across a larger geography. That change is therefore welcome. However, I am not letting the Minister off the hook that easily. I have a number of questions applicable to each of the relevant instruments.

First, on governance, can the Minister confirm that meetings of either the mayoral or the combined county authorities will be held in public and that scrutiny committees are a requirement, with powers for pre-decision scrutiny and to call any decision that is challenged under the relevant procedural rules?

The Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority combines two very unequal—in both population and geography—partners. Can the Minister say whether that disparity has been considered and whether any issues have been raised in the wider county on this point in the consultation, the details of which I obviously have not seen? I ask this because there will be inequality of representation on the authority from these very unequal parts, and I wonder whether that will result in a bit of friction when it comes to making difficult decisions.

I note at this point that, because of the efforts made during the passage of the then levelling-up Bill by the Minister, her team and me, district councils will have representation on the combined authorities by law. That was a very important change to the Bill.

I move on to the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority. There will be a mayor from May this year; we will see how that pans out. I recognise the appeal to the Government of having a single person elected to lead a combined authority. However, I and my colleagues are not convinced that, from the residents’ standpoint, this is a positive move. Mayors will be tolerated—this is my experience; I live in a mayoral authority—while there is no mayoral precept and while they are basically determining the details of delegated powers and funding from government. However, when either of those things changes—if there is a mayoral precept of a considerable amount or when there are difficult decisions to be made on funding allocation, which I anticipate will come with bus franchising—I anticipate greater concern from residents that their voice is not being heard.

For instance, in the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority area, which I know better, I can easily see that, with the rural parts of East Riding and the very urban area of Hull City Council, it could be difficult to make decisions on allocating funding under the bus franchising legislation, which I hope will be passed. Trouble is coming down the track, I think.

The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority recreates the historic county of Lincolnshire, which is positive. It combines the seven district councils of the current county council, plus the two unitaries of North Lincs and North East Lincs. The issue I want to raise concerns transport funding. In this statutory instrument, the constituent authorities remain the highways authorities but central funding goes directly to the mayor, who then has the responsibility of cascading the funding to each of the three existing highways authorities. Can the Minister describe how fair allocation can be assured and whether using this mechanism will add to bureaucracy by adding yet another layer of governance?

The Lancashire Combined County Authority will, as we know, consist of the existing county council, the unitaries of Blackpool and Blackburn and Darwen, plus the 12 existing district councils of the current county council. We have had the devolution White Paper. If its proposals are accepted—I hope that there will be some challenge to them—this will result in the demise of district councils. For Lancashire and Lincolnshire, this would result in another wholesale local government reorganisation within a short period, with the added confusion that accompanies such structural change. Those of us who are involved understand what might happen; residents will not. Have the Government considered these two separate reorganisations and how they will be managed without causing confusion and additional costs?

As I said at the outset, this is the right move for strategic decision-making. However, I look forward to the answers to my queries from the Minister.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s exposition of these SIs. I completely understand why we are moving in this direction: greater efficiency and effectiveness. I very much hope that the Government can, as this process moves on, increase the level of effective devolution and perhaps even give some real independence over revenue to these authorities so that they can develop their full potential.

In addition, when we reach Committee on the hereditary Peers Bill, I will propose that, rather than hereditary Peers being the eligible candidates in by-elections, it should be people nominated by these new authorities and their mayors. We can use the existing mechanisms that we have to start to introduce a measure of regional representation into the House. I hope that the Government will have their imaginative hat on when we come to that. The mechanism is in place; let us use it to move in a direction that many of us would like to go in and to take at least a small step.

I am a resident of East Sussex, which is one of the candidates for the next round of this measure. I note that the local proposals involve a mayor for the whole of Sussex, thereby recreating not the original county council but the original kingdom of Sussex—perhaps we might have a prince rather than a mayor. What concerns me most is how the towns and communities in these new unitaries will come to cherish, assert and grow their own identities. I very much hope that I can persuade the Minister to circulate widely to all the councils that are candidates for this, as well as their constituent parts, examples of how communities flourish in unitaries, including what structures and relationships make that happen well.

The process of transition from “a county plus districts” to a unitary system will be hugely time-absorbing for the councils involved. They will have no space in their heads to do anything other than make that work well. The constituent communities underneath that need to understand how to play their part and how best to organise themselves so that they have a real role to play in what comes afterwards.

Looking in particular at East Sussex, along the seaside, we have Rye, Hastings, St Leonards, Bexhill, Pevensey, Eastbourne, Seaford and Newhaven. They are all immensely different places. Each has its own identity and its own way of doing things. In the interior, you have towns such as Lewes, which are really different, as well as ordinary country towns such as Uckfield and Heathfield. There is a huge variety of different communities within what will be one unitary: different histories, different spirits.

Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, let me first of all say that national security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I confirm to the House that the Government take the threat of extremism very seriously and will continue to work with partners to tackle extremism in all parts and forms. That is why the Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review of extremism in 2024. The Government will set out their approach to countering extremism in due course and will update Parliament accordingly. I am sure that many of the issues that the noble Lord raised will be part of that review.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, knowledge and understanding of communities is crucial in this regard. Councillors are elected to serve their communities and know them well. Does the Minister agree with that proposition? Does he also agree that plans to create large wards make that more challenging for councillors? Will the Government therefore keep ward sizes appropriate to their role in knowing and representing their communities, and will the Government provide additional support to councillors in that critical role?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me reassure the noble Baroness that, having been a councillor for 16 years in the wonderful district of Burnley, I understand the fantastic work that local councils do. I reaffirm the Deputy Prime Minister’s position that we want to work in equal partnership with the local authorities and we want to give them more power. I would not be able to comment on the size of the wards because that is the responsibility of the Minister, Jim McMahon, in the other place.

Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 19 November 2024. The other place debated them on 8 January 2025. The regulations relate to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority. Via Section 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, they will enable these authorities to borrow money for use against their relevant functions.

Presently, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and the North East Mayoral Combined Authority are already able to borrow against their transport functions, and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is able to borrow against its police and fire authority functions. The East Midlands, as a combined county authority, is unable to borrow against any of its functions.

The regulations before us will enable the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the North East Mayoral Combined Authority and the East Midlands Combined County Authority to make use of borrowing powers for purposes relevant to their current and future functions. This will bring all three authorities in line with existing combined authorities and fulfil commitments made in their original devolution agreements.

On consent, I bring it to the Committee’s attention that all three authorities and their respective constituent councils have given consent to the conferral of borrowing powers. Similarly, the three authorities have agreed their respective debt caps with HM Treasury for 2024-25.

The regulations will also confer the East Midlands Combined County Authority’s constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the combined county authority. The power will be held concurrently with the East Midlands constituent councils; the East Midlands Combined County Authority will be able to exercise the general power of competence only in relation to economic development and regeneration. The conferral of this power will fulfil the East Midlands’ original devolution agreement and enable the combined county authority to support local businesses and charities, as well as strengthening the area’s visitor economy.

As the conferral of the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration upon the East Midlands constitutes a new power, Section 48 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 applies. I can confirm that the requirements under Section 48 have been met, and that the East Midlands Combined County Authority and its constituent councils have consented to this conferral.

I come to the final part of these regulations, which will make amendments to the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations. Specifically, these are by: first, amending a typographical error so that the combined county authority is the local housing authority for housing needs, laundry facilities, shops, recreation grounds and housing purposes, and with respect to buildings acquired for housing purposes; secondly, enabling the mayor of the combined county authority to arrange for a committee of the combined county authority to exercise mayoral functions; thirdly, allowing non-constituent members of the combined county authority to have voting rights in an authority committee; and, finally, clarifying the voting arrangements for the combined county authority, including the requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass its mayoral budget. These amendments have been discussed with the East Midlands and its constituent members, with the councils and the combined county authority consenting to the amendments being made.

These regulations, which are supported by the authorities and their constituent councils, are a necessary step in fulfilling the original devolution agreements that had been reached. Devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and deserve: growth; the more joined-up delivery of public services; and policies being done with communities, not to them. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these are important changes to the devolution in the three mayoral authorities referenced by the Minister. In general, I and my party support devolution, of course, but we remain concerned about the mayoral system being adopted across England because of the way in which it concentrates too much authority and decision-making in the hands of one person. So, it is a “yes” to devolution, but mayoral authority may need some adjustment to make it more democratic, particularly as it is happening in this statutory instrument, with more powers being extended to mayoral authorities—hence budgets becoming enlarged, sometimes substantially. It seems to me that, if there is more capital borrowing, there will be a requirement to fund that borrowing, and there will therefore be an increase in the mayoral precept. My first question for the Minister is this: will there be a cap on either capital borrowing or mayoral precepts so that we understand the extent of the borrowing and the cost to the taxpayer?

Building Homes

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for the Statement from the other place.

I think we can all agree that we need more homes. However, they must be in the right places, with the right infrastructure, and constructed in a way that fosters a sense of home and community—homes that will stand the test of time. Under the Conservative Government, between 2013 and 2023 we saw a record level of new housing, greater than in any other period since the 1960s. We also delivered 550,000 affordable homes since 2010, including some 63,000 in 2022-23 alone.

The Government have taken a one-size-fits-all approach to a region-specific issue. Many rural areas, which do not have the requisite infrastructure to support rapid population growth, are facing sky-high housing target increases. In Westmorland and Furness it is 487%, in North East Lincolnshire it is 272%, in North Yorkshire it is 200% and in the New Forest it is 106%, while London and Birmingham see a reduction. How will the Minister achieve these targets while still ensuring that the required local facilities and infrastructure are in place? The Centre for Cities and the OBR have both said the Government are going to manage only around 1.1 million homes this Parliament.

I do not disagree that the planning system needs improving. It is too complex and takes too long. However, concreting over green fields rather than focusing on supporting building in urban areas will not solve this problem—nor will removing the local democratic accountability of planning committees, or the suggestion that regional mayors allocate housing with call-in powers and greater call-in by the Secretary of State. I must ask the Minister to assure the House that the Government do not intend to bulldoze through low-quality developments in rural areas just to hit their housing targets.

The Government are demanding that all councils rapidly review their local plans to deliver the new mandatory targets. Having spent eight years trying to get a local plan over the line, and succeeding, I know how difficult it can be to get local plans through, particularly when challenged by landowners who are incentivised to challenge the plan. These proposals risk making local plans harder to deliver. What will the Government do to make local plans easier and speedier to deliver?

I would also like to raise some concerns about mandatory housing targets. These are based on a flawed methodology. Affordability is a reasonable metric to look at, but it needs to compare similar properties. Comparing the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Camden with a three-bedroom home in Stevenage, for instance, is not a fair comparison. Will the Minister look at the affordability ratio on a cost per square metre basis?

There are other challenges regarding the delivery of homes. We need to look at capacity to build, the use of judicial review and the impact of other legislation, such as on nutrient neutrality. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to address these?

I must also add, even though I may be accused of stating the blindingly obvious, that councils do not actually build homes, or not that many; developers do. To that end, will the Government provide local councils with adequate powers to ensure that allocated and permissioned sites actually get built?

The Government have said that they want brownfield first, but other than rhetoric, what evidence is there of this? All we have seen so far is substantial housing target increases for rural areas, where brownfield sites are somewhat thin on the ground. Will the Government continue with the previous Conservative Government’s proposal of a strong presumption in favour of brownfield development? I suggest that this is the best way of protecting the green belt and our countryside, and focusing development on where it is most needed.

Will the Government’s proposals actually improve the planning system? Will they simplify the system? Will they help councils to deliver quality homes in the quantity and locations needed? Will they speed up the planning process? Will they encourage developers to build where homes are most needed? I fear not. I thank the Minister once again for repeating this Statement and I look forward to hearing her response and answers to my questions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too have relevant interests, primarily as a councillor in a metropolitan authority in west Yorkshire.

This is the season of good will, so I am going to start by sharing the areas of agreement with the Minister. There is an agreement in principle on the fundamental need for considerably more housing units, and we on these Benches broadly agree with the total numbers being proposed. We agree that housebuilding is a stimulant for economic growth, although not on its own. We agree with the notion of strategic planning at a sub-regional or mayoral level, and we agree that all councils should have an up-to-date local plan. I am still shocked that only 30% do; how that has escaped past Governments, I have no idea.

Now I will have to move on to the areas where there is less agreement. First, on strategic planning, there has to be a greater element of democratic and community involvement in making judgments about areas and sites within a strategic plan. The single mayor and leaders system simply does not enable that. Will the Minister spell out how the Government anticipate community involvement and wider democratic involvement in developing such plans?

The second area of less agreement—the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this—is that there is a constant confusion in government thinking, probably deliberate, between so-called affordable housing and social housing. There is a need for about 150,000 homes for social rent every year. That is essential, and it must be a priority, so why is it not? Why does the plan not say that, within the 370,000 homes the Government are committing to, they will commit to build whatever number they choose—I would choose 150,000—of homes for social rent?

That brings me on to land use, which we are now colour-coding, apparently. Who thought we would colour-code land use? Green belt, grey belt and brown belt—well, brownfield. The NPPF accepts that green belt has a role to play. That definition of green belt is being nibbled away at, though, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested, in rural areas there could be considerable use of green-belt land where there is not already brownfield or grey belt. I am not sure how acceptable that is going to be to those local communities. Local plans currently have to consider the green-belt boundary. How do the Government anticipate that that will now work, given what is said in the NPPF?

The grey belt, our next colour, is very grey because it is not very well defined. I was at a seminar this morning on all this, where it was suggested that it is so poorly defined that it will be open to constant legal challenge as it stands. Perhaps the Minister will spell out how the Government will get greater definition of the grey belt.

It must be 25 years ago or so that I first heard the phrase “brownfield first”. That is interesting, because in my own town there is still a large area of brownfield land that has planning consent but has still not been built on.

I shall now move away from land use and on to the planning process. It seems to me that we are moving to a more top-down planning approach, and I do not think that is acceptable to local people and their democratic representatives. Power currently remains in the hands of landowners; they can still offer up their sites in the system and challenge local plans, as has been said. The major housebuilders have the power to determine what is or is not built. How will the Government influence or constrain that power, so that the types of housing tenures defined by local councils are actually built by developers? Unless we do that, we are not going to get, as the Statement says, houses in the numbers and types of tenures that we need.

I turn to the issue of the five-year supply, the lack of which leaves local councils open to speculative building. It has always struck me that the five-year supply ought to include sites that already have permission but have not been built or even started. That is a game developers play: they get planning permission and then they can say, “There is not a five-year supply”, and more sites are allocated but we still not have the homes we desperately need. I hope that the Government are considering dealing with that sleight of hand by developers.

Finally, I emphasise that we on these Benches will completely oppose any suggestion that reduces the democratic nature of our planning committees. Planning committees have an important role to play. They enable a local voice to be heard. They enable the experience and knowledge of local people to be shared, and I will give one example. Where I am, of course, there are a lot of Victorian mineshafts, which are not recorded. Fortunately for a builder, some local people knew exactly where they were, which is not where he thought they were. That would not have come out unless there had been a planning committee where they could speak. We need a local voice, local decisions and local influence. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. I have only six minutes left, so I shall probably struggle to answer all of them in the time allotted, but please be assured that I will respond in writing to anything that I do not manage to cover.

In our first month in office, we proposed this bold set of reforms to overhaul the planning system. We have met our commitment, following extensive consultation, to meet publication by the end of the year. This will support our ambitious target of building 1.5 million new homes this Parliament. We needed to grasp the nettle of planning reform to both boost housing supply and unleash the economic growth that we want, and I hope that is incontrovertible. We received over 10,000 responses and have had extensive engagement with housebuilders, affordable housing providers, local authorities and other organisations, which led to the publication yesterday of this plan.

Before I set out a number of the important areas in which we have made changes, I will touch on some of the proposals that we intend to implement unamended, because they answer some of the questions raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. First, we have reversed the anti-supply changes introduced by the last Government a year ago and reverted to mandatory housing targets. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I say that we have done detailed work on how to set up these targets, and I will come on to some more information about how we are doing that in a moment.

Secondly, we have made explicit the importance of growth supporting development, from labs to data centres, to supply chains and logistics. In the same vein, we have made it clear that the default position for renewable energy deployment should be “yes”. Thirdly, we have strongly promoted mixed tenure developments, reflecting the robust evidence which attests to the fact that they build out faster and create better, more diverse communities.

Fourthly, we have made a series of changes to bolster affordable housing delivery and enable local authorities to determine the right mix of affordable housing for their communities. That includes separating out houses for social rent and affordable housing, so local councils when making their plans are now able to do that. That will support our commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.

Then there are four important areas where we have refined our proposals. I will speak first about housing targets. We made it clear when we launched the consultation in July that restoring a mandatory standard method for assessing housing needs would be insufficient if the method itself was not up to the job. We proposed a bold change, increasing the total annual target from 300,000 to 370,000, ending the reliance on the decade-old population projections and removing the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that resulted in the skewed national distribution.

We fully intend to maintain that level of ambition set out in July, but we heard a clear view that we should do more to target housing growth on the places where affordability pressures were the most acute, and that is the way we have designed the formula. We have made the method more responsive to demand, redistributing housing targets towards those places where housing is least affordable, while maintaining the overall target envelope.

I turn next to reforms to the green belt, another subject on which noble Lords questioned me. Ours is a “brownfield first” approach to development. As a result of a number of targeted changes we are making to the framework and our proposals for a brownfield passport, we are prioritising and fast-tracking building on previously developed urban land wherever possible, but we know that there are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that we need, let alone enough that are viable and in the right locations.

In the summer, we proposed that local authorities should take a sequential approach to releasing land to meet their housing needs—so brownfield first, followed by low-quality land in the green belt, and only then higher-performing land. We have therefore set out a clearer description of how to assess whether land meets the definition of grey belt, and we will provide further guidance to local authorities in the new year—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—to support them with green-belt reviews.

At the centre of our green-belt reforms lie our golden rules. They are designed to make sure that where green-belt land is released, the public derive real benefit from development on it, including more affordable housing to meet local need.

Our final policy takes a different approach to managing variation in land values. We have adjusted social housing need due to consultation responses so, rather than a single 50% target, we are introducing that 15 percentage-point premium on top of the targets set in local plans. That will be up to a maximum of 50%. Because that means the target itself will be responsive to local circumstances, we will be restricting the ability for site-specific viability assessments until such time as we have amended viability guidance in spring next year.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to changes to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption sits at the heart of the NPPF and means that where a local authority has underdelivered or an up-to-date plan is not in place, the balance of decision-making is tilted in favour of approval. We are determined to ensure that where the presumption applies, it will have real teeth. At the same time, we are clear that development consented through it must be consistent with the clear requirements in the national policy relating to sustainability, density, design and the provision of affordable homes. The changes we have made deliver on both these fronts.

Finally, in respect of the local authorities at an advanced stage of plan making, we have sought views on how to deal with those and have made proposals on transitional arrangements for local authorities in those late stages. We recognise that we are asking much from local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to capacity and capability. That is why across dedicated local plan funding, the planning capacity and capability support announced at the Budget—income raised from fees—will inject more than £100 million into the system in the coming year.

With focus and determination, we have pushed on to ensure that we put in place a planning system geared towards meeting housing need in full and unleashing economic growth. I understand the points about community engagement; there are no real changes to the involvement that communities are able to have in plan-making processes. In fact, there is a specific part of the National Planning Policy Framework that refers to neighbourhood plans, and we want to support and encourage further engagement in those as well.

As I said, I did not think that I was going to get through all the questions in the time permitted, but anything that I have not picked up on I will respond to in writing. In terms of the buildout that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to, there is a whole section in the report setting out what sanctions are available to local authorities where developers have failed to build out.

I hope I have set out as clearly as possible what we have been doing with the National Planning Policy Framework and thank noble Lords very much for their contributions.

Planning Committees: Reform

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to be clear that I do not think local authorities should have the finger pointed at them for holding up planning. However, applications can get stuck, and we need to do all we can to make the processes as efficient and effective as possible. We recognise the great importance of democratic oversight of planning decisions. This is a working paper for discussion with the sector, and the changes we propose will support that plan-led system by ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible and encourage better-quality development that is aligned with local development plans. The paper puts forward for discussion with the sector three models for how this could work. It is not the intention to exclude local authority members but to get them, and the public, more involved at local plan stage, so that they can influence things at an earlier stage in the process before detailed applications come forward.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, strategic planning is very important but very difficult for members of the community to grasp. Often, local residents do not get involved until there is a real planning application in front of them, on an allocated site in the local plan. Does the Minister agree that it is at that practical level that local residents have local knowledge that can positively and constructively influence the outcome of a planning application at that stage? Does she agree that we should not deny this useful way for local people to help shape their area?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the voice of local people and local councillors in the planning process is absolutely vital. There is no intention to change the consultation rules on planning applications. Representations will be considered by any decision-maker in the process. The best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their areas is through the local plan process, which will be agreed by the council. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors will continue to play a key role in representing the voice of their communities. There will be no change to the ability of local people to inform and make their views known about planning applications; this is about speeding up the decision-making.

Homes: Existing Communities

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this debate took a turn that I was not expecting which has made me entirely rethink what I am going say. I ought to declare from the outset my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the north of England. I do not think anyone else in the Room is from the north. We look at things rather differently perhaps from what we have heard so far today.

The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made a speech turning all our ideas upside down. I understand why people get frustrated with the planning system, and I am not one who says that the planning system is entirely right, does everything as it should and produces the housing and infrastructure that we as a country and as communities want and need. However, a more free market approach to housebuilding—all I have heard is of housebuilding—puts more power into the hands of those who are already powerful: those with land to sell, who are, in our current system, powerful operators; and those who are going to build those homes, who are already powerful operators in the system. It omits the one element in the planning system that gives influence, rather than power, to people in that community and that place to help them think about how they want their place to be.

A free market approach, without giving power and influence to the third element of the equation, is not one I want to be part of. That is because, having been in local government for a long time, I know that developers do not have the best interests of local places in their hearts when they start building. They are interested in acting exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, described: as a free market, building what they want, where they want to build it, without cognisance of the places around them.

There are many examples of developers who have taken liberties with the planning system and have not left the infrastructure as we would like it. In fact, they do not leave infrastructure at all; they do not build it. One of the main reasons you need a planning system is to put a rein around those whose objective is to see housing as a retail offer—or sale—and not as a place that shapes part of our communities.

I am mindful, having been made to think by the noble Lord, that I have not said any of the things that I had written down. One question that comes to mind, though, is: under that system who would build the million homes for social rent that this country and its people desperately need? It would not be as profitable, so who would do it? That is a key question for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. How do you then balance housebuilding and all the other interests local people have, such as the environment, infrastructure, public transport and avoiding flooding? How does that fit in? I cannot see it, and that is why we have a planning system. A plan-based system, even though it is not working as well as it should, is one that I hope we stick with.

Planning Reforms: Net-zero Carbon Emissions

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There has been significant additional funding for affordable housing, and some of that will of course be used for the net- zero agenda. That funding was found in spite of the £22 billion black hole we found in our budgets, and I am very pleased that we have been able to do that. It is important that, as we drive forward a revolution in social housing, building more of it than we have seen for generations, we make sure that those new social homes do not have to be retrofitted and are at the highest standard of net zero.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, building regulations —approved document L, in fact—set out how properties should be heated, so it is within the Government’s remit to change the building regulations to ensure that new properties have non-fossil fuel sources of heating, or indeed to require them to do so. What consideration have the Government given to amending building regulations as soon as possible—not waiting for the NPPF to be published and implemented—in order to ensure that new homes get non-fossil fuel sources of heat?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I am sure the NPPF will answer her question when it is published, before Christmas.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, 72 people were killed by the fire that raged through Grenfell Tower in June 2017. It was the largest single loss of life in a residential building since 1945. That is the scale of the disaster and tragedy that we are debating, and we have heard a very powerful debate today.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team have produced a forensic account of the events in phase 1 of the inquiry and a rigorous analysis of the causes in phase 2. There are 58 recommendations. All must be fully implemented if the 72 lost lives are not to be in vain. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s powerful conclusion should be the stimulus for government action to address the failings he exposed. My noble friend Lady Pidgeon quoted what he has written, but it is so important that I am going to repeat it:

“the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants”.

The conclusions of the phase 1 report clearly stated that the primary cause of the deadly fire was the ACM rain-screen panels and the use of combustible insulation foam, combined with a complete failure to comply with building regulations. Phase 2 of the report ruthlessly exposes those whose decisions resulted in 72 people dying. Key among them are the product manufacturers. Arconic produced the rain-screen aluminium composite material—ACM—which in fire tests was shown to be dangerously flammable, especially in the cassette form which was used on Grenfell. The report said that Arconic

“deliberately concealed … the true extent of the danger of”,

using the product “in cassette form”.

Then there were the manufacturers of the foam insulation. According to the report, Celotex

“embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market”,

and Kingspan

“knowingly created a false market in insulation for use on buildings over 18 metres”,

by making claims it knew to be false—and 72 people died.

The report sought the evidence and came to the conclusion that the manufacturers have considerable responsibility for that appalling fire. Therefore, I have questions for the Minister. The Government have written to the manufacturers, but have they prevented them obtaining any further government contracts? Have they provided guidance to councils and other public bodies to do the same? The report clearly finds these product manufacturers culpable in the deaths of 72 people. When are they to be prosecuted for their actions, as the Prime Minister promised?

Other organisations are also culpable. Testing and certification bodies provided the necessary stamp of compliance for the use of the materials that enabled the fire to consume Grenfell Tower so rapidly. The British Research Establishment has a primary function to test whether materials can be used for specific purposes, including fire safety. Yet the report states that the BRE had

“a desire to accommodate existing customers”,

which is damning in itself, but a further comment in the report states that this was done to retain business at the expense of public safety.

The British Board of Agrément issues certificates for products and systems in construction. The materials used as part of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment needed a certificate of worthiness. The BBA published a materially wrong certificate covering the ACM cladding after the manufacturer refused to respond to requests for updated test results. As the report says, the BBA became

“the victim of dishonest behaviour on the part of unscrupulous manufacturers”.

The BRE was privatised in 1997, and the BBA is a regulated company working under a framework provided by UKAS, the national accreditation body. Are the Government considering the status of these companies that are critical to the building safety regime? Should the BRE return to being an organisation with government oversight where the profit motive is not the prime purpose?

The other main contributors to the tragedy are the tenant management organisation and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. My noble friend Lady Thornhill has exposed the culture of incompetence and indifference to the Grenfell Tower residents that led to the way that decisions were made without their interests being paramount. Given what has been said, does the Minister think it is now time to reconsider whether councillors should have a greater role in the governance of local authority housing?

My noble friend Lady Brinton has drawn the attention of the House to the appalling failures in complying with building regulations and to the lack of plans for those with mobility problems. She is of course right, but what is going to be done to put those errors right?

The recommendations in the report include a reference to the arbitrary definition of a high-rise building as being more than 18 metres high or having at least seven storeys, which it concludes is unsatisfactory. Given that this definition is used in funding allocations for remediation, will the Minister provide the reasoning for the definition and say whether the Government are willing to change it?

Since 2017, thousands of people have been living in buildings with dangerous, flammable cladding. The National Audit Office report published this month is critical of the snail-like speed at which remediation is taking place. It estimates that it will be at least 2035 before all buildings identified will have been completed. This is completely unacceptable. People are living in flats knowing that the cladding on the external walls is dangerously flammable, yet it might be another 10 or more years before remediation is done. That is unacceptable. The impact on people living in those flats is emotionally draining as well as financially ruinous, as the costs of a waking watch and extortionate rises in insurance and service charges take their toll.

As remediation occurs, deliberate building defects are exposed—for example, where construction companies failed to insert the fire barriers required by building regulations. These then have to be put right, and the question is who pays?

Leaseholders do not own the building. That is the responsibility of the freeholder, many of whom are finding as many loopholes as possible in the legislation to avoid their responsibilities. The campaign group End Our Cladding Scandal wants the Government to protect all leaseholders from costs to fix all fire risks, not just cladding. Liberal Democrats agree—do the Government?

Seven years on, after 72 horrific deaths and many lives ruined, over half the identified buildings still have not been put right. Over seven years on from Grenfell, we now know what happened and why. What we do not know is when the Government will bring to justice those who are culpable, or when they will force construction companies and developers to pay for their responsibility in building blocks of flats that were dangerously unsafe. When will the Government confirm that leaseholders will not be paying the price for the misdeeds of others?

Seventy-two people died. We have a duty in their memory to put these things right.

Council Tax

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is quite a stretch from council tax to farmers’ inheritance tax. However, we are listening closely to farmers’ concerns. In fact, the Environment Secretary met the NFU to clarify the changes in the Budget, and he met representatives again yesterday. The approach we have taken is fair and balanced, and the majority of farms will remain unaffected. Currently, 40% of agricultural property relief goes to 7% of the wealthiest claimants. That is not fair or sustainable and has been used by some to avoid inheritance tax. That is why we are maintaining the 100% relief up to £1 million and 50% after, which is an effective 20% tax rate, half the normal 40% rate. We have ensured that tax due can be paid over a 10-year period, interest free, and if land is transferred seven years before death then farmers pay no inheritance tax. I am assured that my colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment is listening to farmers and will continue to do so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant interests in the register. Since 2016, the previous Government imposed the social care precept on councils which have those responsibilities, and this nearly doubles the council tax rise each year. In my council, the social care precept accounts for over £220 of the council tax on average. Given that council tax is regressive, does the Minister agree that this is not a fair way to fund social care?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. We have all seen the crisis in social care caused by the previous failure to face up to the issues that were confronting that sector, and we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Merron about some of the steps that have been taken to address it. This year, the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care as part of the broader estimated real-terms uplift to core local government spending power of around 3.2%. We are committed to reforming adult social care and improving the quality of care for people in need, and that is why we have invested an additional £86 million next year for the disabled facilities grant, to enable people to stay well, safe and independent at home for longer. In October, we introduced legislation to bring in the fair pay agreement to ensure that those vital care workers, who we know so many of our vulnerable residents rely on, are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do.