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.

Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the order before us today was laid before the House on 7 October. This instrument provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the city of Sheffield. It also provides for consequential changes to the corresponding ward and parish boundary. Both the councils concerned support the boundary change, as do both the affected parish councils.

Prior to coming on to the detail of the order, I must, with sincere apologies, draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip issued to correct minor drafting and formatting errors. The first correction removes “Ministry of” where the order refers to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is in the first and second paragraphs on page 1; in Article 2 on page 2; in the signatory box on page 5; and in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

The second correction provides a clearer map of the boundary change for the Explanatory Memorandum. A formatting issue meant that the map lacked clarity when it was inputted on to the order. With the help of the statutory instrument registrar, the correction slip now enables that same map to be sufficiently clear and to cover a full page. These minor errors in the original draft order are now corrected. The substance of the order, however, is unchanged. I hope that the reformatted map provides greater clarity for all.

Few reviews of the external administrative boundaries of local authority areas in England have been carried out since 1992. As a consequence, from time to time, there are small-scale boundary anomalies between local authorities caused by new developments and population change. Although, in practice, local government will put in place informal arrangements to deal with such situations, the very fact that it needs to do so is not conducive to effective and convenient local government. Such anomalies can also impact on perceptions of community identity: where residents do not feel part of an area, for whatever reason, they are potentially less likely to take an interest in their council.

On 14 April 2022, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England received a formal request for a review of the boundary in this area, made jointly by Barnsley Council and Sheffield City Council. The existing boundary runs along the River Don, but this has resulted in the Oughtibridge Mill development being split between the two councils. Both councils told the Local Government Boundary Commission for England that, due to the geography of the local communities and the existing road layout, the impact on service demand would mostly be felt by Sheffield Council, and that services would be best delivered by that council.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England undertook a review of the boundary and consulted those affected. Of the 19 responses, there was a majority in support of the boundary change. Following the consultation, the final recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was to transfer the area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development in Barnsley into Sheffield.

This would move a section of the councils’ shared boundary at the River Don to encapsulate the Oughtibridge Mill development of 12 existing and 284 future dwellings. A recommendation to realign the ward boundaries was also made, as well as a suggestion for the realignment of the parish boundaries. After having received the final recommendations, the Secretary of State also allowed four weeks for interested parties to make representations. The department received no such representations.

The instrument I have brought forward provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole area of the Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the city of Sheffield. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and for highlighting the changes made. I know she has the misfortune of being from the south of England but, in Yorkshire, we call it “Orterbridge”, rather than “Outerbridge” as the Minister pronounced it. I know we have a lot of strange pronunciations in Yorkshire, but I think people there would appreciate it being pronounced as they do.

This is a sensible proposal. Populations move and expand; in response, political and administrative boundaries should move to make them fit local perceptions of place. While local government can and do respond informally to boundaries that do not make practical sense, such as by making arrangements about bin collections, local government boundary changes per se are less frequent. I wonder whether this is because the process is quite long. In this case, as the Minister said, the relevant local authorities made a formal request in April 2022, and despite broad agreement—the two local authorities in fact proposing the change—it has taken over two years to reach this final stage. Does the Local Government Boundary Commission encourage proposals for boundary changes that are supported by the relevant local authorities, especially where there is a clear anomaly?

One situation that is not raised in the Explanatory Memorandum is what happens if a councillor of either the existing parish or the existing council lives in the area to be moved to another council. If the councillor qualifies only by residency, I presume that that would result in their being unable to continue once their term of office ends. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case. I assume that, in this instance, that will not arise, because otherwise—I hope—it would be within the explanation. It would be useful to understand what will happen if somebody wants to continue serving their population but is then moved. From Barnsley to Sheffield, that is a big move. I jest not.

I have spoken to colleagues in Barnsley who agree that residents in Oughtibridge will feel that they belong to Stocksbridge in Sheffield, which is where they are moving, so they support the proposal in this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this order provides for the boundary between Barnsley and Sheffield to be revised so that the whole of the area of Oughtibridge Mill housing development will be in the City of Sheffield, as well as providing for consequential changes to corresponding wards and parish boundaries. I am pleased that the councils concerned both support boundary change, as do the affected parish councils. I also note that the LGBCE published a draft of this and asked for responses locally. There were 19 responses, I understand, including six from residents, five of whom were in favour and only one opposed. Therefore, one can say that the proposal is accepted locally.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose these sensible boundary changes, as they suit not only local residents but the relevant public authorities and bodies. I also accept the late minor changes in the draft SI.

Social Housebuilding

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his work with the Devon Housing Commission; I have been very interested to read about its work. The Government believe it is right that long-standing social tenants should retain the right to purchase their property at reasonable discounts, and so we will not be ending the right-to-buy scheme. However, many of the homes sold since 2012 have not been replaced and, as our manifesto said, the Government are reviewing the increased right-to-buy discounts, introduced in 2012. We will bring forward more details and secondary legislation to implement changes later this year. We will also review right to buy more widely, including looking at eligibility criteria and, in particular, protections for newly built social housing. We will bring forward a consultation on that shortly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that affordable housing and housing for social rent are quite distinct offers? Frequently, the Government, previous and current, seem to fall into the pattern of using the word “affordable” for housing that is seriously not affordable and not distinguishing social housing for rent. Will the Minister be very clear that, when we talk about the need for social housing, we talk about social housing and not affordable housing?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have made my views on that subject very clear in this Chamber many times before. We intend to support the delivery of the right kind of affordable homes to meet local needs. Our proposed changes to national planning policy will set out clear expectations that housing needs assessments must consider the needs of those requiring social rent homes. Local authorities should specify their expectations for social rent as part of a broader affordable housing policy. We are also removing the prescriptive requirements that currently tie local authorities’ hands, with respect to particular types of home ownership products. This will allow them to judge, as they are best placed to do, which type of housing is best for their local area.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench but nothing I say commits individual Members to share my opinion. As we have heard in the debate, there are differing views across the House. As this is a hybrid Bill, I will not attempt to reflect on what has already been said. Rather, I will give my personal interpretation of the Bill and its implications.

It is astonishing that it has taken nearly 80 years for our nation to commit to a fitting national memorial to the Holocaust. It is just as surprising that it has taken over 10 years since it was first mooted for a decision to be made. It is thoroughly disappointing that a proposal to commemorate the Holocaust and to learn from its horrors has become so mired in controversy.

The proposal for a memorial and learning centre has overwhelming support. The disagreements have arisen, first, from the way the site in Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen, as it appears to have bypassed normal consultation processes. The commission report of 2015 identified three sites, none of which was Victoria Tower Gardens. This was first proposed by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which had been tasked with creating the memorial. The Government accepted its recommendation to use Victoria Tower Gardens in 2016. Widespread consensus was lost at that point, to the detriment of the whole project. However this was done, whoever did it must take some responsibility for creating a controversy from a consensus.

The second key area of disagreement arises from the practical implementation of the principle of a memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. The co-chairs of the UKHMF have stated:

“To establish a new national Memorial at the very heart of Westminster is an ambitious aim. Only the most serious, momentous and profound subject matter could justify such a step. With the Holocaust—the systematic attempt by a modern, civilised state to exterminate the whole Jewish people—we have exactly such a reason”.


It seems that the gardens site was chosen because, although nearly always connected with conflict and war, the Holocaust and other genocides were the consequence of particular decisions made by Governments.

Making the controversial decision about the site was just the start of a series of challenging decisions to be made. The first was whether the learning centre and the memorial should be co-located. I accept that putting the memorial and the learning centre together could be very moving and a powerful statement. However, I am not convinced that what is being proposed achieves that noble aim.

The next decision was how to fulfil the aims of the project while accepting the differing and legitimate demands for use of the gardens. By minimising the footprint of the design, just 7.5% of the gardens is used. Of course, the footprint omits the wider impact on the gardens, which, as we have heard, is closer to 20%. The consequence is that the project’s sincere desire for a prominent statement of purpose and intent has been seriously compromised.

A number of designs were submitted to the competition to create the design for the memorial and learning centre. These may have been bolder in concept and thus succeeded to a greater extent in achieving the visual prominence at the heart of the project. Perhaps the Minister can share what those designs were like and we can see them and decide whether we think they are better than what is before us.

As we have heard throughout this debate, there is huge concern about the consequences of having 1 million additional users of the gardens each year—apparently there is an expectation of about 3,000 people every day. I have read the 408 pages of the planning inspector’s report. It goes into significant detail on the practical implications of the design on listed buildings, heritage sites, UNESCO world heritage sites, trees, transport and security. Nevertheless, it gave a green light to the planning application. However, what cannot be ignored is that the nature of Victoria Tower Gardens will change forever due to the number of visitors that are expected.

Finally, I want to question the clarity of thinking around the fundamental purpose of the memorial and learning centre. We have heard during the debate today that many Members believe that the learning centre will focus on the Holocaust against the Jews. I would support that if that were the case, but it is not. As some Members have indicated, what is being proposed is that the Holocaust against the Jews should be seen in the context of other genocides perpetrated at the time against Roma Gypsies, gays in Germany and other parts of western Europe and disabled people, and subsequent genocides such as those in Rwanda and Darfur—we could go on—and sadly many others.

The learning centre apparently aims—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, pointed to this—to expose the response of democracies and Governments to the challenges of the Holocaust and genocide. I am not convinced that a digital and immersive experience is appealing to schoolchildren, in particular. They respond to seeing things that link with the past. I live near Huddersfield and am a vice-chair of the university where the Holocaust centre is established. I went round and saw the shoes, the labels, the striped suits and the tiny suitcases. They are the moving part of that learning centre. It is not the photographs so much; relating to human beings who were exterminated is what is moving. That is what a learning centre should achieve if we are to tackle not only anti-Semitism but, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, discrimination, racism, intolerance and hate in our society.

Having listened throughout this debate to many well-argued and evidenced assessments, both in favour and against, I can only say how relieved I am that, having spoken today, I am disqualified from sitting on the Bill Committee.

I will end by quoting from Eleanor Rathbone MP, who said in the debate on this very issue of the Holocaust in the House of Commons in 1943,

“let no one say: ‘We are not responsible.’ We are responsible if a single man, woman or child perishes whom we could and should have saved”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/1943; col. 1143.]

Perhaps that should be the abiding goal of the memorial.

King’s Speech

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for making such a powerful case for change. I shall read his speech in Hansard, because it is a cry to all Members of this House, particularly those on the Government Benches, for what we have to do to change the nature of governance in this country.

In a different tone, I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, particularly because he put such emphasis on upholding the rule of law. It was so powerful to hear that. I look forward to many exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in this House in the months, and maybe years, ahead.

My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford was right when he said that the Liberal tradition is always to want more reform. In the light of that comment, I say this: our creaking constitution and outmoded governance arrangements, at every level, are in urgent need of reform. The paltry offerings from the Government in this gracious Speech leave much to be desired. It would be good for them to make a bit more of a challenge.

It is not surprising that much of the time in this debate has been spent making different arguments about reforms to this House. On the one hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made a robust defence of the status quo; on the other, my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Thurso made the powerful case for fundamental reform and an elected House. We have heard lots of ideas in between, which I hope the Government will listen to and reflect on, because there were some good ideas in the huge array of what has been said today.

That moves me on to democracy—maybe—and elections. My noble friend Lord Rennard said that we hope that the Labour manifesto pledges to introduce automatic voter registration and to remove voter ID will be enacted in the lifetime of this Parliament. He is right to make the case for doing it more promptly than perhaps is suggested in the gracious Speech.

As my noble friend stated, the Liberal Democrats want fairness in all our electoral system and an equal voice for all in making the decisions that affect them at the most local level possible. Therefore, we welcome the principle of devolution to all parts of England. However, what is not clear is whether this will just be further delegation of resources with many Whitehall strings attached—which has been the nature of it so far—or something more meaningful. As my noble friend Lord Scriven argued, fiscal devolution, as well as policy devolution, will be very important. If that is unleashed, it will result in the economic growth that this Government want and that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, pointed to.

Unfortunately, it seems that the model adopted will continue to be that of a single elected mayor. That creates a whole new democratic deficit whereby key strategic decisions will be made by an elected mayor, but without the proper accountability provided by democratically elected members of different political persuasions. That arrangement will not do and will not stand the test of time.

I move on to devolution to the nations of our country. We have heard calls from noble Lords who have direct experience of devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lord Bruce referenced the importance of change within those devolution settlements and that a more comprehensive settlement is long overdue. A piecemeal approach to nationwide devolution is in no one’s best interests, least of all those of the people it is meant to serve. We on these Benches will always press for a constitutional settlement that includes a federal settlement for all the nations of our country.

Meanwhile, in the great regions of England, we are still waiting for real devolution. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for what he said about Yorkshire, and remind Members opposite that my home county of Yorkshire has a similar population to that of Scotland, and double those of Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet that great county of Yorkshire has had only fragmented and limited devolution, and it is singularly lacking in its democracy. Give us devolution, so that we in Yorkshire can get on and make our county thriving again.

That leads me to talk about what I regard as the appalling lack of reference to local government in this gracious Speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, talked about that, as did my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The one positive announcement that has been made is to restore “local government” to the title of the department—thank you. All politics is local and all public service delivery is local, and I hope that the Government will be mindful of this. According to the LGA, almost one in five councils is teetering on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices. In unitary councils, including metropolitans in big urban centres, about 80% of their budgets will be spent on adult social care, support for vulnerable children and SEND. A steeply declining resource is left for all other local services, which may explain the state of our roads. This is not sustainable, even in the short term. The Government have ambitious targets for housebuilding and planning reform, but these services cannot be divorced from the rest of local government. Planning applications require assessments by many local services, including highways and the environment. I sincerely hope that the Government understand the predicament facing local government, and that that understanding will lead to desperately needed further resources.

This wide-ranging and fascinating debate has demonstrated that many in this House are urging the new Government to use their huge majority to transform our politics and governance. Unfortunately, the meagre offerings in this gracious Speech leave room for much more. Having said that, it is at least positive that the changes proposed will make a small progressive step in the right direction.