Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start to examine those parts of the Bill which address local government and devolution powers, we might welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the long-standing asks of councils and their representative bodies for greater devolution, and that there is more flexibility in the proposed structure of combined county authorities than we might previously have envisaged. Nevertheless, we had hoped for a Bill that was far more ambitious and open to ideas when looking to address the imbalance of power in the UK.

As we have often heard in your Lordships’ House, the UK today is the most centralised state in Europe and there is too much in the Bill that seeks further powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. I welcome very much that the Secretary of State accepts that the national challenges require place-based solutions—at least, it appeared so from the White Paper. However, I feel strongly that Part 2 would better deliver this if accompanied by greater powers and fairer funding so that leaders can support the local economic recovery according to the needs of their own areas.

We have pointed out before in your Lordships’ House that, without a comprehensive and fair funding system across local government which would properly empower local authorities to deliver what is needed to support, sustain and develop their communities and economies, any steps taken towards devolution will have a hollow ring. Even worse, if funding mechanisms are driven by the current competitive bidding pots, which favour areas that are able to spend the most on shiny bids, they will run counter to the whole levelling-up agenda. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for saying that the sheer number of funds have become onerous and that we certainly need to look at that. There is a further danger in this “bidding bingo” way of funding local areas: it is yet another way of imposing the Government’s policy on growth and infrastructure in local areas and does not make for true devolution in any sense of the word.

We may have wished that provisions for reorganising local government had been the subject of a separate devolution Bill, an issue I have raised before in your Lordships’ House. Given that this does not appear to be on the horizon, we will be seeking amendments to transfer greater powers to local areas. I welcome the implicit recognition that devolution can drive economic, social and environmental development in local areas, but questions remain over whether the specific model of combined county authorities is right for every area, and whether all the current constituent parts of local government will have their importance recognised and their voice heard as the new structures develop. Local residents and leaders will always know best their own areas and the powers they need to deliver on their ambitions. Amendments for this part of the Bill will aim to allow greater flexibility for towns, cities, counties and the people who live in them to determine their own future.

Amendment 60 is a probing amendment to discover what a CCA can include as part of a two-tier council area—will all or only part of it be allowed? The amendment is designed to help us understand whether the Government will prescribe the nature of a CCA area to include all constituent councils. This has been tabled because there has been significant confusion about the geography of CCAs and what is and is not in scope. For example, does the CCA have to include the whole of an upper-tier authority area? In the case of my home county, Hertfordshire, must it include the whole of the county? The Minister will know that this is complicated: in some areas, counties already include unitary areas, and some county areas have enormous populations and significantly diverse demographics.

In previous devolution rounds, we have seen a confusing spectrum of scope—from being instructed on what will be in and out geographically, to documentation saying that it is for local government to decide. The second option is clearly preferable to all of us, but even when that is the stated initial intent, the goalposts are often moved during the bidding rounds to be more prescriptive than was initially thought.

Amendment 99 probably belongs better with the group of amendments relating to consultation on CCAs. If consultation is needed for the formation of a CCA and/or its dissolution, as we contend in other amendments, should there not also be consultation when a CCA is to be amended? Later regulations could determine the qualifying parameters for this, so that extensive consultation is not necessary for minor changes. This and similar amendments seek to determine the principle of public engagement on local government structures. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to table this amendment to explore the area that can be included in a combined county authority. As I understand it, a combined county authority is a bit of a misnomer. Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to an amendment that a CCA could include, for instance, the unitary authority of Wiltshire and the city unitary authority of Swindon. Equally, when I asked her what would happen in Devon, she said quite clearly that the county and district authorities of Devon and the unitary authority of Plymouth would be included. These are not necessarily combined county authorities: they are unitary and county and district combined authorities—if that is determined, we hope, by the people who live there and the councillors elected to represent them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the area of a combined county authority, the new type of local government institution being provided for in Part 2 of this Bill. Provisions in this part support the delivery of the local leadership mission of the levelling-up White Paper, to enable by

“2030, every part of England that wants one”

to

“ have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt so early in the Minister’s response, but could he define more clearly what the “highest level of devolution” actually means?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I shall do my best on that.

Noble Lords will be aware that 10 combined authorities have been established since 2011 in our city regions. However, we recognise that such authorities might not be so appropriate for non-metropolitan areas. The new model of combined county authorities is more appropriate for non-metropolitan areas, many of which have two-tier local government. It enables the establishment of a single institution covering a functional economic area, or whole county geography, which would be a suitable institution to provide effective leadership over an appropriate geography to qualify for a devolution deal.

I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about local government funding, but it might be helpful if I added a little to the information I gave the Committee in the last group of amendments. Our intention is to set out a plan for streamlining the funding landscape, as I mentioned, to provide greater flexibility for local authorities and make it easier to navigate opportunities for growth. This will include streamlining local growth funds, reducing inefficiency and bureaucracy and giving local government the flexibility it needs to deliver for local economies. As part of this work, we expect that there will be fewer small competitions. Where competitive funds do exist, we will look to streamline bidding and support greater alignment between revenue and capital sources. We will also consider the monitoring and evaluation requirements to ensure that places have robust, proportionate, ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans for the impact and delivery of investments and spending.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to allow part of a two-tier county council area to be included in a combined county authority, rather than the whole county council area. This would not be consistent with the policy we set out in the White Paper, whereby we will devolve to an institution covering a whole county geography or functional economic area. I will come on in a moment to the rationale for that model. In a combined county authority, such as the intended East Midlands CCA, the upper-tier councils within the area covered by a combined county authority are the constituent members of the CCA. There is no upper-tier council that covers part of a two-tier county council’s area; the only upper tier council is that two-tier county council, whose area covers a wider geography. As such, as the two-tier county council will be the constituent member of the combined county authority, the whole area that the council covers must be part of CCA’s area.

Moreover, allowing part of a two-tier county council’s area to be part of a combined county authority would not be consistent with the levelling-up White Paper’s principle of devolution being to institutions covering functional economic areas or whole county geographies, over which a number of functions should be exercised for maximum effect. Splitting the responsibility for such functions could also lead to discrepancies—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Can the Minister explain, then, where the geographies of a county area do not coincide with the geographies of an economic or travel-to-work area? Often, they do not. What I have heard is that you can either have a functioning geography of a county and its two tiers, or the alternative, but not a mixture of the two.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister has raised the East Midlands. On the northern tip of the East Midlands there is Chesterfield and north Derbyshire. Most businesses in that area would look into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority in terms of their business, and not into the county combined authority. It seems to be an administrative boundary designed down here in Whitehall rather than a true travel-to-work area. How would the north Nottinghamshires and Chesterfields be affected by this when, in reality, the economic performance and activity is actually into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just one or two comments on this group. I have listened very carefully to this and the previous group and I think we have an opportunity for the Government to clarify a number of issues around consultation and, indeed, referendums. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said about referendums. What is needed is a statement from the Government, hopefully before Report, on what the nature of consultation should be. What would be deemed to meet a minimum requirement or threshold for there to be an official consultation?

Secondly, the Government need to be absolutely clear what their own powers should be in relation to a consultation: what they can require of a local authority or set of authorities. I welcome the fact that this discussion is taking place; it is really important. We have discussed before in recent years during the passage of previous Bills what local people have a right to expect of their consultation. I, too, in Newcastle, have been through a mayoral referendum, and the same thing happened. The decision was not to have a mayor, but, of course, we now have a mayor of the North East Combined Authority—for which, in fact, there was no referendum. Our referendum was within scope; I ask the Minister: are referendums out of scope?

Turning to Amendment 62, I was struck by one or two other very important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Government need to be a bit clearer about. The first was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock: travel-to-work areas. It all depends how big your CCA or other combined authority is geographically. A very important issue is raised in Amendment 62: whether the Government are thinking in terms of each CCA having a single economic hub. In a number of areas that would not be suitable. In my own part of the country, several travel-to-work areas apply. Hopefully, that point will not be forgotten by the Government.

Lastly, on Amendment 63, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made another very important point about the duty to co-operate. When during previous Bills we have debated the duty to co-operate, the Government have always been very positive about having that duty placed clearly on the face of the Bill. But a CCA is not just being required to co-operate with a neighbouring CCA, but with all the other bodies that may relate to it. Given the ability of the public sector to operate across boundaries, both geographical and in terms of responsibilities and powers, it matters that the duty to co-operate is made absolutely clear at the outset.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just make one or two additional comments to those of my honourable friend Lord Shipley, the main one concerning Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about public consultation. I have been involved in a number of statutory instruments on the establishment of metropolitan combined authorities where the public consultation involving “the public” has been minimal, but it was agreed to be satisfactory because it enabled other local institutions—be it businesses, local council representatives or the LEPs—to respond. That has been labelled “public consultation”.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is late. I will try to be quick. I want to pick up what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to as “operation blank cheque”. The bit of the Bill that we are looking at here and that my amendment refers to is described in a sub-heading as “Functions of CCAs”. It consists of 15 clauses, 11 of which start with:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”.


What is different about the other four? Well, in those, the same words appear but they are not the first words. The problem is that there is a concept, an idea, floating around, but with such a lack of precision that it is extremely difficult to pin down what we will get at the end of the day. My Amendment 116A amends Clause 30, which does indeed start with:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”


and deletes subsection (4), which would suspend the operation of political proportionality.

I very strongly agree with all the other speakers in what has been said so far and support their amendments, but regarding this amendment, what is Clause 30(4) designed to achieve and why should it achieve it? The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was not actually the original legislation. There was some preceding legislation introduced by Mrs Thatcher, who was fed up with Conservative councillors in opposition complaining to her about another large party, which shall be nameless, taking not just majority control but complete control of the committee system. That led, in their view, to serious injustice. Mrs Thatcher was persuaded of that point and the rules were introduced. Liberal Democrats at the time were strongly urging the same course of action. It was designed to stop an undemocratic abuse of majoritarian rule.

There would have to be a strong reason for suspending that in this arrangement. It will be a complex situation. We have enough experience here to know that getting a group of district councils and a county council together is not an afternoon’s walk in the park but a complex job, and the last thing that anybody needs to upset that applecart is the idea that there will be unfair or disproportionate representation, or “My council’s view is going to be squeezed out because of a distortion in the system.”

Others have spoken eloquently about that, but I just want to pick up the point about associate members. These are the individuals who can be appointed to join what are joint committees. This clause relates to the constitution of joint committees. It will have county councillors and district councillors. It may have associate members and they may have a vote in certain circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out that there is no limitation on who that could be.

We used to have an institution called aldermen. The majority party would appoint a sufficiently large number of its supporters to ensure that it never had any difficulty in the chamber in passing its budget or anything else. Quite rightly, the institution of aldermen has long since been consigned to the dustbin. However, we have got it back here, with associate members. It will be explosive if you mix that in with the complexity of getting district and county councillors around a table taking decisions.

My question to the Minister is: in what circumstances could doing that enhance the Government’s proposal for CCAs? It is one of the many occasions when Ministers decide the regulations, but there is no indication of what factors are to be considered which might justify having any confidence in this proposition. Should not the factors that the Secretary of State considers at least be in the Bill; for example, “The Secretary of State cannot exercise Clause 30(4) unless the following conditions are complied with”? The noble Earl might like to suggest those conditions, those limitations or constraints, because on Report, I would want to include them in an amendment.

Of course, this is not the only clause that I might have made this amendment to: Clause 28(5)(f) is another where proportionality is being suspended—or may be if, at his complete discretion, the Secretary of State decides to do so. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about why he thinks that it is necessary or even slightly advantageous. If he has a plausible reason for that, will he go on and accept that it has to be codified or constrained in some way? If he cannot do any of those things, will he please accept my Amendment 116A and delete subsection (4) from Clause 30?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I will not speak for long. This has been a very important debate, and very positive: across the Chamber, Members are in agreement that we need clarity from the Government about what they are proposing regarding the constitution of the CCAs.

There is one element that has not yet been raised. Where the constituent members are not equal in size, is that to be reflected in the constitution of that particular CCA? I will give an example that was raised in earlier groups. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about Devon. It has a county council; Plymouth is a unitary, as a city; so is Torbay, as a unitary district. Those three are very different in size, population and economic geography, which we talked about earlier. Are they equal members with a similar number of voting rights? As the Bill says, they can each nominate at least one, but will there be an expectation that they be proportionate to their size and responsibilities? That is not clear and needs to be clarified by the Government before we get any further.

Then there are the non-constituent members. I agree wholeheartedly with Amendment 71 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster: the easy way forward is to say that district councils are democratic bodies within the CCA and have a right to be full members. As I have said just now about constituent members, CCAs can and will have to decide proportionality, and they could do that with regard to the districts. It makes good sense.

Frankly, as somebody who has spent most of my life as an elected person, I find it insulting that a democratically elected body such as a district council is aligned with other non-constituent bodies and put in the same category as local business groups, chambers of trade or trade union bodies, which are not elected by the public. I can see why you would want other groups to be associated with the CCA, but, if they are not democratically elected and therefore democratically accountable, they should be in a different category.

This leads me to associate members. I personally think that they should not exist and I shall leave it at that. Why should they? Somebody tell me. Get individual, unaccountable to anybody—nobody needs to know who they are; perhaps they are somebody’s mate—on there to stuff the numbers the right way. It is just not acceptable.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

It seems that too many members of our polity and commentariat have tried to present a zero-sum game between this abstract thing called the economy and people’s lives, including those of the most vulnerable. We have heard really quite eminent voices in newspapers and the media say, “Save the economy and let the elderly or vulnerable shield themselves.” That is not a compassionate approach or one of a civilised society that puts human rights at its heart, so I hope the broad base of comments in this debate will be taken on board and not the more jarring ones. It seems we all love our own rights and freedoms; it is just others’ that we sometimes find a little more difficult to swallow.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

We on these Benches support the Bill’s intentions to provide some additional business opportunities for construction companies and pubs, bars and cafés, which are often smaller, independent businesses on our high streets and have had their trade curtailed by the coronavirus restrictions.

This group of amendments in general provide for cafés and pubs to apply to extend their sales on to the pavement in front of their premises for a temporary period. In Committee we had an extensive debate about the consequences for people with disabilities, in particular those with a sight impairment. I thank the Ministers—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh—for the meetings following Committee to discuss these issues of concern.

My noble friend Lord Shipley has succinctly described the purpose of our Amendment 20, to which I also have my name. Our intention is simply to ensure that in the granting of licences, pavements do not become a hazard for pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has raised similar concerns and tabled a number of amendments to seek clarification and prevent pavements becoming inaccessible. In particular, we have been concerned about tables and chairs on the pavement gradually spilling over into the area set aside for pedestrians. This is the reason for the suggestions we have made about the requirement for a simple barrier to mark off the area of the pavement licence. I hope that most businesses will make this simple provision.

On another issue, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has made an important point in his Amendments 23 and 24: the principle of inclusive design should be the starting point when changes to the built environment are made. I hope the Government take note.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to aid a partnership approach between employers and employees and their trade union representatives states a principle we can easily support. It is good that the Government have listened to these concerns and have tabled several amendments seeking to ensure that pavements are kept clear for pedestrians. Although these amendments do not go as far as we and others have argued, they go a long way to satisfy those of us worried about the potential consequences.

If the Government’s Amendment 16 passes, there will be provision for the Secretary of State to make conditions on pavement licences by regulation. I thank the Government for sending an update of the guidance, which shows their willingness to safeguard the interests of pedestrians. We accept that the Government have moved a considerable distance in resolving these issues and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. It is right that the House is again afforded the opportunity to consider the implication of pavement licences. The various amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, highlight the need for inclusive design. I agree with him and am pleased that the Government have also tabled amendments on this theme. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raise similar concerns, and I am glad that the House has debated them today.

I hope that, in addition to the Government’s amendments, the Minister offers further non-statutory assurances to make certain that accessibility issues are resolved. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley noted, applications should not be granted if people are forced to cross a road; they should be able to pass by without incident. Pavement licences, when granted, can result in vibrant social spaces, but relevant stakeholder consultation is essential, as is the role of local authorities in ensuring compliance—as raised by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I agree with him that resources will need to be made available to local authorities for the extra work that this will entail.

My noble friend Lord Hain returned to the issue of trade union engagement, and he has the support of these Benches in so doing. As he said, consultation and co-operation have become the name of the game. I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in that respect. It should be the norm and statutorily implemented.

The House is aware from previous stages of the Bill that amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, have been raised about the concerns of trade union members. This amendment would ensure that local authorities consult employees and their unions when determining pavement seating applications. In recent weeks, I have spoken to members of Wetherspoon staff represented by the BFAWU, and it is clear that they are often left in the dark on decisions that have enormous ramifications for their working conditions. I hope the Minister will assure the House that he has at least engaged with trade unions in drafting the legislation and that he continues to during its implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 15 very strongly. I do not understand why on earth the Government are being so weak on this. They should accept that this is the way in which society is moving. Furthermore, why is Labour letting them? I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, and I could not understand the rationale for Labour accepting the government amendments. The smell from e-cigarettes does not go very well with food either, so why on earth should we not ban those when we are trying to enjoy our food?

As we heard, thousands die from the complications of smoking. My mother, a lifelong smoker, did exactly that. It was decades ago, but I still miss her; she had an early death because of smoking. The damage from smoking was not clearly understood then—we understand it now, and we really should be doing something about it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke extremely well. I thought that she expressed her concerns and it was a brilliant speech; I was delighted that I agreed with her. I often agree, surprisingly, with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I often support her amendments. She says that this is not very libertarian, so I ask: what about my liberty to breathe clean air? Road traffic and road safety campaigners that I meet come up against this all the time. We want the liberty to breathe clean air, and smoking does not allow that. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 15 and I very much hope that it will go to a vote.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, we have heard, as we did in Committee, powerful arguments about taking this opportunity to exclude smoking from new pavement licensed areas. The case for ensuring that those of us who do not wish to inhale second-hand smoke are not excluded from that enjoyment is well made.

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover is a vital step in making our country smoke-free. It had strong and detailed arguments in support of it from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Balfe, and many other noble Lords.

However, Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, lacks clarity for businesses and shies away from the paramount public health concern. It is a cop-out. When an argument relies on pointing to the drafting issues of a stronger amendment, as hers did, you know that it is very weak.

We have heard that the overwhelming majority of people do not smoke: a mere 14% do. Protecting the interests of a minority does not extend to a situation where, by doing so, harm is created for the majority, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just explained. Smoking kills and second-hand smoking kills. Surely the Government should take every opportunity to restrict it.

The choice is clear: do we use this opportunity to keep the health needs of customers paramount or not? The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is supported by the Local Government Association. I hope the Minister will provide a full response to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to have further consideration on Amendment 15 prior to Third Reading, so that progress on this issue can be made.

Other amendments on this matter fudge these vital health concerns, and we on these Benches wholeheartedly support the cross-party amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover.

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My Lords, we would do well to remember that the pavement licensing clauses in the Bill provide vital temporary flexibility to aid the recovery of hospitality businesses over the summer months, and that we need to proceed quickly to achieve that. Noble Lords have voiced some concerns and requested clarity in relation to the position on outdoor smoking under these temporary fast-track licences. I am not going to go into the respective roles of the hard cop and the soft cop in achieving the Government’s amendments, as my noble friend Lord Young put it. However, in recognition of the mood across the House the Government have tabled Amendments 13, 14 and 25 to provide the clarity that local authorities, businesses and customers need.

It is important to recognise that we are winning the battle against smoking: Great Britain has one of the lowest rates of smoking in Europe, at 13.9% of adults. Fewer than one in six adults smoke today and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, over 1 million people have given up during the lockdown, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bethell earlier today.

This Government have taken great strides in reducing the harms caused by smoking. We committed to doing so in the prevention Green Paper. We will publish the prevention guidance response in due course and set out our plans to achieve a smoke-free England by 2030 at a later date. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, supports that mission. I emphasise to her that there has been no stop in providing smoking cessation support. The Government continue to provide those programmes of work, which address smoking harms nationally and are delivered locally through the tobacco control plan for England and the NHS long-term plan’s commitment to provide smoking cessation support in hospital settings.

In the debate noble Lords expressed their support for the temporary, urgent and necessary reforms brought forward in the Bill to support the businesses hardest hit by this pandemic—our pubs, cafés and restaurants—and to protect jobs in those sectors. We recognise that the Covid restrictions mean that customers are encouraged or required to eat and drink outside, and that clarity is critical as we support businesses to recover. That is why the Government have tabled an amendment requiring proper provision for non-smoking seating via a smoke-free seating condition. This amendment does not prevent the portion of businesses which wish to cater for smokers from doing so. It requires proper provision for non-smoking seating. This means that customers who want to choose to sit in smoking or non-smoking al fresco dining areas will be able to do so.

The Government’s position means that all businesses eligible for pavement licences can share the benefits of this new fast-track licence, while ensuring provision for non-smoking seating. Of course, businesses can already make their own non-smoking policies for outside spaces to reflect customer wishes without the need for regulations, and the Government support that. I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that a blanket ban can be imposed by businesses themselves. Our guidance will further reinforce this point, making it clear that the licence holder has to make reasonable provision for seating free of smoking.

The guidance is available on the GOV.UK website and was circulated to noble Lords and noble Baronesses before this debate. It includes clear no-smoking signage, displayed in accordance with the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2012. No ashtrays or similar receptacles are to be provided or left on furniture where smoke-free seating is identified. Licence holders should aim for a minimum two-metre distance between non-smoking and smoking areas, wherever possible. That is the framework, so I do not see the confusion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

It is also worth reiterating that businesses must continue to have regard to smoke-free legislation under the Health Act 2006, and the subsequent Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006. This is restated in our guidance, as it is absolutely right to stress it, and the Government are committed to working towards a smoke-free society by 2030, as I have said.

Now is not the time to prevent businesses catering to their customers, or to use a temporary provision on pavement licences to ban smoking outdoors. Now is the time to support our hospitality industry and ensure that all businesses eligible for pavement licences can share the benefits of this new fast-track licence. This point was made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is to withdraw her Amendment 11 and I thank her for her support for our amendment, which seeks to achieve what she set out in her amendment.

However, I fear that Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is not the way to proceed and would be unfair to businesses. While undoubtedly not its intention, it would create confusion. The effect is to create an unfair playing field between businesses applying for these new licences, which need to abide by the condition, and those with existing licences, which do not. This point was made by several of my colleagues. Her amendment also cuts across the ability of business owners to make their own non-smoking policies for outside space, without the need for regulations. Of course, there are cases where the regulations are already clear. The existing power, set out in the Health Act 2006 and subsequent Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006, made it illegal to smoke in public in enclosed, or substantially enclosed, areas and workplaces. The Bill changes none of this.

On the other hand, the Government’s amendment has the proportionate approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He said that we needed proportionality and this is what we deliver with this amendment. It rightly requires proper, fair provision for non-smoking seating, while not undermining business owners whose customers include smokers. It supports our hospitality sector in continuing to operate, while following the Covid restrictions necessary to protect public health. I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Sheikh, Lady McIntosh, Lord Lansley and Lord Young for supporting the government amendment, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I therefore urge noble Lords to support government Amendments 13, 14 and 25, which will ensure that consumer choice remains. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has already indicated that she will withdraw her Amendment 11, but I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, does not move her Amendment 15 when called.

On a couple of points of clarification, the guidance being issued is joint guidance from the MHCLG and DHSC. It will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. In response to the noble Lord, Lord German, there will be no physical barrier between non-smokers and smoking areas but a two-metre gap. I hope that answers the questions raised in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to government Amendments 58, 65, 78 and 81, as well as to other amendments related to them. This takes me back to law school and the two greatest challenges I encountered there. The first was in the field of equity. We had a phrase in the legal profession: “Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor’s foot.” Yet it was—and still is—a vital and valuable area in which fairness can be administered in the application of the law in England and Wales.

The second element was the word “reasonable”. I spent much time then, as I have again now, rereading some of the judgments, particularly those of a lawyer I greatly respect—the late Lord Denning—who talked about reasonableness and the interpretation of “reasonable”. It is a minefield, particularly in an area of legislation such as this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right in what he said a little while ago in this debate: dealing with the word “reasonable” in terms of the Minister’s powers to extend the provisions opens up a challenge—which I hope will not happen because in general this legislation is not only necessary but, in the main, well drawn.

I recognise the activities of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in what it said. It supported—as shown by the letter we received from my noble friend Lord Howe earlier today—the wording of the various government amendments here, with the word “reasonable” used in terms of ministerial activity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, the Constitution Committee came out quite clearly with wording not dissimilar to that used by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The advantage of that wording is simply this: talking of necessity, and introducing necessity and appropriateness into a decision taken by a Minister who wishes to extend, makes the legislation less vulnerable to challenge.

I hope that, even at this late stage, my noble friend the Minister will consider looking at those words, which again came from the Public Bill Office as well as from our Constitution Committee, and making those changes to give the Bill a real prospect of being unchallenged—either in its temporary form or in any extended form that might be regarded as necessary and desirable.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, thanks to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a number of very important amendments have been tabled by the Government that limit the extent of the powers in the Bill, with exceptions for a need consequent on a further outbreak of the coronavirus. Although there are disputes over the wording—the exact precise wording, as we have heard from a number of speakers—in general the amendments are supported on these Benches.

Of course, we all greatly miss our friend Baroness Maddock and record our commiserations to my noble friend Lord Beith.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by speaking to the government amendments in my name—Amendments 26, 28, 47, 49, 58, 60, 65, 67, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81 and 83—which are grouped with Amendment 19 and the others in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling his Amendments 19, 22, 57, 63 and 71, which would require any statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to pavement licences, extended planning permissions, construction hours or electronic inspection of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy to be subject to negative parliamentary procedures. As he indicated, these amendments reflect recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House in its report on the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to discuss them.

The committee’s views are always important, and we have responded positively elsewhere in the Bill to its recommendations, as I shall explain in a moment. However, in relation to this matter, I am afraid we cannot accept its recommendations or, by extension, these amendments. This reflects partly a general principle but also the practical realities. First, the statutory guidance under Clauses 5, 8, 16, 17, 18 and 21 is planning guidance. Guidance by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities has been a key feature of the planning system ever since its creation over 70 years ago—whether that guidance has been through circulars, planning policy guidance or, more recently, the National Planning Policy Framework and its associated practical guidance.

The issuing of this guidance, as a general principle, has never required statutory instruments. For instance, there is no parliamentary procedure requirement in relation to guidance to local planning authorities about the preparation and content of local plans, a key planning function under Section 34 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Similarly, and to give an example directly relevant to this Bill, our construction working hours provisions and the extension of planning permission provisions modify the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The various powers of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under that Act are not subject to parliamentary procedure. These documents will form part of the full suite of planning practice guidance and, in practice, it would be peculiar to have different parallel procedures for publication.

Our pavement licence clauses are linked to Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980. That Act contains four powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance, none of which are subject to parliamentary procedure. Two of these powers were inserted by amending Acts in 2000 and 2015. The situation is similar for other statutory guidance required by this Bill. So, prescribing a parliamentary procedure for guidance in relation to the temporary planning measures in the Bill would be out of kilter with our well-established approach.

Furthermore, requiring guidance to be subject to parliamentary procedure does not reflect the practical realities of planning guidance. The draft guidance we have published is, like our other planning guidance, technical and practical and expressed in the form of questions and answers to help local planning authorities, and applicants, and has been formulated taking account of the view of sector specialists. For instance, the guidance on additional environmental approval for extending planning permissions has had input from the Environment Agency and Natural England. I hope that many noble Lords will have had the opportunity to review this guidance during the course of the Bill’s passage.

This guidance is designed to evolve over time in response to local planning authorities’ practical experience of these temporary measures. While we have obviously sought to ensure that guidance is as comprehensive as possible from the outset, we know that, in time, additional questions or clarifications may be required. We want to be able to make these updates in a flexible and timely way. We should not forget that local planning authorities are best placed to understand the specific needs, requirements and arrangements of their local areas. Providing helpful and up-to-date guidance is essential in allowing them to exercise their judgment on the ground. Requiring each change of guidance to be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure makes it more difficult in practice to make incremental changes to help them. I therefore regret that we cannot support these amendments, and I humbly beg the noble Lord, after reflecting on our arguments, to withdraw or not move them.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I find ourselves in broad agreement. The Government’s Amendments 26, 28, 47, 49, 58, 60, 65, 67, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81 and 83 implement another of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Government are pleased to accept. As noble Lords will be aware—I emphasise this to my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—the vast majority of the measures in the Bill are temporary. In several cases, clauses provide for expiry dates to be extended by regulations, subject to the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedure.

We thank the committee for its careful consideration of the Bill. Our amendments in this group would implement its recommendation to clarify that the provisions will only be extended for a purpose linked to the coronavirus pandemic. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his supportive comments on this issue. I join other noble Lords in extending my sympathy to him on the loss of his wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.

The Government’s intention has always been for the powers to extend the temporary provisions to be used, if necessary, in response to emerging information about the duration of the pandemic, the nature of social distancing requirements and the impact of coronavirus on relevant sectors. We want to provide absolute clarity that the powers to extend will be exercised only where this is necessary and appropriate, and only to mitigate an effect of coronavirus. Therefore, these amendments make this clear on the face of the Bill. The wording we have used is consistent with other legislation. I also remind noble Lords that the requirement for any extensions to be by regulations, subject to the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedure, will provide opportunity for further parliamentary scrutiny.

I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this clarity, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will agree to withdraw Amendment 19 and to not move Amendments 27, 48, 59, 66, 74, 79 and 82, which are intended to achieve the same purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It will be dangerous to allow the sale of alcohol in beer glasses, as they could be used as a weapon. The police regularly have to intervene when fights break out once a consumer has drunk a few glasses of beer or spirits. A glass container is a dangerous weapon, often used by those under the influence of alcohol. Innocent people walking near these premises can get hurt and could be hospitalised, thereby putting pressure on the NHS during this difficult time. The amendment would prevent the premises selling to customers in beer glasses. I hope that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will be carried.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

There are two related but separate amendments in this group concerning off-sales. The first, to limit the time for off-sales, was the subject of extensive debate in Committee and a commitment from the Minister to bring forward a government amendment on Report. The government amendments achieve that by limiting to 11 pm the latest time by which off-sales can be made. As this exactly replicates the proposal from these Benches in Committee, obviously we support these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the arguments made.

The second element is that of off-sales in open containers. My noble friend Lord Paddick has made another powerful case for limiting off-sales to closed containers, be it in cans or bottles. The reason is to prevent unruly scenes that may follow drinking from beer glasses in the street. Broken glass in the hands of those worse for wear is a nasty weapon. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit such off-sales to non-glass containers, but that misses one of the critical arguments entirely, which is that off-sales in open containers, whether glass or plastic, can lead to anti-social behaviour. There have been plenty of such incidents before sporting events that resulted in drinking limits being made. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment seeks the same protections for local communities and, indeed, other sensible drinkers. We do not wish to see a Bill designed to help businesses becoming one which, as a side-effect, encourages irresponsible and unsafe drinking. My noble friend’s amendment is important for individuals, communities and policing, and it clearly has the full support of these Benches.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the government amendments. As other noble Lords said, a convincing case was made for the ending off-sales at 11 pm under these new licences. This was first raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier. She raised the problem she is having in her constituency even before these powers will come into play. There were huge problems in London Fields, and she raised the concern that if the Bill as it was then had been passed, it would have exacerbated the problem. I thank the Government for listening to that. I also thank the Covent Garden Community Association and the Soho Society. Weymouth Town Council was also concerned about this, as was everybody else who got in touch with me. It was also pleasing to see that we had the leaders of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster, Camden and Southwark, two Conservative and two Labour boroughs, coming together because they had a number of premises that would be affected by these proposals. It is good that the Government listened and I thank them very much for that.

On the question of containers, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making, but there is also the issue of buying beer to drink outside, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on. I sometimes go to the Shipwrights Arms in Tooley Street, and if you go in there and ask for two pints of bitter, they will ask, “Inside or outside?” If you say “Outside”, you will get it in two plastic containers—you do not get glasses outside. You will meet a big, burly security guard, and you will not get past him if you are carrying glasses. I take the point that glasses are dangerous and can be used as weapons, and we need to be mindful of that. However, in many cases we have those plastic containers, which you often see at sporting venues. However, I see the point the noble Lord is making.

My noble friend Lord Mann made a point about policing resources. I remember being a young councillor in Southwark in the 1980s. At that point, the council gave the music and dance licence, and the magistrates gave the alcohol licence—of course, that has all changed now. I remember that the police came along to us, exasperated, and said, “You’ve granted all these music and dance licences, then of course the pubs are getting all these licences. On the Old Kent Road on a Friday and Saturday night, we have to put in a huge amount of resources when we do the weekly rosters. Then at the same time you’re moaning at us that you want more officers on the beat. We can’t physically manage it all.” I remember how that was important at the time.

However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the government amendments that she has spoken to, I am delighted that the Government have listened, and I look forward to her response to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey [V]]

My Lords, this is a slightly strange group of amendments. We have talked about microbreweries and so on, but most of the debate has focused on Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I support what has been said on it. Of course there is no industry standard yet for digital ID; the whole process has been very slow. However, as a number of noble Lords have commented, security technology has been moving very rapidly and there is no doubt that this could be delivered without any great difficulty.

The reality at the moment is that, when young people go out to pubs or bars for an evening of entertainment, they have to take a physical card with them; often, it is a passport or a driving licence. In the nature of things, those physical documents get lost, which brings extra costs and security issues that we should all be wary of. However, people’s ability to safeguard their mobile phone is always very high.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave us probably more detail than any of us ever wanted to know about this particular topic and the standards being adopted and agreed. However, I think that the approach taken by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara is the way forward, and I hope that the Minister can agree something this evening.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She was clearly concerned that if this amendment were to pass tonight, it would somehow favour one or other of the current developers of the technology for digital age verification. However, if you listen to her speech, you will find that she seemed to be defending the right of PASS—a scheme which she chairs, and which has done noble service to age verification over the years—to continue as is for several more months.

I hope that when the Minister looks at this, she can find a way forward along the lines of Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

[Inaudible.]—and related amendments, including one tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington that seeks to give sports clubs, which often rely on bar takings, the same facility as pubs and other bars to provide off-sales. An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to achieve the same extension for small breweries. These amendments support small businesses and give essential support to community clubs, and as such we on these Benches support them both.

Another very important amendment, Amendment 52, would enable digital age verification. It is surprising that that does not already exist. A very strong case has been made for this change by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In the light of the experience throughout this crisis of a significant shift being made across society to digital means of providing services, this proposal should surely be accepted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate when that move to digital age verification will be enabled—as come it will.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Addington, relating to small breweries and sporting clubs. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have not found a way to do something here. We hear lots of talk about supporting small business, but we seem to be in a rigid situation, where we cannot move out of where we are. I do not see why we could not do something and it is regrettable that we could not find a way. I accept that breweries do not have licences now, but they could be given something temporarily. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that sports clubs are often open only a couple of nights a week. Why have we not sorted them out? In this emergency Bill to deal with Covid-19, we have chosen to ignore them, and that is regrettable. I do not see why the Government have done that. They could have moved a bit more on that. I support the amendments, and it is regrettable that there will be no progress on them.

A convincing case has been laid out for Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords. I supported the idea in Committee. Equally, I see some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I accept that this is a temporary Bill; perhaps doing something permanent in a temporary Bill may be a problem, but the least we should get tonight is a commitment. Technically, this can be done and the Government should get on and make sure that it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

A survey conducted recently by UKinbound, whose members represent 50% of all international visitors to the UK, found that most businesses in the industry intend to make further redundancies in the coming months. Can the Minister explain how the Government will prevent this? Should these redundancies take place, the industry might never recover. The Minister may wish to wait and see until we have left the EU, but I warn that the industry may be unrecognisable by then. The result will be ruined livelihoods across the four nations of the UK.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

Noble Lords, I apologise for the technical fault that rendered my audio not working. My noble friend Lady Doocey again made a very persuasive case for giving a lift to our local tourism sector by enabling an innovative approach whereby local businesses combine to provide additional benefits to the local tourist economy. What an easy way that is to support regions that depend on tourism, such as the Lake District, Devon and Cornwall. The Minister needs to respond positively to give hope to these businesses that have gone through such a hard time.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, seeks to alter the package travel regulations in a manner similar to the amendment tabled in Committee. The noble Baroness is right to identify the difficulties facing the UK tourism sector, in particular the many SMEs in the sector. It is therefore right that we do all we can to support this sector through the crisis.

On 3 June, we announced a £10 million kick-starting tourism package, which will give small businesses in tourist destinations grants of up to £5,000 to help them adapt following the pandemic. As of last week, the VAT rate applied to most tourism and hospitality-related activities has been cut from 20% to 5% for six months to help the sector get back on its feet. We have launched the “enjoy summer safely” national marketing campaign to encourage British people to enjoy UK tourism. Ministers and officials have been meeting representatives from the tourism sector regularly via the Tourism Industry Emergency Response Group. We are actively considering all the recovery ideas suggested to us by stakeholders, including schemes to promote domestic tourism.

In that spirit, I would like to follow this up by arranging a meeting with the sector representatives that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has met to explore the points she has made about domestic tourism and package travel. I hope that offer is welcome. As confirmed in Committee, the Government have indicated that we will undertake a further review of the package travel recommendations. As these are EU laws, this review is better conducted when the transition period with the EU is over. I say that with some emphasis, as the EU Commission has recently commenced infraction proceedings against several member states that have amended laws in contravention of the package travel directive.

It is also important to reflect, as the noble Baroness recognised, on the balance to strike between business flexibility and consumer protection, so it is important to consult a wider range of interests. For the reasons I have given, I am not able to accept this amendment, and I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

56: Clause 16, page 24, line 23, at end insert—
“( ) The application must also include—(a) an assessment of the impact of the modifications on the local community, and any mitigation plans that would be put in place to minimise disturbance; and(b) an assessment of the impact of the modifications on the environment and local conservation interests, and any mitigation plans that would be put in place to minimise disturbance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an application to include details of the impact on the local community and environment, and how these disturbances could be mitigated.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, just to make it quite clear, we on these Benches support the moves the Government are seeking to make in the Bill to provide additional flexibilities to the construction industry. We support the proposed extension in the time given for planning applications and listed building applications with the provisos included.

However, with regard to the proposal to enable construction firms to extend their hours of work, even 24-hour working, we have a number of concerns. Amendment 56, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Shipley, concerns establishing a fair balance between the needs of construction on the one hand and those of local residents, the wider community and the environment on the other. One of the key conditions in every planning application is restricted hours of working. It is also often the factor that worries local people. Residents often ask me in my role as a councillor about construction traffic that frequently arrives well before the regulated start time for working. They ask about noise nuisance from heavy machinery early in the morning and late at night and ask why they should have to tolerate disturbance for the sake of profit-making companies. The answer is, of course, that there is a balance to be reached between the two needs, and that is the purpose of our amendment.

It is likely that there will be pressure on planners making decisions to comply with requests from construction in order to help the local economy. Our amendment would require planners to ask the applicant for mitigation measures. They would simply ask the construction businesses to stop and consider others. The best will. Those who have little regard for the needs of others will not. The amendment would put the best and the worst construction companies on a level playing field. There is a need to respect our environment and nature’s cycle of life, to limit noise and dust pollution and to consider others. That is why we are continuing to press these issues and hope that the Minister can provide some safeguards for residents and the environment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments 84, 88 and 89—tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe—which are grouped with Amendments 85 and 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, and Amendments 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76 and 77, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley.

I turn to Amendments 84, 88 and 89, government amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe, and Amendments 85 and 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The purpose of these amendments is to secure that mayoral development corporations, Transport for London, urban development corporations and parish meetings are subject to the power in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which enables the making of regulations to allow these bodies to meet remotely until 7 May 2021.

They correct the omission of these bodies from the Coronavirus Act, which was an accidental oversight due to the pace at which the Act was drafted. It is wholly consistent with the current policy of the Government that bodies such as local authorities—in the broadest sense—should be able to meet remotely, carrying on their business while protecting the health and safety of members, officers and the public. The Government have received representation on this matter from, among others, the Mayor of London—particularly on behalf of the London Legacy Development Corporation—Transport for London and the National Association of Local Councils with regard to the inclusion of parish meetings.

I will answer both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, by saying that the Government’s intention is to make the amended regulations with urgency following Royal Assent. In fact, Amendment 89 specifically allows early commencement of Amendment 84 and, in addition, we will move at pace to ensure that the regulations are in place in a matter of days, as opposed to the typical 21 days. This is a similar pace to the laying of regulations following the passing of the Coronavirus Act.

I note Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which would have put the change to Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act in the Bill in respect of mayoral development corporations, and Amendment 86, which seeks to include a specific reference to the highway authority for the Greater London Authority in the local authority remote meetings regulations. We support the spirit of these amendments but, in the light of the government amendments, we hope that noble Lords will not move those amendments. I hope that will also be the case for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, for Amendment 56. We agree that local planning authorities should have sufficient information about the impact of extended construction hours on the community and environment to enable them to make a timely decision. We believe that the most appropriate way of ensuring that this happens is through guidance. There is likely to be a range of possible responses from the construction industry to this measure and variation in what will be requested—from an additional hour or so on some sites, so that workers can have staggered start and finish times, to longer evening extensions on others. Therefore, we need a flexible and proportionate approach that can be tailored to the circumstances.

However, we listened to noble Lords’ views during Committee and we hear their concerns. We recognise the need for balance and to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect amenity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, have asked for. We have strengthened the draft guidance so that it also lists an assessment of impacts of noise on sensitive uses nearby as something that local planning authorities may wish to encourage an applicant to provide to aid swift decision-making. This is in addition to providing a justification for extended hours and mitigations to aid swift decision-making, which were already covered in the guidance.

We have also taken the advice of the Institute of Acoustics, the Association of Noise Consultants and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and gone further still to make other changes to strengthen the guidance, including that applicants provide information on the primary construction activities expected to take place during the extended hours, including the plant and equipment expected to be used. Taking into account these changes, I beg noble Lords not to press their amendment. I also assure my noble friend Lord Balfe that the legislation is temporary and we will not see any diminution to the environmental gains that have been achieved by the planning system.

I turn to the nine amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which relate to Clauses 17, 18 and 19, and the extension of planning permissions and listed building consents. These amendments would extend the time limit for relevant planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 May 2021, instead of 1 April as currently drafted. I note that he has tabled these amendments as a compromise given my concerns about accepting his amendments in Committee, which would have introduced an extension to 1 June 2021.

I agree with my noble friend that any extension of unimplemented planning permissions or listed building consents needs to be of sufficient length to aid the development industry, given the impact that Covid-19 has had on development. We certainly think that it will take time for many developers to commence new residential and commercial development. I thank him in particular for his insightful points during the debates on these measures, particularly on the potential impacts of the winter months on the productivity of the development industry.

I am pleased to say that the Government will accept my noble friend’s nine amendments. They will provide a modest extension into the more accommodating spring months. I also recognise that this additional time would be welcomed by developers and local planning authorities, given that the development industry is experiencing a slow and cautious return to full operating capacity. We accept that this is appropriate in the circumstances.

The amendments would, in effect, give any eligible planning permissions and listed building consents nine months, or three-quarters of a year, from now to take steps to implement the permission. We will, as previously mentioned, keep the use of powers to extend certain dates in the legislation under review if the impact of the coronavirus continues.

These are modest amendments, but I agree that they will give additional certainty to developers in these exceptional times. I trust that they will be well received by your Lordships’ House, as well as by the industry. On this basis, I am happy to accept my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed on this group of amendments. I am pleased that the Government’s administrative oversight in connection to the mayoral development agency in London has been put right. I very much thank the Minister for his reply and the information that government guidance will be strengthened regarding applications to extend construction hours to protect communities and the environment. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, now that the technical issues have been resolved, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his ever-helpful approach. We have had an excellent and well-informed debate on the proposals in the Bill and my hope is that he will be able to respond positively to the many concerns that have been raised.

Liberal Democrats on these Benches understand and support the general thrust of the Bill, which is to provide additional flexibility to some specified businesses that have been hit hard by lockdown in the early months of the pandemic. We also appreciate that the Government want to provide these new flexibilities as soon as possible. However, that should not result in the measures included in the Bill not being given the full level of scrutiny for which this House is responsible. My colleagues and other noble Lords from across the House have raised questions and concerns on a number of issues which require answers from the Government.

Part 1 enables pubs, bars, and cafés to apply for pavement licences to expand on the amount of seating available and provide some recompense for a reduction in the customers permitted within the premises. My noble friend Lady Thornhill has drawn attention to the confusion of responsibilities for licence applications in two-tier local authorities, which needs to be resolved. My noble friends Lady Randerson and Lady Bowles have spoken on this issue and suggested variations on the measures in the Bill. The RNIB and Guide Dogs have raised concerns, as have local councils and disability organisations. They are all concerned that people with visual impairments, in wheelchairs or pushing buggies will find that they are unable to pass safely on the pavement. Reassurances must be provided that the needs of businesses will not surmount the needs of pedestrians.

Part 1 also includes one of the more controversial proposals, which is to permit sales from pubs and bars of alcohol in “open containers”. My noble friend Lord Paddick has spoken eloquently, and from his vast experience, on the topic. This measure really does require modification to minimise the problems that could well follow in town and city centres, putting additional pressure on the police and councils. It is not right to pass the additional costs created by businesses on to these public services without providing appropriate financial compensation. Noble Lords from across the House have voiced anxieties on this provision. It requires changes in the Bill.

On Part 2, my noble friends Lady Kramer, Lady Bowles and Lord German have explained why they have concerns about the Bill regarding the loan scheme and highlighted issues about insurance and whistleblowing. We look forward to the Minister responding constructively to their expert comments. My noble friend Lady Randerson has also voiced concerns about the renewal of driving licences for bus drivers. I look forward to the response on this vital safety question.

Part 3 relates to changes to planning legislation. The elements that relate to extending permissions are welcome, both for planning authorities and for developers. However, one part of this provision, for automatic extension involving environmental conditions in a planning consent, has to be reconsidered, in order that vital environmental protections are not overridden in the name of construction for the short term, while enabling destruction of our natural environment in the long term. This is not in tune with the Government’s claims of “building green”.

Every planning consent includes conditions on hours of working. They are there for a purpose. They provide a safeguard for neighbours; extension of hours has to be with the consent of those it affects. The Bill fails to give enough emphasis to the views of neighbours and gives the impression that construction needs are more important, especially as it is possible for developers to apply for a construction period of 24 hours a day. My noble friend Lady Randerson rightly warned that one man’s bureaucracy is another man’s democratic right, and this applies particularly to planning.

My noble friend Lord Shipley asked whether a pre-consultation period can be included, so that the narrow windows for applications make for more transparency and inclusivity. He also asked the Government to disapply the current requirements on councils for the housing delivery test, for which there are draconian consequences where not met. Will the Minister give assurances on this issue? My noble friend Lady Doocey raised planning issues regarding tourism and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Planning appeals are a crucial part of the planning process and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, stated, these are already weighted heavily in favour of developers. It is to be regretted that this is the one change that is to be permanent. It should be a temporary change along with the other measures, with any permanent change being included in the next planning Bill.

My noble friend Lady Kramer also raised what must be a government oversight: TfL, and other London development agencies, are not included in the Covid legislation on virtual decision-making. I am confident that the Government will want to rectify this omission to enable those bodies to make decisions openly and transparently.

The majority of these changes affect local government, yet they incur additional costs without additional funding. It is already clear that many councils have huge financial pressures, even after the latest funding announcement from the Government. The extra costs for councils in the Bill need to be reimbursed.

In conclusion, there are important changes in this Bill, which are largely supported. However, the measures are piecemeal and apply to a narrow section of local businesses. The Bill cannot be seen as part of a more thought-through response. In that sense, it is very much a wasted opportunity for setting out a clear strategy that will provide some hope, both to communities and to businesses. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Grenfell Tower

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I said that I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Soley said. It is not for me to make those decisions, but we have all accepted that the response was not good enough, so I think everyone is looking at themselves to see what we can do better in the future. On the noble Lord’s questions about visas, my understanding is—I might need to write to confirm this—that a number of family members in cases where their loved ones and relatives have been involved have already been able to come over. I do not know the exact numbers, but we are already working hard to ensure that at this awful time family members can come over to be with their loved ones.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, accountability is very important in political life to ensure that the people we take decisions for trust those of us who represent them. The noble Baroness has so far failed to respond to direct questions from my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, about the position of the leader of Kensington Borough Council. This was a council-owned building, the council had invested in renovating it, and it went up in flames, destroying the lives of, so far, 79 people. For accountability to be real, should not the leader of the council resign?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the Prime Minister said in her Statement, we believe that it is right that the chief executive resigned because we have acknowledged all along that there has not been good enough support for the families. As I have also said, the judge-led inquiry will allow us to look at the broader circumstances leading up to and surrounding the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower so that all lessons can be learned by everyone involved.

Jo Cox MP

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Jo Cox was my MP. She was savagely attacked and murdered on a street just yards from the marketplace where we were due to meet that very afternoon to campaign together on an issue about which we both cared passionately: Europe. It was not to be.

Jo had strongly held, principled views. She was willing to work with all those who would help to make a difference. Following her murder, there has been an outpouring of love for Jo. The floral tributes placed in the marketplace grow daily. Yesterday, more than 100 came in just one hour. The messages speak of real help given, concerns listened to and anxieties lightened.

People in her constituency of Batley and Spen knew who she was. Jo, in her too-brief time as our MP, visited countless schools, community groups and businesses. Everywhere she went, she gave support and encouragement. “Be ambitious: yes, you can” was her mantra. “Keep positive. Be hopeful”.

The evening she died, the local church in Birstall held a vigil. The church was packed; it was literally standing room only. Those who came included people of all faiths and none: Christians, Muslims and Sikhs mourning together.

The following day, I had reason to walk into Birstall. In Yorkshire, when you meet someone in the street, you say hello. That day, the mood was heavy and sombre. Nobody wanted to speak, so there were no words. But there was an understanding that what had happened to Jo was a tragedy beyond words: an awful, barbaric attack which left a huge, overwhelming sense of the loss of a special person whose life had been so brutally cut short. And, yes, a sense of anger that our democracy had been violently besmirched.

I was speaking to some young people yesterday. Jo had been to their school several times. At first they said that no one was interested in politics because it was pointless, but not any more. Jo had enthused many, especially girls, to see what can be achieved through political campaigning.

We in Batley and Spen have lost a remarkable MP. The country has lost a spirited advocate for the poor and dispossessed wherever they live. Her family has lost the person they love. We are all the poorer for her passing.