Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government have no control over what goes into the media, and it is something that the Government have to accept.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Let us end on a positive. I thank the Minister for her response. There is agreement that unregulated ground rents are unacceptable, and that some freeholders are unscrupulous and exploit their leaseholders, holding them to ransom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said.

However, it would be really helpful if, as we complete the various stages of the Bill, the Minister could confirm that the Government will be able to bring forward a detailed amendment regarding ground rents before Report; otherwise, those of us who raised this issue in Committee will raise it again on Report. Unfortunately, this will put the Minister in a difficult position, one in which she has to say, “In due course, something is going to turn up”. Let us send a message to the department that “in due course” means “before Report”.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for her Amendments 23 and 24 on development value. I also thank her very much for meeting me on this subject.

The amendments would introduce a scheme where enfranchising leaseholders would not pay development value if they guaranteed that they would not develop for a period of 10 years. Under the current law, lease- holders are sometimes required to pay development value when collectively enfranchising a block of flats. This is the value of the potential future development of the property, such as through adding another storey to the building, as we have heard. We recognise that development value can make the cost of enfranchisement prohibitively high.

We are committed to bringing forward a workable scheme and are exploring this area further. It is, as we have found, however, an area fraught with loopholes and technical detail. To be honest, it will take us time to get this right.

Before I finish, I want to bring up permitted development, because all noble Lords have brought this up. As noble Lords probably know, the Government have recently consulted on making changes to various permitted development rights. The consultation ran for eight weeks from 13 February to 9 April. We are considering the responses and I am sure we will have a debate on those in this House in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is right about this issue. We know about it and we support her, but it is difficult. I would like to meet her again, and anybody else who would like to come, to go through her amendments in detail and take things forward in that way.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Could the Minister tell the Committee whether the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has defined could be resolved by removing permitted development rights altogether on these blocks of flats? This goes back to what was the case. If any development was proposed, it had to go through the normal application to the local planning authority.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think that would be a sensible solution, because there might be times when permitted development might be the correct thing to do and everybody might be happy about it, including those leaseholders who have enfranchised. We need to take this steadily because it is fraught with complexity.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is really very important. It has been a long time since Second Reading, so I think it is worth reiterating some of the fundamentals that we hope it will achieve.

The first is that this is obviously a huge opportunity to reform the leasehold/freehold property rights and relationships. That is certainly one of the key aspects that we on these Benches will pursue with vigour. It is also an opportunity to tackle the huge omissions in the Building Safety Act to provide remedies for those leaseholders and tenants living in blocks of flats that are under 11 metres or five storeys. As we have all through the debates and discussions on the Fire Safety Act, the Building Safety Act and the levelling-up Act, we on these Benches will continue to pursue the safety of leaseholders and tenants in those blocks of flats, because that is the right thing to do.

On these amendments, we on these Benches acknowledge that there will, of course, be areas in the leasehold/freehold arrangement where the abolition of leasehold impinges on other important rights, so we accept that there will be examples where an exception is justifiably made. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is absolutely right to probe the reasons for these exceptions, in this group and in the following group, and has drawn attention to them individually. For example, the noble Baroness drew attention to a situation where the developer has a head lease and has yet to build out to the development. She asked the pertinent question of what happens if leasehold is going to be abolished for houses. Where does that fit in with a development that is ongoing that will be developed under the terms of a leasehold? That is not explained either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes.

We on these Benches understand the importance of this for historic estates that are now owned by the National Trust in England, Wales and Scotland. The purpose of the leases in those instances ought to be protected, because the overwhelming responsibility is the protection of our national heritage. That makes good sense. However, although the schedule provides details of which properties are eligible for what was described as “permitted leases” under the tribunal certification, what is not clear in either the clauses or the schedule, or in the Explanatory Notes, is what criteria the Government are using to enable some leaseholds to be described as permitted. Can the Minister provide the reasons for the choices made by the Government in determining permitted leases in Schedule 1? This is important because the legislation will be challenged in the future. It is therefore vital that, before we get to Report, we understand the reasons, as well as the purpose, behind the tribunal certification. Perhaps the Minister can provide the details of the regulations that are to be provided to the tribunal for making those decisions.

The two examples used by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, relating to retirement housing and homes for life, strike me as being very important in our discussions. Those of us who have been involved in leasehold, and in the debate about leasehold and some of the criticisms of the way in which leasehold is implemented in practice, have been astonished by the way in which some retirement housing service charges have risen exponentially, without, it seems, any recourse to an explanation or a reduction. It is important to understand, for both homes for life and retirement housing—one of which is referred to in the schedule and the other which is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham has said—how protections will be provided for these very important areas of housing in order to provide protection for the leaseholders in these arrangements.

We support the probing amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and look forward to the detailed response, I hope, from the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open Committee on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Before turning to the debate on the amendments that have been tabled, it would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to thank those Peers who have engaged with the Bill and those who have long championed the rights of leaseholders. I also thank colleagues from the Law Commission, without whose advice much of this vital legislation may not have been possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, she referenced in the early part of her response the number of houses that were likely to be developed under circumstances where a lease had already been granted before the commencement of this Bill. Is she able to give the Committee a ballpark figure of the number of houses that would be caught up in this situation?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not prepared to give any ballpark figures from the Dispatch Box, but I will look into it and let the noble Baroness know. I apologise that I do not have that figure with me today.

Before I finish on this group, I have government Amendment 8, which makes minor clarificatory changes to the definition of shared ownership leases permitted under the leasehold house ban to clarify its intent. The amendment adds a further condition to permitted shared ownership leases, confirming that where a shared ownership leaseholder has acquired 100% of the equity in the house, they will then be transferred the freehold of the house at no extra cost. This brings the definition into line with government funding programmes and definitions elsewhere in the Bill. I look forward to hearing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are two elements of this category of permitted leases that are worthy of further exploration. One—on which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has gone into great detail, questioning how it will work—relates to shared ownership. The second is to do with agricultural leases.

I would like the Minister to explain, first, why agricultural leases cannot be subject to tribunal certification, rather than the current self-certification process. There does not seem to be a reason why that does not occur under the first element of permitted leases.

There are other issues, such as shared ownership and self-certification, that are not necessarily covered in the details the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into, but which are very important. I would like to understand how self-certification will be subject to challenge, what the process is and how such situations can be resolved. Will it be a costly process? If so, granting permitted leases for shared ownership, and agricultural leases, becomes an expensive legal minefield for those caught up in it.

So, I would like to understand why agricultural leases are not in the first set of certifications for permitted leases, and how challenges can be resolved. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendments 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for speaking to those amendments to Part 2 of Schedule 1. These amendments would remove exemptions to the ban on the grant of new leases on houses.

As I stated when addressing Amendments 1 to 4, the Government are aware that certain housing or financial products which support home ownership rely on granting a lease. We have therefore consulted extensively on scenarios where this may be justified. For example, shared ownership, a vital home-ownership product, relies on the use of a lease. We cannot surely be saying that the thousands of new shared ownership houses built each year should not be sold any longer. Equally, we cannot say that the use of home purchase plans—including, for example, through use of Islamic finance, a vital option for the purchase of houses for those who cannot, for faith-based reasons, apply for an interest-charging mortgage—should not be allowed, or that owners of existing leasehold houses cannot extend their leases.

For any of the exceptions in Part 2 of the schedule, including shared ownership, home finance plans, lease extensions, agricultural tenancies, or contracts on leases agreed pre commencement, it should be clear and unambiguous to consumers buying these that they are getting a lease on a house, and why that lease is needed. Because of this, the Government will not require these types of leases to obtain tribunal certification. However, again, we have taken powers in the Bill to adjust the definition if there is evidence of abuse, or to move permitted leases into Part 1 of the schedule, should there be a need for tribunal involvement. The Government will continue to monitor market behaviour and act accordingly.

The noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked for some more details of these groups of homes or products. On exempting shared ownership, I should say that shared ownership is one of the Government’s key affordable housing products, which helps consumers to get on to the property ladder. Consumers purchase shares in the property over time through the payment of rent to a provider, and a lease facilitates this arrangement between the two parties. The Bill therefore permits the grant of new shared ownership leases on houses.

When we go to financial products, the Bill includes an exemption to the ban on new leasehold houses for lease-based financial products, as I said, which can help people to buy a home or release equity from it. Here a lease is required because a third-party provider acquires a freehold on the consumer’s behalf as part of the financing of the purchase. Ownership is required by two parties and is best facilitated via a lease.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked about agricultural tenancies. Farm businesses and agricultural landlords negotiate the length of a tenure to suit their business needs, and it is intended that this should continue, as longer-term leases can help to ensure that farmers have security to invest in their businesses over time. The Bill makes it clear that agricultural tenancies will be the permitted lease for the purposes of the ban on new leases of houses, and explicit exemption is provided in the Bill for tenancies that fall under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.

We are exempting lease extensions when a home owner extends their lease; often the original lease is surrendered and a new one granted in its place. While this is technically a new lease, the homeowner remains the leaseholder of the same property. Therefore, we believe that this should be treated as an existing rather than new lease, and warrants an exemption. In practice, we envisage that most leaseholders will purchase their freehold, where they are able to do so.

We are exempting agreements for lease. These AFLs are a contract between the prospective leaseholder and landlord to enter into a lease in the future. Where an AFL was agreed prior to commencement of the Bill, it is right that this contract should be honoured, and the lease granted. For this reason, an AFL entered into prior to the commencement of the ban will be treated as a permitted lease, as both parties have agreed on the terms of the lease and are aware that they will be entering into a lease. A tribunal certificate and a warning notice are not therefore required, we believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think I have anything further to add.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 13 in my name was to encourage a debate on commonhold and the route to achieving it, and in that it has been successful. I am pleased about that and thank all noble Lords for their involvement. It has been a long time since the first legislative proposal was made to abolish leasehold. I think it was in the Liberal Government of 1906, so we are going back a long way.

Temporary Accommodation Costs

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through their powers, local authorities can look to purchase accommodation. In the last two Budgets, we have given special dispensation to local councils, first, on special borrowing and, secondly, on their moneys from the right to buy. It is up to local authorities to look at the ways they can provide those houses, but I will take that back to the department as an idea.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has rightly said, the Government are allocating £1 billion to reduce homelessness. Unfortunately, it is clearly not working, as homelessness is at a 25-year high, with the result that local authorities have to spend increasing proportions of their budget on their statutory duty—which they want to undertake—to house people without a home. For example, Eastbourne Borough Council has an annual budget of £15 million but is spending £4.9 million each year on its statutory homeless duty. That is not sustainable. What are the Government to do?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said, on 24 January, the Government announced additional measures for local authority funding worth £600 million, including £500 million of new funding for adult and children’s social care. It means that core spending powers will be up by £4.5 billion next year. This is what we are doing to help local authorities with all the pressures on their budgets at this time.

New Homes

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I quite agree with my noble friend about the importance of the NPPF. That is why we are consulting on it, will review it when we have the results of the consultation and will come back out to consult on our further ideas on how we can update it—we cannot leave it there in aspic for ever. By doing that and by the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to modernise the planning system, we will deliver more houses through local plans and hit the 300,000 target.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant interests in this Question. Councils’ local plans incorporate their share of the national housing targets. Can the Minister explain how national housing targets can be achieved when more than 60% of local councils do not have an up-to-date local plan?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right: we need more local plans. That is how we will deliver more houses. We know from evidence that local planning authorities that have local plans deliver more houses. That is why we have the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, are changing and simplifying making local plans and will insist that local authorities deliver local plans. If they do not, we have measures to push them to do so.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 282D in my name would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a review of the business rates system. The Government know that the current system is flawed and fails to reflect modern business practices. There have been several Bills in the last few years that have tweaked the non-domestic rating system—as the Minister knows, we have one currently before the House—but these are just tweaks to a complex set of business taxation that is in desperate need of fundamental reform.

The system is basically flawed, as illustrated by the fact that the Treasury pays out billions of pounds in support of small businesses every year, via the small business rates relief. This demonstrates that there has to be a more effective way to levy businesses to support the local services on which they depend.

It is not only me saying that business rates need fundamental reform. Many business commentators have urged for a fundamental review. The Centre for Cities published a report in 2020 which proposed 11 changes to the business rates system. The IFS has published a report pointing to spatial inequalities that are “profound and persistent”.

A fundamental review is long overdue, and the amendment in my name simply asks that a review considers the effects of business rates on high streets and rural areas, and compares that information with an alternative business taxation system—for instance, land value taxation, which was referred to in the IFS report. The spatial inequalities explored in the report are at the heart of the levelling-up agenda. Any detailed review of business rates should gather relevant data on the impact of business rates on different parts of the country.

The Government have recognised what they have called “bricks vs clicks”, and in the Financial Statement earlier this year raised rates for warehousing. However, that steers clear of the major issue facing our high streets, which is the competitive advantage that online retailers have over high street retailers when it comes to the rates applied for business rates.

I have mentioned several times in this Chamber the glaring difference between warehousing for a very large online retailer, which may be at the rate of £45 per square metre, compared with the rate for a small shop in a small town of £250 per square metre. The change to raise the rates for warehousing does nothing to address that vast gap. For instance, it was reported that the change introduced this year by the Government cost Amazon £29 million. That might sound a considerable sum to some people, but it is pennies in the pot for a big online retailer such as Amazon. It really needs to start paying its fair share towards local services. Its little vans whizz round our streets, and Amazon needs to pay for the upkeep of them. The rate of its contribution is small in comparison to the services it uses. That is the argument for a huge, fundamental review of the system as is stands.

We also have to take into account the impact of any changes on local government. A large portion of a council’s income now derives from business rates, and any changes to the system by the Government to reduce the burden on businesses—which they did in the Statement by freezing the multiplier—results in compensation to local government for those changes. This again demonstrates that the system is not fit for purpose.

We currently have a system that says that these are the rates, but oh dear, they are too big for charities, small businesses and so on, and then provides relief which costs the Treasury billions of pounds a year. When any further changes are made, that has an impact on desperately needed income for local councils. Therefore, there will have to be compensation in that regard also. This demonstrates that the business rates system, as currently set up, is really not doing the job it needs to do. I repeat that a fundamental review is essential.

It is important to add that the way in which business rates income is demonstrated, via the tariffs and top-ups arrangements, creates further unfairness This becomes more noticeable as councils struggle to balance their budgets.

A business rates system that encourages business development and growth must be at the heart of any strategy to bring more prosperity and jobs to those areas defined in the White Paper as being the focus for levelling up. I do not need to spell out what that might mean, but it could perhaps be reduced rates for some areas, to encourage development and the movement of businesses to those areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, raised similar issues in moving her amendment to support the pub industry, which we support. My noble friend Lord Scriven has signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who I do not think is in his place, regarding the establishment of regional mutual banks. We support this approach as another way of empowering regional businesses and entrepreneurs to take financial decisions which meet local ambitions, rather than the more risk-averse national banks. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, used the comparator of Germany. She is right that the mutual banks in Germany have done much to support their regionally-based industries, which does not happen in this country because of the way our banking system is set up.

I really hope the Minister will be able to say in her reply that the Government accept that the business rates system as currently devised is not fit for purpose and that they are looking to have fundamental review to reform it to the benefit of those places—because this is the levelling-up Bill, and I shall keep saying it: anything we do in the Bill should be in support of the levelling-up agenda. This does not do it, and that is why we need a reform of the business rates system.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, concerns the support for our pubs. We are all aware of the importance of our local pubs; they provide space for people to come together, they provide jobs and they support local economies. But we also know that the past few years have been a challenging time for our pubs, with the Covid-19 pandemic and the current high prices, caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, conspiring to put pressure on already tight operating margins.

Through the pandemic, we recognised that the hospitality sector needed to be more resilient against economic shocks. That is why, in July 2021, we published our first hospitality strategy, Reopening, Recovery and Resilience, which covers cafés, restaurants, bars, nightclubs and pubs.

In 2021—this is important for the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, of listening to the sector—we also established a Hospitality Sector Council to help deliver the commitments set out in the strategy. The council includes representatives from across the sector, including UKHospitality, the British Beer & Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping, as well as some of our best-known pub businesses. While we fully agree with the aim behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, the strategy she asks for already exists.

Moving on to Amendment 279, I notice that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is not in his place, but the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, brought it up on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, so I will respond. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within three months of Royal Assent on the existing barriers to establishing regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom and instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to consult on barriers within competition law for this establishment and identify possible solutions.

I make it clear that the Government are supportive of the choice provided by mutual institutions in financial services. We recognise the contribution that these member-owned, democratically controlled institutions make to the local communities they serve and to the wider economy. However, regional mutual banks are still in the process of establishing themselves here in the United Kingdom, with some now in the process of obtaining their banking licences. It is therefore too early to report on the current regime and any possible limitations of it for regional mutual banks.

I know that my noble friend Lord Holmes was interested in how regional mutual banks have performed in other jurisdictions and how we could use these examples to consider the UK’s own capital adequacy requirements. In this instance, international comparisons may not be the most helpful to make. The UK is inherently a different jurisdiction, with different legislation and regulatory frameworks from those in the US, Europe and elsewhere. Abroad, some regional mutual banks have been in existence for centuries and have been able to build up their capital base through retained earnings. In the UK, regional mutual banks are not yet established and are continuing to progress within the UK’s legislative framework.

Additionally, the Competition and Markets Authority plays a key role in making sure that UK markets remain competitive, driving growth and innovation while also protecting consumers from higher prices or less choice. It is very important to note that the CMA is independently responsible for enforcing UK competition and consumer law. The Government cannot instruct the CMA to undertake a consultation. The Treasury is continuing to engage with the mutuals sector and other industry members to assess how the Government can best support the growth of mutuals going forward. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance to my noble friend on this issue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important set of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. They seek assurances from the Government that the replacement for the existing environmental tests for development—environmental outcomes reports—will be as robust as the ones they will replace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a powerful case for a non-regression clause with her Amendment 106. Recently, there has been a lot of debate about this and pressure from those who want to point the finger of responsibility at the planning system for failing to produce the right number and quality of homes that are desperately needed in this country. When they do so, they point out the additional responsibilities of developers to adhere to environmental responsibilities and regulations, which are causing the difficulties they express. Of course, it is never as easy as that.

It seems to me that, after many years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, we have a much better balance now between development and protection of the environment in which developments are set. There are responsibilities that developers have to take up in order to make sure that they construct and do not destroy; to make sure that they create communities that sit well in their environment; and to make sure that nature and the environment are looked after for existing and future generations. So the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has made important points here; I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to them, because they are important. I guess that they will be raised again later on in our debates on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require that all regulations made under Part 6 specify environmental outcomes, whether or not they actually relate to the outcomes themselves. This would place a significant burden on subsequent regulations and would require outcomes across every process element, even where not relevant—for example, on regulations related to enforcement, exemptions and guidance.

We recognise that framing will be critical and recently carried out a consultation on how we can translate the Government’s ambitions into deliverable outcomes, which is surely the key consideration here. The Government have also legislated to ensure additional consultations on future outcomes, as well as adopting the affirmative procedure in Parliament on the associated regulations.

Regarding Amendment 101, the Government have been careful to ensure that the new system is capable of capturing all the current elements of the environmental assessment process. This allows the Secretary of State to consider health matters such as air pollution when setting outcomes. Impacts on human health are covered by “protection of people” in Clause 143(2)(b). When developing secondary legislation, we will consult with stakeholders to ensure that health-related commitments are sufficiently captured.

On Amendment 106, the drafting of Clause 147 mirrors the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement to ensure that, when bringing forward reforms, we live up to our commitment to non-regression. As well as departing from the existing drafting, Amendment 106 would create a rigid approach to non-regression. Removing “overall” from levels of environmental protection would remove the ability to look at the effect of reforms as a whole. When read alongside the commitment to international obligations and expansive duties to consult, we feel that the non-regression clause strikes the right balance to ensure EORs can be an effective tool in managing the environment.

Let me respond to all the noble Baronesses who have spoken by making it clear that, in creating a new system of environmental assessment, it is essential that the standards are kept high. The Government are committed to improving what exists and ensuring that we can deliver on the challenges we face in the 21st century. Focusing on environmental outcomes will allow the Government to set ambitions for plans and developments that build on the Environment Act and other environmental commitments. The legislation is clear that the Government cannot use these powers to reduce the level of environmental protection, and it includes a clause setting out this commitment to non-regression.

On Amendment 107, I have no reservation in saying that the UN sustainable development goals are crucial ambitions. The UK is committed to achieving them by 2030, as affirmed in the international development strategy and integrated review. The expansive nature of these goals is such that it is not possible for the planning and consenting frameworks within which EORs operate to support them all. To require the EOR regime to do so would significantly expand the scope of the assessment beyond the existing legal frameworks of the environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments.

This amendment would exacerbate the biggest issue with the current process, which is a mandatory list of topics that are required to be considered for all assessments, whether relevant or not. Listing matters to be considered in this way has resulted in overly long, complex and inaccessible documents, full of unnecessary material in case an omission invites legal challenge. It would thwart our efforts to make the process more effective, meaningful and manageable.

Environmental assessment was established as a tool to ensure that the environmental impacts of a development were not overlooked in favour of the social and economic priorities that drive development activity. A requirement to support the delivery of all goals would divert attention away from the EOR’s core purpose of providing an additional level of scrutiny of the effects of the development activity on the environment.

I hope this provides the reassurances necessary for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to withdraw her Amendment 100 and for the other amendments not to be moved when they are reached.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 34, I shall also speak to Amendments 40 to 42, 44 to 50, 55 to 57, 290, 297 and 306.

Amendments 34 and 306 give those preparing for and running the proposed east Midlands CCA mayoral elections in May 2024 early clarity as to the rules. Amendment 306 commences Clause 25 and Schedule 2, which contain the relevant powers upon Royal Assent. Amendment 34 enables the statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission, and the commission’s recommendations as to candidate expense limits, to occur before commencement in the east Midlands.

Amendment 50 amends Schedule 4, the current drafting of which provides only for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to input on local skills improvement plans covering any of their area. However, the devolution framework in the levelling up White Paper states that this will be available to all CAs and CCAs and individual local authorities with a devolution deal. This amendment will allow all CAs and CCAs, including those without mayors, as well as local authorities with devolved adult education functions, to have their views on the relevant local skills improvement plans considered by the Secretary of State. These alterations will allow devolution deals in areas with devolved adult education functions to be fully implemented.

Amendments 55, 56, 57, 290 and 297 seek to amend Clauses 65 and 231. In its 24th report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that any regulations regarding the membership of CAs and CCAs, as made through powers confirmed by Sections 104C and 107K of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or this Bill should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the existing mixed resolution procedure, whereby only the initial statutory instruments made are subject to the affirmative process. I thank the committee for its work in relation to the powers in the Bill. These amendments accept that recommendation and will ensure that an appropriate level of scrutiny is achieved for regulations relating to membership of CAs and CCAs.

The remaining government amendments in this group are all consequential, amending the Equality Act 2010 and the Localism Act 2011 to apply provisions in these Acts to CCAs to allow the model to work in practice. Given their importance in allowing CCAs to operate as a local government institution, and to enable the first CCA mayoral election, I hope that noble Lords can support these amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I begin, as I generally do, by reminding the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I wish particularly to speak to government Amendment 34. I was quite astonished when I read it; it brings to the Bill a new issue that has not been discussed previously either at Second Reading or in Committee. I was also astonished because the amendment attempts to bypass the independence of the Electoral Commission. The commission was established to improve trust in our electoral arrangements. That is its function, and we rely on it to provide its stamp of approval for the arrangements made for elections.

To use a strong word, this is quite a pernicious amendment because it attempts to bypass the independent consultation of the Electoral Commission. I will tell the House what it says. The Bill, in its Schedule 2, currently expects the Electoral Commission to be involved in setting the arrangements for mayoral elections. On page 286, paragraph 12(4) states that

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”

and in sub-paragraph (5) that

“the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations … is exercisable only on, and in accordance with, a recommendation of the Electoral Commission”.

Government Amendment 34 states that the requirements in the two sub-paragraphs I have just quoted

“may be satisfied by things done before the coming into force of this paragraph”.

In other words, the Government are going to bypass those requirements. That cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for outlining her rationale for tabling Amendment 36: to clarify the relationship between PCCs and mayors, and their respective roles and responsibilities. She asked if the Government want to phase out PCCs. There is no intention to do so. The intention is to allow mayors only in some areas to exercise PCC functions. Some areas will never have mayors who do so because only in coterminous areas can mayors take those functions.

The levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspirations for—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The noble Baroness said that you could have a combined police and crime commissioner and mayor only where there is coterminosity. If combined authorities are now able to expand, will that undo that requirement?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. I hate to bring up the West Midlands—I know the noble Lord opposite will be very pleased that I am—but the Mayor of the West Midlands has a choice: he can either agree to pursue the expansion to include Warwickshire, which has its own PCC, so he could no longer take the PCC role, or he can take the PCC role and therefore not Warwickshire. That is the reality of what we are doing. I hope I have explained that.

Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these draft regulations. As I previously outlined, these regulations continue our support for the hospitality sector’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and give support to businesses in uncertain times with global inflation. As we have heard, this extension will give businesses extra support for another year. I thank noble Lords for their support for that across the Committee.

A number of points were raised, and I will go through them. Accessibility was quite rightly bought up by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This is very important. I have met my noble friend Lord Holmes more than once about this issue. I continue to talk to him. Of course, pavements must always be accessible to everyone, regardless of their mobility needs. As such, this condition applies to all temporary pavement licences issued by councils. If the conditions are not met, the licences can be revoked.

The pavement licence guidance says that in most circumstances a minimum of 1.5 metres of space should be kept clear between an obstacle and the edge of the footpath. That is for everyone, whether it be wheelchairs, buggies or just people who need a little more space to walk safely around our town. This will continue to apply under the extended provisions. We work with disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. This guidance has always been refined even further after speaking to them, to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of all people when setting conditions and making decisions.

In terms of local particularities, because areas differ, local authorities may also wish to review any local conditions they have set in relation to access and safety. That is really important. Local people know best about their towns and villages. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about automatic rollover. I can understand the reasoning behind this, but we want to ensure that the community continues to have a say. We know that in communities some people may say that it is fine, but I think we should ask, so we need an annual consultation just to check that everything is going right, and that people are happy with what is being delivered.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, brought up the issue of income for local authorities. There is always a balance between money for the council and the cost to businesses. The £100 is a cap. Some local authorities do not charge anything; I was hearing of one such the other day. They may be much wealthier councils than others so can afford to do that, or they may prioritise small businesses at a particularly difficult time, but it is a cap. Looking further towards the future, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that is going through the House looks at higher levels of cost to businesses. Again, though, they will be caps; they will not be required to be charged. It is important that local authorities have the flexibility to do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned visible barriers. I will take this issue back and we will have another discussion about it. I certainly know from personal experience that al fresco dining is wonderful; it makes our streets look so much more interesting at times, and it is lovely to sit out. However, the ones with the barriers around them seem much more sensible to me. I will take that back to the department. I will not forget; I will come back to her.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for doing that. My worry is that I think that was initially included in the first set of regulations, and I wonder why it has somehow been taken out. But I will wait for an answer.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am interested in the answer as well, so I will definitely come back to the noble Baroness on that.

As I say, the measure also refers to the issue of non-domestic rates, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Non-domestic rates are important revenue for local authorities. Again, it is about balance: if you lower them for businesses, that is good for businesses, but then we have to make that up in some way for local authorities.

I think I have answered everything. I will check Hansard tomorrow, and obviously I will send a letter if necessary. Did I miss something?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests: I am a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This group of amendments focuses on the areas that have benefited, or not, from the initial round of the levelling-up fund. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, there are many examples of levelling-up funds failing to reach those parts that the Government’s own White Paper assesses as being in need of targeted funding over a sustained period.

Throughout our considerations of the Bill, I have said that this vast tome, the levelling up White Paper, should be at the heart of what we are discussing and what the legislation should be doing. As I said in Committee and at Second Reading, it seems to me that the Government have lost their way. The White Paper is not perfect, but it makes a good start in setting out what levelling up should be about. One of the phrases in it is that levelling up should be “broad, deep and long-term”—I agree. Experience of previous iterations of levelling up, from city challenge to neighbourhood renewal and several other policy interventions in between, has demonstrated that scattering plugs of funding is not sufficient to ensure that communities that have not shared in the nation’s prosperity begin to do so. The cycle is not broken without dedicated and long-term investment; that is what the White Paper says. The fundamental approach currently being pursued is inadequate to meet that challenge.

The Government have so far distributed funding via a bidding culture, which, as many noble Lords will know, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands has criticised, calling it a “begging bowl culture”. Such a bidding culture is also costly, in time and money, and leads to many more losers than winners. One example, which I think I have given before, is a major city in Yorkshire investing a six-figure sum in its bid for levelling-up funds only to receive a big fat zero. It seems to me that this process needs a fundamental rethink. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was right to use the example of the House of Commons Select Committee on this very issue, but the National Audit Office has also raised concerns about the use of levelling-up funds and how the bidding culture has worked —or not.

If the Government were serious about levelling up, only those areas that are amply described in the levelling up White Paper would qualify for funding. The Minister may be able to tell us whether only those areas described in the White Paper will qualify for funding. If not, we are moving away from the purpose of levelling up.

The second element of change needs to be for local authorities. Those that qualify via the assessment and the metrics in the White Paper should be asked to produce plans that tackle the inequalities at the heart of their communities in a sustained way—that is what the White Paper says needs to be done. It would mean more emphasis, for example, on skills, access to employment, and barriers, such as lack of childcare and transport. However, given what the Minister said in Committee, I am not sure whether the Government are ready for such big changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is right to pursue making the use of levelling-up funding more transparent and, as Amendment 3 says, ensuring that the funding is linked to the missions. For me, at the heart of levelling-up and regeneration legislation should be linking funding to the missions. If they are not linked, I do not know what the purpose of this Bill is.

At this point, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises a good example of what happens when there is an inequality of immense proportions. My noble friend Lord Teverson supported him in that, and he was right to do so. There are countless examples of such disparities across the country, which the levelling-up fund should be dealing with.

These amendments are fundamental to the effective levelling up of the many parts of this country that have suffered inequalities—some of considerable proportion compared with the rest of the country—over many years. If the noble Baroness wishes to move her amendment to a vote and divide the House, we on these Benches will support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 1, 17, 304 and 305 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, are all linked to a proposed new requirement for government to lay a statement detailing the application process for round 3 of the levelling-up fund. That has already happened in the first two rounds of the fund. We published information on the impartial assessment and decision-making process, alongside a full list of successful applicants. We have also provided feedback to unsuccessful applicants in both rounds. We will continue to improve the process used to award funding, taking on board the feedback we have received, which will be reflected in our approach to the next round of the fund.

We have also published our monitoring and evaluation strategy, which makes clear how the fund will evaluate impact against a range of criteria, including healthy life expectancy, well-being and pride in place. On the timing of the statement of the levelling-up missions, which is mentioned in Amendment 1, we have committed in the Bill to publish this within one month of Part 1 of the Act coming into force. We argue that this is already an appropriate and prompt timescale.

Amendment 3, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks at how levelling-up funds are supporting the levelling-up missions. This Government are committed to transparency. The Bill will place a duty on the Government to publish a clear statement of their levelling-up missions and to report annually on their progress against them, including, where relevant, the contributions made by particular projects and programmes. We have also already published transparent criteria for assessing projects and initiatives to be funded via key levelling-up funds and have published all funding allocations made to places.

In relation to the levelling-up fund specifically, in round 2 of the fund we asked applicants to set out which of the 12 levelling-up missions their bid supported. Several of the criteria used in the levelling-up fund evaluation strategy align closely with our missions, including pride in place, health and well-being. Alongside that, transport forms one of the three investment themes, and more than £1.1 billion has been awarded to improve transport infrastructure in the first two rounds.

It might be useful to give some examples of what has happened. Torridge District Council made a bid for the Appledore Clean Maritime Innovation Centre. That will create North Devon’s first university research centre, which will help regional skills by providing a regional skills base, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. It will also establish the area as a leading research and development destination for clean maritime. Another example—I will not go on, because I could give noble Lords a large number—is the Porth transport hub, which will open later this summer. It will improve transport connectivity by providing seamless public transport connectivity for that town. These are the things that are happening.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also asked about the rest of the money that the Government are spending and whether it will be spent in connection to the missions. I can say that £40 million from the DfE has gone into education investment areas, one of our priorities in the missions, while £2.5 billion has been allocated to the transforming cities fund and many billions more to the city region sustainable transport settlements and the bus service improvement plans. There is also £125 million from the Home Office for the safer streets fund. These are all connected to our very important missions.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, quite rightly asked about simplifying the funding landscape. We have already made significant progress in streamlining funds. Between them, the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund consolidate what was previously a complex landscape. We are committed to publish a simplification plan setting out how we will go further, immediately and at the next spending review, to simplify the funding landscape far more.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also talked about evaluation. We have an overall departmental evaluation strategy, which was published last November. Over the past 18 months, the department has significantly increased the resource dedicated to local growth evaluations, and that will continue—so we are looking particularly at including towns funds, the levelling up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund.

The noble Baroness also asked why it has taken so long to share information about the levelling up fund round 3. It is important that we have taken the time to reflect on the first two rounds, which is why things are changing. We have learned the lessons from those two, and we wanted to do that before committing to round 3. We will talk about it further in the near future. The Secretary of State signalled at the LGA conference last week that he intends to bring a completely new approach to the levelling up fund round 3, reflecting on everything that has happened up until now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 is a new probing amendment, because we all assumed that, if the Government are committed to levelling up and understand, as they will, that it is dependent on long-term capital investment, that would therefore be available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, quoted the Financial Times, and I too did a bit of research on what capital was around. The Financial Times raised this issue earlier this year, reporting that John Glen, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—perhaps he still is—has

“now stepped in to prevent DLUHC from signing off spending on any new capital projects, because of concerns about whether the department is delivering value for money. Such interventions are typically reserved for departments about which the Treasury has particular financial concerns”.

The Financial Times report went on to say:

“The decision to rein in Gove’s expenditure, taken last week, means that any new capital spending decision ‘however small, must now be referred to HMT before approval and the department is not allowed to make any decisions itself’”.


It is a fairly damning indictment of the spending already undertaken by DLUHC if that is the Treasury’s view of its value for money. As I said at the start, levelling up depends on capital investment. It is difficult to interpret the Government’s—the Treasury’s—decision to have tight controls on capital spending as anything other than putting a big brake on levelling-up funding, to the detriment of communities that are desperate for investment.

A House of Commons Select Committee also reported on levelling-up funds, which we referred to in debates on earlier groups today. It made the salient point that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is apparently not able to demonstrate how the funding fulfils the aims of the White Paper for sustained investment to tackle long-standing inequality—these are the points that I have made today and throughout the debates on the Bill. That was a cross-party committee. The National Audit Office also published a report, making a similar, stark plea to the department to urgently increase the capacity to assess and manage levelling-up funds.

So here we are, with a significant Bill carrying one of the Government’s key objectives, set out in a detailed report, and before it has really got going the Treasury is saying, “Well, you can’t spend anything without us first checking and signing it off”. We also have researched reports from the House of Commons Select Committee and the National Audit Office, both pointing to funding not being spent in perhaps the best possible way.

So the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has posed an important question. We ought to hear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to continue to invest significant sums in levelling up because, without that, levelling up will not occur. You can tell that from the White Paper, which I keep pointing to—it has done its job. Unless there is investment, levelling up will not happen. If the Treasury is putting a big brake on it, how are we going to level up? Perhaps the Minister can give us some pointers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to officials publishing an assessment of the impact of the requirement that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities seeks consent from His Majesty’s Treasury for all capital spending on the delivery of Part 1 of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Noble Lords will be aware that the department is working within a new delegation approach, which involves Treasury sign-off on new capital spend. However, there has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and no change to our policy objectives. It is reported that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities requires approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for new capital projects, but this will not impact the levelling-up agenda. The recent change relates only to new projects; there is no change to the decision-making framework for existing capital programmes and no change to the department’s budgets. Moreover, noble Lords will be aware that, in the usual course of departmental business, the majority of programmes would require HMT approval in any case, so there is little change with this new capital spending approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what implications the new spending control would have on the levelling-up agenda. The amendment to capital delegations referred to in press coverage has absolutely no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. The Government’s central mission remains to level up every part of the UK by spreading opportunity, empowering local leaders and improving public services. There has been no dilution of levelling up. There have been no changes to the size of DLUHC budgets, both capital and revenue, or to its policy objectives; neither does this impact how large programmes already agreed are being delivered—for example, the towns fund or the levelling-up fund.

I hope this gives the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, enough reassurance that she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, concern the cost of living, based on regional variations that could exacerbate the challenges in the very areas already defined by the Government as suffering multiple inequalities. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, made a case for investigating geographical disparities in relation to the cost of living, which was the theme of my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment that was agreed earlier today.

The cost of living crisis is hitting some families and some parts of the country much harder than others. The Centre for Cities has done an investigation into the differences in the impact of the cost of living crisis on different parts of the country. What it discovered, which is not surprising, is that some areas of the north, the Midlands and the West Country are harder hit than cities in the south and the south-east. That mirrors the geographical inequalities we have been debating today.

I picked out these figures because they are from west Yorkshire. Bradford is already a significant area of child poverty and family deprivation. The Centre for Cities study, which has data from as recently as May this year, shows that on average a family household in Bradford is poorer by £111 a month. Huddersfield, in my own council area—a similar area for child poverty and deprivation—was also poorer by £111 per month. Every household in every part of the country will be worse off as a result of the cost of living crisis and all that goes with it. But when I looked at towns in more southern parts of the country, I found that they were worse off by, for example, £61 a month, £59 a month and £65 a month—about half the hit that families in Bradford and Huddersfield have had.

There is an issue here that I hope that the Government are thinking about in considering levelling up. The arguments we have heard in earlier debates demonstrate that areas with existing poverty and a further impact on family finances are harder hit than others where family finances are more resilient to a cost of living crisis. That leads me to conclude that those same areas should be the focus of the Government’s levelling up. It is no good saying, as the Government have done through the towns fund and the levelling-up funds, that Newark and bits of North Yorkshire are in need of levelling up. I am not denying that they would benefit from investment, but the places to which I am referring are multiply deprived and multiply under the hammer of the cost of living crisis, because of their earlier multiple deprivations.

If the Government are serious about levelling up, those are the places that need a laser focus of help, investment, planning and strategies to lift them out of the doldrums, so that they can experience the quality of life that more financially well-off areas experience. That is why this series of amendments is important. It underlines the fact that more financial troubles heap additional burdens on to these already deprived households. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister agrees with me. I live in hope.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am really pleased to address the important issue of the cost of living, dealt with in Amendments 19 and 274, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The Government absolutely understand that people are worried about the cost of living challenges ahead. That is why decisive action was taken at the Spring Budget this year to go further to protect struggling families. Taken together, support to households to help with higher bills is worth £94 billion, or £3,300 per household on average across 2022-23 and 2023-24. This is one of the largest packages in Europe.

His Majesty’s Government allocate cost of living support on the basis of the needs of cohorts, rather than location. We are committed to helping those who need it most, wherever they are. There are existing mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate regional, economic and social disparities, and these mechanisms are effective and ongoing, making the amendment, I suggest, redundant.

The UK2070 Commission leads an independent inquiry into city and regional inequalities in the United Kingdom, while the Office for National Statistics routinely produces a range of datasets with a regional and local breakdown, including on inflation. This, alongside the Government’s spatial data unit, which is transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and manipulate subnational data, means that these amendments, we believe, are not necessary.

Amendments 20 and 285, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seek to establish an independent board to assess geographical disparities in England, and would allow for its parameters to be specified by regulations. I have already been very clear that we are committed to enabling scrutiny of our progress on levelling up. Through my department’s spatial data unit, we are embracing and seeking to build on this engagement, including through work to improve the ways in which the Government collate and report on spending and outcomes and consider geographical disparities in our policy-making. As noble Lords will know from my responses to earlier groups in this debate, we have also established the independent Levelling Up Advisory Council, chaired by Andy Haldane, so we do not believe we need any further, unnecessary proliferation of public bodies in this space.

Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, considers the appropriate granularity of data. We agree with her that for certain missions and policy areas, this is extremely important. The spatial data unit in my department is already working closely with the Office for National Statistics to improve the granularity of place-specific data and strengthen published local statistics. For example, it published local neighbourhood area estimates of gross value added earlier this year, enabling comparisons of economic output to be made between very small geographical areas.

I hope I have convinced and reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and that she will not press her amendment and others will not press theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

May I answer the noble Lord first? I am not talking about the West Midlands or Warwickshire; I am talking about what is in the Bill and why we are doing what we are doing. I will come on to the Warwickshire issue in a bit, but this has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. What I am saying now is about the Bill and not about Warwickshire.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Do the Government have any limit for the expansion of mayoral combined authorities? If Warwickshire is allowed to accede to the West Midlands —Worcestershire is nearby and Staffordshire is next door. What is on the other side? I am thinking of between Coventry and Birmingham. It could get very large, so I want to know if there is a limit. This is a serious question, because when the West Yorkshire Combined Authority was created, we were not permitted to include parts of North Yorkshire, which had always been part of that combined authority before it had mayoral status. This is an interesting question for me in West Yorkshire, as well as for those who live in the West Midlands area.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as we have said before, there are clear regulations that the Secretary of State will look at when he considers any bid. We have made it clear that they have to be geographically sensible economic areas, so I cannot think of anything growing and growing, because it will not. But it will be local people who put forward the bid; the Government will not be saying to any local area, “You have to join”. These are locally led bids for areas that local people think are the right economic areas to do business in and to deliver for them. How big will they be, realistically? They will not be what the noble Baroness suggests, of course, because those would be too big to be really good economic areas, but it is up to local people to do this, as I keep saying.

One of the principles that underpin our devolution agenda is that devolution deals are agreed and implemented over a sensible geography. We want to remove any barriers to neighbouring local authorities joining a combined authority where there is a strong economic, social and environmental rationale for doing so. The new local consent arrangements under Clause 57 mean that the decision would be given to the mayor and council wishing to join the CA. The mayor is democratically accountable to the whole existing CA area, so it is right that they should be the decision-taker for decisions on changes to that whole area.

The arrangements proposed in this amendment could mean that an expansion of a CA area that evidence shows would be likely to improve outcomes for the proposed whole new area could end up being vetoed by just one existing constituent council if the CA’s local constituency requires unanimous agreement from its members on this matter. This has been an issue in the past. This potential impediment to furthering devolution cannot be right; one small authority cannot stop a larger area that wants to grow to be more economically viable.

In his explanatory statement for Amendment 53A, the noble Lord references

“reports that areas may be added to the West Midlands Combined Authority prior to the 2024 Mayoral Election”.

Warwickshire County Council’s plans are part of a local process for the area—county and district councils—and it is up to it to apply to join the WMCA. If Warwickshire decides to pursue this, it will undertake a public consultation, following which it may submit its proposals to the Government. The Government will carefully consider any such proposals, as statute provides. No decisions have been taken by the Government. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to not move his amendment.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the outset of the debate I remind the Committee that I have relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This group of amendments is significant because it focuses our attention on energy efficiency and on how the business rates system could be adjusted to encourage more businesses to improve the energy efficiency of their premises. Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is important in that regard. As he said, an earlier Bill on non-domestic rating focused on relief for energy generation and storage, but not energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the non-glamorous side of getting to net zero. It is about improving the general energy efficiency of buildings through loft and cavity wall insulation, putting in more efficient heating systems and so on.

I have a high regard for Amendment 1 for the reason that the noble Lord outlined, which is that the payback period for energy-efficiency improvements can be very long. Therefore, giving just one year’s relief is a drop in the ocean. If we want to encourage businesses to make these improvements and to invest in their property by improving their energy efficiency, there must be relief on business rates. This is a positive amendment and, if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, wants to pursue it on Report, I am sure that we will give it positive consideration.

The other amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggest five years of relief. That is another way forward. I think that we will have to debate five years of relief or unlimited relief. If we are really concerned about getting to net zero, there has to be a real incentive to do so.

I co-signed Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about heat networks because I thought that it was important in itself. The Government have a scheme—the heat network efficiency scheme—which gives grant funding to communal heat networks or district heating schemes. This amendment matches well with that. If the Government are giving with the one hand but taking with the other, that seems a negative approach to encouraging heat network schemes. That is why I very much support Amendment 5 in particular.

Maybe when we get to Report the amendment will not say “2050” but will be unlimited, matching the other amendments in this group, which are making a positive push towards getting businesses, via the relief through the business rates system, to become more energy efficient. These are all good, probing amendments. I know that the Minister is supportive of energy-efficiency schemes and moving towards net zero, so I look forward to her positive response to this group of amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming our new Deputy Chairman of Committees on his first outing today. I think that I am allowed to say that—anyway, I have said it.

These amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, concern the two new business rate reliefs introduced by the Bill: the new improvement relief and a relief for low-carbon heat networks.

First, on the improvement relief, during the review of business rates a key ask from ratepayers was support for those businesses looking to improve their property. Clause 1 delivers on that ask by introducing the improvement relief. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about the definitions of “improvement” and “relief”. These definitions are in the draft regulations, on which we are consulting. We will consider those matters following consultation.

Clause 1 will ensure that from 1 April 2024 no business will face higher business rates bills as a result of qualifying improvements it makes to a property it occupies, in the 12 months following those improvements. When a ratepayer makes improvements to the rateable part of their property, that is likely to increase its rateable value and, therefore, the rates bill. To deliver the relief, Clause 1 will ensure that, where that happens and the qualifying conditions for improvement relief have been met, that increase in the rateable value will be delayed for 12 months. Clause 3 does the same for the central rating list.

As is common for business rate reliefs, the detailed rules will be in regulations made under the powers in these clauses. My department has published those regulations in draft so that the House may see during the passage of the Bill how we intend to use these powers.

The amendments we are considering in relation to improvement relief, from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, seek to extend the period of relief from one year to five years and to allow unlimited relief for energy-efficiency improvements.

Of course, I understand the concerns we have heard and why some consider that the relief should be extended. It is a question we face when we come to consider and review all the reliefs in the business rates system. We recognise the importance of energy-efficiency improvements to properties. We have already ensured that eligible plant and machinery used in onsite renewable energy generation and storage, such as rooftop solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage, are exempt from business rates from 1 April 2022 until 31 March 2035. Onsite storage used with electric vehicle charging points is also exempt. We have done this using existing powers.

However, as with all tax breaks, we must balance the need for support with the need to fund the vital public services that those taxes support. In the case of improvement relief, we considered these matters at length during our review and, following extensive engagement with business groups, settled on a 12-month relief.

Under the current system, as one would expect for a tax based on the value of property, businesses may see an immediate increase in their rates bill for improvements they make to their property, where those improvements increase the value of the property, but they may see a lag in the return or income that flows from that investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I shall try to pick up from where I left off. I may or may not have heard the Minister aright so this is just to check. The very good Library briefing on the Bill references the Treasury review into business rates. I shall refer to the Library briefing, then the Minister can say whether or not I have misunderstood. It says:

“On the longer-term proposals, most respondents stated that … revaluations should happen more often”—


we agree with that. But then it says that

“the gap between when the revaluations were assessed and when they came into force should be shorter than the current two years”,

which was one of the points that I was trying to make.

I may have misheard the Minister—if I have, I apologise—but the point that the review was making was to say yes to a shorter gap than five years, and the Government have pitched on to three. At the same time, the assessment year should be shorter than the two years that it currently is—that is what I think the review was saying, and I was trying to say that part of the argument for reducing the gap between the assessment year and the revaluation year is to make it narrower.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The response was three years, because of the reasons that I put forward—but, yes, we have aspirations to squeeze that to two years. That is the issue that we are discussing, and it is absolutely right that we are trying to do that. It is where we would like to get to, but it will take the changes that we are making to the Valuation Office Agency to do that—and then there is the digital aspect, and things like that, which we have already talked about.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I think that I have listened very carefully but, on the digitisation of business rates, which I support, did the Minister explain the arrangements that could be made for businesses in remote locations where there is little or no mobile signal and where broadband has yet to reach them, despite what I accept are the Government’s best intentions that that should be the case? I live in the upper Pennines region, where there are businesses and remote farming communities. So far, they do not have either. Ditto in the Yorkshire Dales; I know of businesses there with neither a mobile signal—one that works, anyway—or a broadband connection. What arrangements will be made for such businesses?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am told that there will be a non-digital availability. I will get all the details for the noble Baroness and I will write a letter, which will also go to the Library.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting, but before she sits down, can she address this point? One of the key arguments made—in that group of amendments to which the noble Baroness referred—by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and by myself and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Thornhill, was about the huge disparity in business rates between online retailers and high street town centre retailers. I will repeat a comparator that I have mentioned previously. A well-known online retailer—not many miles distant from me—pays £45 per square metre in business rates on its premises, whereas a small town high street shop near me pays £240 per square metre. It is that vast difference that is penalising our town centre shops. This is the heart of the problem that this clause is trying to address, and we are supportive of that—but unless we deal with this big difference, nothing much will change. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do about business rates.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are simplifying the issue of the high street. I have listened a number of times to what has been said about business rates, and I have explained how much the Government are putting in to supporting properties in the high street through the revaluation process, et cetera. The Government provide rate relief to help property owners all the time, but the issue of empty properties in the high street is much more complex than that, so there are a number of things we want to address, and one of them is what we are doing in this Bill.

I was saying that I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because I would like some further information from the Department for Transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I hope noble Lords will bear with me because there was some confusion over the position of this group in the list. Some of us had an earlier list, where it appeared much later.

I have tabled Amendment 504GJH, about the state of schools and hospitals. At the heart of levelling up is the need to provide good-quality education to young people across the country and that means good-quality buildings in which children can go to school. Where schools are in disrepair and cannot be used appropriately, children are at a disadvantage, particularly, say, in secondary education with science blocks that are out of date so that children will not be able to do modern science experiments.

The quality of school buildings in this country is very important and a department report from December 2022 highlighted the critical level of disrepair in many of our school buildings across the country. This prompted me to lay this amendment to this part of the Bill. The annual report said that officials have raised the risk level of school buildings collapsing to “very likely” after an increase in serious structural issues being reported, especially in blocks built in the post-war years, 1945 to 1970.

The type of structure used has led to the quite rapid deterioration of those buildings. I said earlier that I was a school governor for a number of years. The school had a science block built in the early 1970s that was condemned for these very reasons, so I know how accurate this is.

If we are talking about levelling up and regeneration, at its heart should be public services, school buildings and the quality of the education delivered within them. It is school buildings that I am pointing to today. The report said that the risk level for school buildings had been escalated, as I said, from “critical” to “very likely”.

The difficulty is that, because so many school buildings were built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with this sort of metal structure, there is a huge call on government funding. It is called a light frame system, I think; it is a steel structure anyway. Every one of us will have buildings like that where we live. I want this Bill to focus on doing something about school buildings and hospitals that we know about. The Government have committed to 40 new hospitals—five more have just been added—because they are falling down. That is not right. We are talking about regeneration and levelling up. Having school buildings and hospitals collapsing shows the level of investment that will be needed if we are genuinely going to try to level up across this country.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 476, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks to give a minimum height for letterboxes. It is important to ensure that doors in homes include letterboxes at a height that does not cause injury, risk or inconvenience. We have researched the safety and accessibility of letterbox heights to establish the evidence with which to amend existing statutory guidance applicable in England. The Government are committed to reviewing their building regulations statutory guidance and any references to third-party guidance on the position of letterboxes. We intend to include the recommended height for letterboxes in statutory guidance.

I turn to Amendment 487 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Clause 124 and Schedule 11 to the Bill introduce the infrastructure levy in England. The new infrastructure levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current system of developer contributions, meaning that there will be a greater contribution from developers towards the type of infrastructure to which the noble Baroness referred. Under new Section 204Q in Schedule 11, local authorities will be required to produce infrastructure delivery strategies. These strategies will set out how they intend to spend their levy proceeds. In preparing these strategies, local authorities will be expected to engage with the relevant infrastructure providers to understand what infrastructure will be needed to support new development in their areas. In this way, local authorities will be able to take a more strategic view of the infrastructure that will be required to support development in their areas.

On Amendments 489, 490, 491, 493, 494 and 495, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government agree that regeneration is important in our new towns, coastal towns and market towns and recognise the contribution that markets can make to the vibrancy and diversity of our high streets, which is essential to levelling up the country. In this legislation, we are committed to going further in supporting places to tackle blight and to revive our high streets within these areas. The legislation builds on a far-reaching existing support package for high streets and town centres, including £3.6 billion investment in the towns fund, £4.8 billion investment in the levelling-up fund and £2.6 billion in the shared prosperity fund, along with support from the high streets task force.

On Amendment 496 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, this Government have recently set ambitious new targets for air quality through the Environment Act 2021. These will drive action to reduce PM2.5 where concentrations are highest—often within our busiest towns and cities—reducing disparities as well as reducing average exposure across the country. The Environment Act 2021 established a framework for setting these and any future environmental targets. There is already a comprehensive legal framework governing air pollution, which works in a coherent and complementary way with established national emissions ceilings and concentration targets for a wide range of air pollutants from a variety of sources.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I take that point. We have talked about the different rates from different development typologies, and we expect local authorities to set different rates. As the noble Baroness said, they do that with COUNCIL for different development types. We have published research that shows the range of possible rates for different case study areas, and I have put the results of that research in a letter.

For all these reasons, the Government are introducing the new infrastructure levy through the Bill and it is the correct thing to do for the country. There are too many local communities that, with the CIL system and the Section 106 system, are not getting what they deserve from the developments in those areas. So a new system, however difficult it is or however long it takes to deliver, has to be the right way to go.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister makes a very important point about the infrastructure levy, as opposed to Section 106 and CIL. Could she provide us with some evidence that the infrastructure levy will raise more money than the existing system?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will look to the evidence but, as I have clearly stated many times, we are expecting the same if not more housing, particularly affordable housing, from this infrastructure levy. I just say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, as I have said before, that we are not getting rid of Section 106 agreements, but will use them only in very restricted circumstances. The main issue from this is that affordable housing comes out of the Section 106 system and into the infrastructure levy system. When the whole country moves to the infrastructure levy, it will make affordable housing a much more important issue when it comes to how we use developer contributions in the future.

I move on now to government Amendment 361A. This makes three consequential changes to other Acts of Parliament to ensure that the new infrastructure levy will be treated in the same way as CIL in relevant legal contexts. First, Section 101(6) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that a local authority’s functions in relation to levying rates may be exercised only by that authority—in other words, those functions may not be delegated—but CIL is not a “rate” for this purpose. This means that a local authority may delegate its CIL functions.

Amendment 361A replicates this approach in respect of infrastructure levy functions. I emphasise, however, that the Bill contains important safeguards for democratic accountability. For example, new Section 204K(6) makes it clear that a local authority may approve its infrastructure levy charging schedule only at a meeting of the authority and by a majority of the members present.

Secondly, Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that “local finance considerations” can be a material consideration when determining planning applications. Local finance considerations include CIL, which can therefore be a material consideration when a planning application is determined.

Government Amendment 361A treats the infrastructure levy in the same way, allowing infrastructure levy receipts—anticipated and received—to be taken into account when determining planning applications. This does not override the primary aims of the infrastructure levy to support the development of an area by providing infrastructure, including affordable housing, or its meeting of other purposes, as set out in regulations, in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are not blind to that fact. We are monitoring continually, as we do when we invest in these projects, and the National Audit Office did its audit and said that the public money was being spent as intended. We will look at anything further that needs to be done. As I have said, the mayor is very happy to take part in any review.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the heart of this controversy is the perceived lack of transparency and accountability. This may arise from the mayoral development corporation having a board that, as the Yorkshire Post reports, is appointed solely by the mayor. Does the Minister believe that this power to appoint the board and select people who will do his will is at the heart of the problem? Will she consider changes to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to change that and improve transparency and governance?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it is up to the mayor to decide the best people to be on his board. We have seen absolutely no evidence—if there is any, we would like to see it—of corruption, wrongdoing or illegal acts.

Residential Leasehold

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. What they can do is give them the options they should consider at this time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on the current plight of leaseholders, there are 11,000 high-rise and medium-rise blocks in need of life-critical safety work since the Grenfell fire tragedy. The Government have made progress and done a contract with 43 or more developers that will put right those blocks—but only 1,100 of them. What assurance can the Minister give the other 10,000 that their work will be done at no cost to those leaseholders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are doing everything they can. They are making sure that, as she has said, the perpetrator pays, and they have put large amounts of money into this. It takes time to work through the remediation of these buildings, but we are working at pace and pushing the industry the whole time to ensure that it makes these buildings safe as soon as possible.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I know it is not the practice in your Lordships’ House to have long discussions on government amendments. I do not intend to do that, but I want to make some comments on these amendments, because I think they are interesting.

On Amendment 285A, I make the point that varying proceedings should always be the subject of very effective communication, not only because we have professionals engaged in these processes but because the public are involved and need to understand exactly what is happening. Where there are changes, even more effort should be made to communicate why they have been made. I raise again the issue of resourcing of PINS. A lot of clauses in the Bill are putting another heavy burden on the Planning Inspectorate, and those issues need to be taken into account.

Secondly, as we have heard, Amendment 285B indicates that the Government wish the planning process to allow people to participate remotely in planning proceedings at the grant of the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government can see the value of this—I am very pleased that they can—I ask the Minister why what is good for planning proceedings is so inappropriate for the rest of local government? We have had debates on this previously in the Bill.

The Minister made the point that participating virtually increases diversity of participation, which I completely agree with. It also saves unnecessary travel; we have had those discussions on previous clauses. We are all trying to get down to net zero, and people do not have to travel if they can participate virtually. In addition, it helps those who live in bigger geographical areas. My borough is very small geographically, so it is not really a great hardship for anyone to have to come to the town hall for a discussion on a planning application or anything else. However, if you live in some of the parts of the country where that is not such an easy journey, particularly at certain times of the year, it can be much more difficult. So, I am confused about why we seem to think that this is a really helpful process for one part of local government activity but not for the rest of it. I also probe why the amendment says, “require or permit”. I am concerned about “require” and whether the planning inspector is going to be able to insist that this happens virtually, and how that is going to work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to feeling the mood in planning meetings. That is a variable experience, from my experience in local government. Sometimes it can be useful to do that, and sometimes you would not want to be anywhere near feeling the mood in a planning meeting—but that is another matter. I echo the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether the intention is that this should apply to local planning inquiries. That is a whole other issue that needs further consideration.

By the way, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded quite extensively on the ability to have local government proceedings virtually, and that is on the record. I would just appreciate a response from the Minister on why this is right for planning but so wrong for everything else in local government.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me respond to a couple of those points. On the difference between a case officer and a planning inspector and how you bring in the appellant, at the moment the case officer handles the administration of a planning appeal case, which includes the appointment of a planning inspector, but they also determine the mode of the procedure after seeking input from the parties and the inspector. Therefore, at the moment it is the case officer who talks to the parties and the inspector, and who then makes a decision taking all of that into account. We are suggesting that the planning inspector, who is the decision-maker or recommendation maker for called-in and recovered cases, will assess the details of the case and representations received from all parties in just the same way, so they would be seeking input from all parties before they made that decision.

On local plans, the major party in that will be the local planning authority or the local authority, and I cannot see those discussions being taken online. I suppose a local authority could ask for that, but those are usually quite long and arduous meetings that sometimes go on for weeks, so I am pretty sure they would be public.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My understanding, then, is that in the instance of a local plan hearing, the local planning authority would decide whether it should—the Minister is shaking her head, so I have misunderstood. Therefore, the appointed planning inspector makes the decision whether it will be in public or online.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I therefore seek assurance that those members of the public—and in some cases members of the council, presumably—would be able to ask for it to be held in person if that was more relevant and appropriate.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is exactly what I was saying. Although the decision would be made by the inspector, it would be taken only after speaking to the person asking for the inspection, which would be the local planning authority. So it is important that it has a large input into that, just as any appellant in a normal planning appeal would have input into the discussion on how it was going to be dealt with. However, I cannot see a local plan inspection being held online. As I said, as with the current procedure, the appellant will be asked and the council will have a chance to comment on the appellant’s choice of procedure. That is because we need to make sure there is fairness to all parties, but the inspector will have the final decision.

On how Planning Inspectorate meetings, hearings or inquiries differ from local authority meetings—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked—the measure clarifies the Planning Inspectorate’s existing practice of operating in-person and virtual proceedings as appropriate. This is necessary just to reduce the risk of challenge. We are not changing anything in the legislation; it can do this anyway without us changing anything. That is unlike some local authority meetings; Planning Inspectorate events through hearings or inquiries do not represent decision-making forums but allow interested parties to make representations. Hearings and inquiries enable planning inspectors to gather evidence, which they use to inform their approach to a case with a view to issuing either a decision or a recommendation to the Secretary of State, whereas planning meetings are decision-making meetings.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 261 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, proposes two fundamental changes to Clause 104, which modernises the procedure for serving completion notices in England. While I appreciate the intention, I remind your Lordships that completion notices—when served by a local authority or the Secretary of State—must provide the recipient with an opportunity to complete development. It is a “use it or lose it” power. Removing this opportunity for the developer to use the permission, as this amendment does, raises the prospect that compensation from the loss of the permission will be necessary as it is a revocation of a planning permission. I believe this would make completion notices less appealing to local planning authorities.

The second proposed effect of the amendment relates to the removal of finished parts of a development where a site could not be completed in full. Local planning authorities already have the power to require the removal of unfinished developments by order under Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up one or two important issues. In the clauses already in the LURB, we have introduced two further provisions to ensure a better buildout rate of planning permissions in this country. First, the Government will require housing developers to report annually to local authorities on their actual delivery of housing. This will enable them to identify where sites in their area are coming forward too slowly. It will also help to inform whether to sanction a developer for failure to build out their schemes promptly. Secondly, the Government have introduced a new power that will allow local planning authorities to decline to determine planning applications made by developers that failed to build out at a reasonable rate earlier permissions on any land in the authority’s area.

To strengthen the package further, we will publish data on developers of sites over a certain size in cases where they fail to build out according to their commitments. Developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise development schemes’ absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. The NPPF will highlight that delivery can be a material consideration in planning applications. This could mean that applications with trajectories that propose a slow delivery rate may be refused in certain circumstances. We will also consult on proposals to introduce a financial penalty against developers that are developing out too slowly.

I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on houses that are not what a particular local authority wants. I believe that is up to the local authority. If the local authority has a local plan saying that it needs specific types of housing in the area, it needs to make sure that the planning applications that go through will have that in them. Local authorities know their area best, so it is up to them to make sure that their local plan is up to date and reflects what is required.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the information she has provided about sanctions and so on. I wait to see how firm those sanctions are. On the issue of local planning authorities having the power, basically, to dictate to a commercial enterprise what is developed on a site that the commercial enterprise owns, I would love to hear what powers the LPA will have in that regard.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The whole system is designed, after the LUR Bill, to be plan led. Therefore, planning applications should be in accordance with, first, national policies and, as importantly, local policies. If local policies say that you need, for example, houses for older people or disabled people, one should be agreeing only those planning applications that have those types of tenure within the developments that are coming forward through planning. If the system is plan led, I would have thought that the inspector should stick to the locally produced plan. On that basis, I hope this reassures the noble Baroness opposite that Amendment 261 is not necessary.

Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ensure that the development of large housing sites—defined as sites of 500 or more dwellings or more than five hectares in size where the predominant use will be housing, or designated as a large housing site within a development plan—is diversified in such a way that it provides a mix of new housing that reflects local needs, including social housing, in line with a local authority’s local plan requirements and national development management policies. While we agree with the sentiment of this amendment, we believe that there are better ways of achieving its objectives. The Government are of the view that diversification is best achieved by making this a stronger material planning consideration in the assessment of any housing application, and by requiring a buildout and diversification statement in all prescribed applications. We believe that this is best achieved via a new national development management policy, as that can be applied more flexibly compared to legislation and therefore address the different planning circumstances and housing needs that occur across the country, and that such a measure should not necessarily be limited to larger housing sites.

That is why the Government announced in December 2022—as part of the consultation Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy—that developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise a development scheme’s absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. We invited views on the design of this policy, which will help to inform our thinking as part of our fuller review of national planning policy later this year. In these circumstances, while I very much agree with the objective of this amendment, there is a better way to achieve it via national planning policy, and I believe that it should be applied to a greater range of housing sites. This will ensure faster buildout rates and the diversification of those housing sites.

Government Amendment 261A will amend Clause 105 to strengthen the existing powers and hold developers more to account for unreasonably slow delivery or non-implementation of planning permissions. Currently, Clause 105 gives local planning authorities the power to decline to determine planning applications made by a person connected to an earlier planning permission on that same land which was not begun or has been carried out at an unreasonably slow rate. This amendment will enable authorities to exercise the power where an applicant is connected to an earlier permission on any land in their area which has not begun or has been built out unreasonably slowly. This change will send the message to developers that local planning authorities, as well as the communities they serve, expect new residential developments to come forward at a reasonable rate before new planning permissions are considered. This amendment will give greater powers to local areas to tackle cases of slow buildout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Grenfell fire tragedy of June 2017 has rightly ensured that many of us in this Chamber have put our minds to the outrageous way in which the construction industry failed to meet existing building safety regulations and how material manufacturers knowingly sold flammable cladding materials to be put on high-rise blocks of flats. That is not me saying that; the inquiry into the Grenfell fire said that.

We have over the past six years in this House tried two ways, so far, to address those issues, first through the Fire Safety Act and then through the longer, more detailed Building Safety Act. Right from the outset, I and others have said quite clearly that, whatever happens in putting right the wrongs of 20 years or more, the leaseholders are the innocent victims in this situation. They have done everything right in their lives and nothing wrong, and they should not be asked to pay a penny piece towards putting right the wrongs that have been done to them, which were concealed from them when they entered into a contract for their property.

We have, with the Government, tried hard to put this right. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who have been on this route march, as it seems, from the beginning, trying to find the answer to the question, “As the leaseholder must not pay, who must?” The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, asked the right question—of course, he always does—which is, “Has the Government done enough?” Some of us, including him at the time, said we did not think so, and so it is proving.

Not only we in this Chamber but thousands of leaseholders are saying that the Government have not done enough. Not only is the construct in the Building Safety Act of the waterfall of responsibilities failing to ensure that remediation takes place promptly or at all, but, meanwhile, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, many leaseholders have awful tales to tell about anxiety caused, mental health that has broken down, financial burdens that cannot be met, ensuing bankruptcy and life chances blunted—and no responsibility of theirs.

Why would any of us involved in legislation allow thousands of our fellow country men and women to be put in this position, where they are being seriously adversely affected, in emotional, financial and social ways, and not do anything—or enough—about it? The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly said again that the Building Safety Act, despite our best efforts, excluded certain groups of leaseholders: those living in blocks under 11 metres, enfranchised leaseholders and, indeed, some buy-to-let leaseholders. That is clearly not acceptable, because those leaseholders are suffering immensely; the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave a vivid example of that.

So the challenge to the Government and to the Minister, which I hope she will take up and respond to, is: what, then, can be done? The Government have tried to put in place a series of funding mechanisms and responsibilities, but that is clearly failing to help thousands upon thousands of leaseholders.

The Minister was unfortunately—or fortunately, for her—was not part of the long discussions on what became the Building Safety Act. We were promised at the time that leaseholders would not be expected to pay, but that is clearly not bearing out in practice. Therefore, I hope the Minister will go back to her department and ask those fundamental questions. The Government’s purpose, as expressed by the Secretary of State Michael Gove, was that it was morally reprehensible for leaseholders to pay. If that is the case, let us put that into practice and find a route through, so that no leaseholder pays anything. They have done nothing wrong and they should not be expected to pay.

In his proposed new schedule to the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has made a very detailed proposal about the polluter pays principle. I concur with the principle that those who cause the damage—the construction companies and the materials manufacturers—must pay. We have to find to find a way for that to work in practice. I am hoping that the Minister will come up with some answers.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has once again raised the issue of second staircases in high-rise buildings and houses in multiple occupation, which we debated during the progress of what became the Fire Safety Act and also the Building Safety Act. Most of us said that, yes, that was the expert advice from the fire service chiefs and that is what we should do; but, unfortunately, that was not accepted by the Government.

I agree with the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I go back to the key to all this. My view—and that of all who have spoken, through all the outcomes that followed the Grenfell fire tragedy—is that, however the remediation of these buildings, of all heights, is resolved, when it comes to the leaseholders, whether enfranchised or unenfranchised, whatever happens, they must not pay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in his Amendments 274, 318, 320 and 325, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, returns us to subjects that we debated extensively this time last year in what was then the Building Safety Bill. I say to the noble Earl, with the greatest of respect, that this House and the other place considered his arguments carefully last year and rejected them. I really do not think that this Bill is an appropriate place to try to reopen these issues.

Last year, the Government opposed the noble Earl’s scheme and proposed an alternative, the leaseholder protection package, which was agreed by your Lordships and the other place. As your Lordships will be aware, the leaseholder protections in what is now the Building Safety Act 2022 have been in force since June 2022 and form part of the Government’s response to the need to fix defective buildings, alongside a number of other measures that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out recently in a Statement in the other place, which was repeated for your Lordships.

Those protections are complex. I would be very happy to have a meeting with interested Peers to discuss the Government’s actions in detail if that would be helpful. If any noble Lord would like to do that, they can get in touch with me or my office and we would be very happy to set that up. But, as I said, the protections are complex and it is true that it has taken time for the various professionals working in this space to get to grips with them. None the less, there is now progress on getting work done, getting mortgages issued on affected flats and moving the conversation forward with the insurance industry to ensure that remediation can be undertaken and that building insurance premiums, which had been excessively high, reflect this reduction in building risk.

I want to be clear with your Lordships: the leaseholder protections are working. The first remediation contribution order to get money back for leaseholders has been made by the tribunal and is being enforced now. In response to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I can say that there have been a further 12 applications for remediation orders to the First-tier Tribunal and nine for contribution orders; that is up to the end of December—we do not have any further updated figures.

The Government’s recovery strategy unit is litigating against large freeholders, and leaseholders have the peace of mind that the remediation bills they were facing—sometimes for more than the value of their home—are no more. I emphasise to your Lordships that changing the basis on which leaseholders are protected would set back by months the progress of remediation work, which is finally happening at pace, and would create further uncertainty in the market.

In addition to the inevitable delay to remediation that would be caused if the noble Earl’s proposals were adopted, I must emphasise that the objections set out by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, when he spoke from this Dispatch Box last year, are still relevant. The building-by-building assessment process that he proposes would be both costly and time-consuming, which would not be in anyone’s interest.

While the noble Earl says that his scheme seeks to avoid litigation, our experience shows that the level of complexity and the sums at stake in this field mean that litigation is inevitable—and will necessarily take place in the High Court, rather than the expert tribunal already dealing with disputes under the leaseholder protections, increasing costs and the time taken to resolve cases. I should also make it clear that the Government’s package of measures in this space goes much further than the leaseholder protections set out in the Building Safety Act.

At this point, I would like to answer a few questions. Both my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the point of “under 11 metres”, which I know has been an issue raised. I think I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that the views of the independent experts are clear: there is no systematic risk in buildings under 11 metres. However, we continue to look at these on a case-by-case basis and provide any help to those leaseholders accordingly. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham would like to let me have the letter that was sent to him, I would be happy for the team to look at it.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell is the expert on neighbourhood planning, and there is nothing I can add to what he has just expounded. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said. In particular, my noble friend raised important questions about the statement by the Secretary of State last week about future planning proposals that will affect this Bill.

Finally, my Amendment 227 is just an extension of Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about development plans within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment in my name would enable neighbourhood development plans to limit housing development in those vital areas of the country entirely to affordable housing—and affordable housing in perpetuity—so that there is a stream and supply of new housing in those areas that is appropriate, relevant and affordable, if “affordable” is the right definition. In this case, it means affordable for local people who live and work in those areas; evidence of that has already been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, neighbourhood planning has been a great success story. I went into it with my council, probably at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and it was difficult to begin with, because it was very new and communities did not understand it. What I think is good about neighbourhood planning now is that all that groundwork has been done by many councils across the country, working with many communities. Therefore, for new councils and new communities coming on, I think it is going to be a lot easier as we move forward.

I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who is obviously a guru on neighbourhood planning, for their support. As I say, I am also fully in favour of it, as can be seen by what has happened in Wiltshire. It has been a great success story; it has given many communities a much greater role in shaping development in their local areas and ensuring they meet their needs.

The Bill retains the existing framework of powers for neighbourhood planning while at the same time providing more clarity on the scope of neighbourhood plans alongside other types of development plan. However, we recognise that the take-up of neighbourhood planning is low in some parts of the country, and we would like to see more communities getting involved. This is why the Bill introduces neighbourhood priorities statements. These are a new tool, and they will provide a simpler and more accessible way for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.

On Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, perhaps it would be helpful if I set out some detail about the intended role of neighbourhood priorities statements in the wider system. A neighbourhood priorities statement can be prepared by neighbourhood planning groups and can be used to set out the community’s priorities and preferences for its local area. The provisions in the Bill allow communities to cover a range of issues in their statements, including in relation to the use and development of land, housing, the environment, public spaces and local facilities.

Neighbourhood priorities statements will provide a formal input into the local plan. Under new Section 15CA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill, local planning authorities will be required to “have regard” to them when they are preparing their local plans. This will be tested at examination. While some communities will use them solely to feed into the local plan process, we also expect that they will operate as a preliminary stage to preparing a full neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood design code. In these ways, neighbourhood priorities statements will feed into the planning process. Furthermore, they may also act as a springboard for other community initiatives outside the remit of the planning system.

Amendments 227, 229 to 232 and 234 deal in different ways with the scope of neighbourhood plans. On Amendments 227 and 231 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, we acknowledge that delivery of affordable housing within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty can be a challenge and that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in supporting provision. However, I do not agree that these amendments are necessary. Clause 91 specifies what matters communities can choose to address within their neighbourhood development plans. It does not prevent communities including policies relating to the provision of affordable housing in the plan area. All policies in neighbourhood plans, however, must meet the statutory tests, known as the basic conditions, before they can be adopted, including that they must have regard to national policy.

I draw the Committee’s attention to specific measures we have taken to address this issue. Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a rural exception sites policy. This allows for affordable housing to be delivered on sites that would not otherwise be developed in order to meet specific local need for affordable housing, the majority of which will be required to remain permanently available to those with a local connection. In 2021 the Government published planning practice guidance to further help bring forward more of these sites in future.

Furthermore, I point to our decision to allow local authorities and neighbourhood planning groups in designated rural areas to set and support policies to require affordable housing from a lower development threshold. The threshold can be five units or fewer, compared with the threshold of 10 units in other areas. We will consult on how the small sites threshold should work in rural areas under the infrastructure levy.

I turn to Amendment 229 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. Under the reformed planning system, it will continue to be the role of the local planning authority to set a housing requirement number for neighbourhood plan areas as part of its overall development strategy. As under the current system, where neighbourhood planning groups have decided to make provision for housing in their plan, the housing requirement figure and its origin would be expected to be set out in the neighbourhood plan as a basis for their housing policies and any allocations that they wish to make. The allocation of housing has not changed; the neighbourhood takes the planning housing requirement from the local plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has said, across the country we have seen neighbourhoods adding to that number rather than taking away from it.

Building (Public Bodies and Higher-Risk Building Work) (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, under the Building Safety Act 2022 and subsequent secondary legislation such as this, the Government are introducing a raft of measures to improve building safety. We are introducing the biggest reforms to the design and construction sectors in a generation, including the introduction of duty-holder and competence requirements for all building work. They also include introducing a more stringent regulatory regime during design and construction for higher-risk building work, to be overseen exclusively by the Building Safety Regulator.

The “higher-risk” definition during design and construction applies to work on buildings with at least two residential units, care homes and hospitals that meet the 18-metre or seven-storey height threshold. Under the current system, there is an exemption available to public bodies where they can obtain partial or full exemption from the building control procedural requirements if this is approved by government. These regulations will ensure that, in future, any exemption allowing public bodies to carry out building control on their own buildings will be limited to non-higher-risk building work only.

The exemption will not apply to higher-risk building work moving forward, as the Building Safety Regulator will be the sole building control authority for all higher-risk buildings, including those owned by public bodies. Although these regulations make only a small change, they are an important part of our ongoing reforms to ensure the safety and standards of all buildings and to ensure a consistent approach by the Building Safety Regulator to all higher-risk building work.

These regulations make three sets of changes. However, I will start by providing some context and background. After the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 and the deaths of 72 people, the Government committed to fundamental reforms by implementing the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review and introducing a new building safety regime. The review made significant recommendations, including the need to reform building control as the system which checks that building work complies with building regulation requirements such as fire safety.

Building control is carried out freely across the public and private sectors at present. Anyone commissioning building work, whatever its nature, can choose to use either the local authority—that is, the local council—in the public sector or a private sector approved inspector to carry out the building control. There is then a further option, open specifically to public sector bodies. If approved by Ministers, these bodies can obtain an exemption from some or all of the procedural requirements of building control and then carry out building control on their own buildings. This exemption has very rarely been used and almost all building control is carried out by either local authorities or approved inspectors, as opposed to public bodies self-regulating. In all cases, and irrespective of any exemption, the functional requirements of the building regulations, such as fire safety, continue to apply.

One of Dame Judith Hackitt’s main findings on building control was the lack of a level playing field between public and private sector building control. She recommended that the Building Safety Regulator should carry out building control for higher-risk building work and therefore end the choice of building control for these buildings. The Building Safety Act 2022 contained many reforms related to building control, including implementing a recommendation to end duty-holder choice of building control for higher-risk buildings, as well as strengthening the regulation of the building control profession.

These regulations are only a small part of our building control reforms, which themselves are only a part of wider building safety reforms. However, they are important. They contain measures that support the new system and its operation for higher-risk buildings, led by the Building Safety Regulator. The three sets of changes that these regulations make are as follows. First, the regulations end Ministers’ ability to grant building control procedural exemptions to public bodies for higher-risk building work. Building control on higher-risk buildings will in future be overseen exclusively by the Building Safety Regulator. However, the ministerial ability to grant exemptions for non-higher-risk building work is unaffected.

Secondly, the regulations require any public bodies with a partial exemption under Section 54 of the Building Act 1984 to cancel their public body notice with the local authority if the building work becomes higher-risk building work. Local authorities will also be required to cancel public body notices under the same circumstances. Currently, no public body has a partial exemption and therefore these measures are being introduced for future use as opposed to changing any existing arrangements. Only one public body, the Metropolitan Police, currently has any type of exemption, and separate regulations to be introduced later this year will change that exemption so that it applies to non-higher-risk building work only.

Thirdly, the regulations will allow the Building Safety Regulator to fine public bodies £7,500 if they have not cancelled their public body notice when building work becomes higher-risk building work. This will ensure an equal approach to approved inspectors, who will become registered building control approvers under the new system and who will be liable for sanctions if they fail to cancel an initial notice, which is their equivalent of a public body notice, under the same circumstances. Public bodies will be allowed to contest any fines, first through the Building Safety Regulator and ultimately in the courts.

These regulations support the aim of increased building safety, in particular for higher-risk buildings, by ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator is the sole body carrying out building control on such buildings. It also removes any possibility of this approach being undermined in future by public bodies being given exemptions that circumvent the Building Safety Regulator and the higher-risk building control regime. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I support the regulations that the Minister has detailed. They are entirely appropriate and another step in the right direction to overhaul and thoroughly improve building safety, particularly as in this case they apply to higher-risk buildings. I have a couple of questions for the Minister which I hope she will be able to answer.

My first question struck me when I was reading the details in the statutory instrument. Why on earth should any public body be exempt from basic building safety? Why is there an exemption? We would not be having this debate if there was no exemption. I did not quite hear what the Minister said, but it is my understanding that, of the higher-risk buildings that are in occupation, care homes, hospitals, secure residential institutions, I think, and military barracks are excluded from the definition of higher-risk buildings—if my memory of when we went through the Bill serves me right—and I have never understood why that should be the case. I would think that many hospitals would fall under this, as they are high enough to comply with the definition of a higher-risk building. I wonder why they are exempt, if I heard correctly and have read the Explanatory Memorandum correctly. Do we know how many public bodies will now be drawn into this? There are not that many that are very high-rise. It would be interesting to know.

I think the reason that care homes and hospitals were excluded from this is that they are already covered by fire safety regulations and legislation, but I am quite in favour of belt and braces. If there are fire safety regulations that control that, let us add to them regulations such as these because the two could work in harmony to ensure that, in this case, quite vulnerable people would have double the protection that we would want to make sure they had. That is another little query in this case.

My next point is about the Met Police. How on earth does it get an exemption? Where did that appear from? Somebody ought to say, “This will not do. You’ve got to be included in this because, as a Government, we are determined to ensure that any higher-risk buildings are totally safeguarded against the risks that were identified by”—as the Minister reminded us—“the Grenfell Tower tragedy nearly six years ago, which was just awful”. Let us get this right. If it means more regulation and better safety for more people, it gets a big tick from me.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on the conflicts that will inevitably exist between the national development management policies and local plans. I thank my noble friend for pointing out in great detail the difficulties that may arise.

At the heart of this is the fact that, at the moment, we have no idea what will be included in the NDMP. Frankly, that is fairly critical as to whether or not there will be conflict. It will depend on whether these will be very high-level national policies, as in the current National Planning Policy Framework. It will depend on whether they will set standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested. It will depend on whether they will simply reflect what is currently national planning policy but put it into a statutory situation for local planning authorities and local councils to agree to.

In Committee on the Bill last Wednesday, the Minister suggested that we would have a round table to try to tease out the detail and meaning behind the Government’s proposals in the Bill. It is absolutely vital that that happens as soon as possible. Throughout our debate on the plan-led process, it became clear that, if the intentions of the Government for the national development management policies are not understood, there will be conflict—as this group of amendments makes clear—around the degree to which local people have power and influence over local plans at this stage, and around the degree to which planning inspectors who are set to look at the local plans that are drawn up have power and influence over local plans. That is why it is really important that we hear from the Minister as soon as possible. What sort of policies are going to be included in NDMPs? At the moment, it is a fairly blank screen.

I have only one other thing to say, which has been raised by my noble friend. New subsection (3) inserted by Clause 87, which is about revoking or changing the NDMP, says that

“the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”

I hope the Minister will be willing to take away “if any” in that clause and reflect how important it is for local plans to be accepted by local residents. That means that the NDMP has to be acceptable to and accepted by local residents, as it is going to dictate the content or the direction of travel of local plan decision-making. There is a lot that hangs on the content of the NDMP, so I hope that when the Minister replies she is able to give us some hints as to what it will be.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendments 185A and 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seek to remove or reverse the precedence given to national development management policies over the development plan in planning decisions where there is a conflict between them. I welcome this further opportunity to explain the objectives behind this aspect of the Bill.

As I indicated in our debate on this issue last week, national development management policies are intended to bring greater clarity to the important role that national policy already plays in decisions on planning applications. A clear and concise set of policies with statutory weight will make sure that important safeguards, such as protections for designated landscapes and heritage assets, are taken fully into account, without these basic matters having to be repeated in local plans to give them the statutory recognition they deserve.

These amendments deal specifically with what to do in the event that there is a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. The amendments would remove the certainty created by the Bill that up-to-date national policies on important issues, such as climate change or flood protection, would have precedence over plans that may well have been made a long time ago.

Some local plans are woefully out of date; for example, some date back to the 1990s. Only around 40% of local planning authorities adopted a local plan within the last five years. It would, in our view, be wrong to say that, in the event of a conflict, national policy does not take precedence over out-of-date policies in these plans, which is what these amendments would achieve. This point is particularly crucial because we wish to use national policies to drive higher standards, especially on good design, the environment and tackling climate change, and it is important that these take precedence in the event of a conflict with out-of-date policies in plans.

Nevertheless, I expect such conflicts to be very limited in future as we are making it easier to produce plans and keep them up to date, and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies. Given the important role that national development management policies will perform and their benefits in providing certainty, I hope noble Lords understand that we are not able to support this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that few, if any, conflicts should arise under this new way of working.

Amendment 186 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley would give national development management policies precedence over the development plan only where there was a “significant” conflict between the relevant policies. Where a local policy and national development management policy are both relevant considerations but not in any conflict, it will still be for the decision-maker to decide how much weight is afforded to these policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. Our clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies where they contradict one another. My noble friend brought up the green belt. Policies controlling development in the green belt are standard nationally and will be set out in the NDMPs. Local plans could—will—define the boundaries of the green belt, as they do now, so I do not think there should be any conflict between those two issues.

We have explained why we believe it is important that NDMPs are prioritised in the event of such a conflict, and we expect such conflicts to be limited, as I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What I am trying to explain to noble Lords is that there should be no conflict because they deal with different things. The national development management policies are likely to cover common issues that are already being dealt with in national planning policies, such as the green belt, areas at risk of flooding and heritage areas. They would not impinge on local policies for shaping development, nor would they direct what land should be allocated for a particular area. They are totally different things. Looking to the future, therefore, I cannot see what conflict there would be.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I just want to explore this further, if the Minister will agree to it. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is at the heart of this issue. Where there is an existing, up-to-date local plan, why should that not have primacy over the national development management policies, because it will have taken cognisance of those in developing the local plan?

Can the Minister help me here? In the NPPF, there are 16 national planning policies. Does she anticipate that those will be translated into the NDMPs? It is at that level that we need to understand this because, when it comes to local plans, the NPPF is part of them; as the Minister rightly argued, it is put into local plans. But then they are then interpreted locally, for local reasons, which is why I am concerned about an NDMP having primacy over up-to-date local plans.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The national development management policies are dealing with the top-level issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are out to review those issues of consultation. These issues have come back. We have not got the list yet, but your local plan will accept those as being there and will then deal with issues that are local. As my noble friend said, there will be issues such as the green belt, but they will take into account the national policies on green belt and deal only with very localised policies on it, so there should be no conflict. I do not see where that conflict can be. But we are going to have a meeting on this to further discuss and probably have, not arguments, but strong debates—those are the words—on these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My experience is that that was not quite how it worked. In West Yorkshire, Harrogate—which is just north of Leeds—was included, even though it is in North Yorkshire, because it is part of what they call the “golden triangle”. I think it is a challenge, and I hope the Government will just decide which boundaries they use—I presume it will be local authority boundaries, because that makes sense—and the others are just part of a negotiation.

Those are the key points I wanted to make. It is an interesting group to think about how it all works. I notice in the schedule it says that spatial strategies have to be mindful of, and consistent with, the national development management plans. I would like to hear from the Minister how spatial strategies will operate across a wider region, because if you are talking about transport—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, picked up on this—you need to think in a wider area than just a small combined authority area.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns strategic planning and spatial development strategies. As these are to date a very rare form of plan, it might be useful to set out some background. The Government recognise that it is often desirable to plan over areas, as we have just heard, wider than a single planning authority in order to properly address the strategic and cross-boundary issues that have been brought up in this debate so far. However, it is important to stress that a spatial development strategy cannot allocate sites; instead, it can set broad indications of how much and what type of development should go where.

Once a spatial development strategy is adopted, local plans within its area must be in general conformity with it; that is, they must generally follow that strategy and its policies. Most of us will not actually have dealt with a spatial development strategy, because only one exists at the moment, and that is in London, which the mayor refers to as the London Plan. Other combined authorities are able to request the equivalent spatial development strategy powers as part of their devolution agreement. Three areas have done so already—Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, and the West of England, as noble Lords have heard—but for various reasons, none has produced a strategy as yet. Moreover, the Government have agreed to give a spatial development strategy power to the West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.

Through the Bill, we are extending the powers to produce a spatial development strategy, on a voluntary basis, to other local planning authorities, as we are aware that in other parts of the country—such as Hertfordshire, Essex, Leicestershire and around Nottingham—some of them have already sought to progress strategic plans over recent years. The Government would like to support and enable these efforts at more strategic planning.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 179 and 271 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seek to introduce a duty for planning authorities to consider climate change when developing planning policy and in making planning application decisions by adding a “purpose of planning” provision to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and a complementary duty in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Government recognise the great challenge of climate change and that the planning system must address this effectively. Through the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government have committed to reduce net emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels by 2050. We have also committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it. We passed the Environment Act, which sets ambitious, legally binding, long-term targets to restore nature. The Government published their second environmental improvement plan in January this year, setting out the actions that will drive us towards reaching our long-term targets and goals.

Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already sets out that local planning authorities must design their local plans

“to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.

This is restated in the Bill and is found in proposed new Section 15C of the 2004 Act, to be inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill. Similar requirements are included for other types of plans, such as waste and mineral plans and neighbourhood plans.

Alongside this, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should support climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that plans should be prepared in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. The framework also makes it clear that plans and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment more broadly. As a matter of law, the framework must be taken into account when preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Its effect on decisions will be enhanced through this Bill, through the provision made for a suite of national development management policies that will have statutory force.

More broadly, the National Planning Policy Frame- work couches the role of the planning system quite firmly in the terms of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, recognising the environmental, social and economic dimensions of this and the inter- dependencies between them. It is not clear that a statutory purpose for planning would add to this in any meaningful way. We recognise that more can be achieved, though, and that is why the Government recently consulted on immediate changes to the framework relating to renewable energy and sought views on carbon assessments and other changes, which would strengthen the framework’s role in this vital area. A full review of the framework, taking the responses to this consultation into account, will take place following Royal Assent, and we will review the strategic objectives set out in the planning policy to ensure that they support the Government’s environmental targets under the Environment Act, the net zero strategy and the national adaptation programme.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Skidmore review. We will publish a response to it very shortly. As committed to in the net zero strategy, we intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, the Government do not feel able to support them, given the existing legislative obligations and current and future requirements in national policy, which will be given added force as a result of other provisions in this Bill.

Amendment 179A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, looks to define the purpose of planning and the meaning of “sustainable development”. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, this can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As part of achieving the three overarching objectives of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—the framework sets out policies on good design, sustainable transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, and community services and facilities. It recognises the importance to health, well-being and recreation that open spaces and green infrastructure provide. It also contains policies for how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places.

So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the needs of the area, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, and mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. It also means that the strategic policies should provide for housing needs unless protected areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for restricting development—for example, green-belt land. To reiterate, the framework must, as a matter of law, be taken into account when preparing development plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I accept what the Minister said about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. She listed the things that have to be balanced, but the issue is how that balance takes place. In my experience as a local councillor, climate change is often at the bottom of that balance; economic development and the need for growth and jobs are at the top, and housing development is there, but climate change is much less important in the eyes of planning policies, planning inspectors and local plans. Can the Minister explain how the climate change element will be given greater importance and priority?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to begin with, I do not agree that local authorities across the UK are not taking net zero and sustainability seriously. We know that local authorities across the country are making great strides towards our net-zero future. There are some brilliant examples of local action, innovation and excellence in this area, so I do not agree with the noble Baroness. When we get national planning policies that make these issues important nationally, councils will have to take them seriously and align their local plans with them. I would not want anybody to think that local government is not taking this seriously, because it certainly is and it is doing a huge amount to deliver our net-zero targets.

In December we published a consultation on updating the national planning policy, focusing largely on changes to housing policy that we intend to make in spring. This consultation closed on 2 March this year. We also sought initial views on some wider changes, which we will take forward into a fuller review of the framework. This fuller review will consider the scope to go further on a range of areas, including ensuring that the planning system capitalises on opportunities to support the natural environment, respond to climate change and deliver on the levelling up of economic opportunity—so there is more to come.

Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for securing this important debate to discuss the Building Safety (Leasehold Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I also pay tribute to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the regulations and to the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion.

As noble Lords will know, the regulations correct an error in a previous instrument to ensure that, when assessing liability for the costs of remediating relevant defects, the consideration of the net worth of a landlord group for the purpose of the contribution condition includes parent and sister companies, as originally intended.

The department does not collect data on leaseholders who are liable to pay for the remediation of historical safety defects, not least because it is not a centralised process. We have, however, been made aware by leaseholders and, indeed, parliamentarians, of a very small number of cases where landlords state that they did not believe they met the contribution condition because of this unfortunate and unintended error. As I say, to date these cases are small in number, but of course we must say sorry to those people, because it will affect them, however few they are.

Due to the caps for qualifying leaseholders in relation to non-cladding remediation and interim measures, the maximum amount such qualifying leaseholders could have been charged is limited to £1,000—or £1,500 in Greater London—over the past year. Landlords are already required to produce a new landlord certificate which complies with these regulations in specified circumstances, including within four weeks of becoming aware of a relevant defect not covered by a previous certificate.

I wanted to make sure your Lordships were aware that the Building Safety Act already includes anti-avoidance and enforcement provisions to ensure that those who are liable to pay do so, and, where it is just and equitable, that costs incurred for historical safety remediation may be recovered. Remediation contribution orders allow interested persons—including local authorities, fire and rescue services and leaseholders—to apply to the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard, for an order requiring a landlord, developer or associated company to make payments in connection with remediation costs. Applications to the First-tier Tribunal for a remediation contribution order cost £100.

The department is clear that any opportunities to avoid the protections needed to be closed off swiftly, and that is what these regulations have done. Although it may be possible to give retrospective provision in law—as the protections in the Building Safety Act do—there is a general presumption not to apply new law retrospectively, and the department does not believe it would be proportionate to do so in this case. The Government therefore have no plans to introduce retrospective provision through primary legislation.

The department has published extensive guidance on the GOV.UK website to explain the leaseholder protections, including information relating to remediation contribution orders. Those affected who write to the department—and I encourage any noble Lord who knows of anyone who is worried about this to tell them to come to the department—will be informed of their options and directed to the guidance to help them to make an informed decision. Of course, each case is different, and leaseholders may wish to consider seeking legal advice before pursuing avenues of recompense.

LEASE—the leasehold advisory service—is providing free support and guidance to leaseholders who face costs for historic safety defects, and officials in my department continue to look at new ways to raise awareness of the leaseholder protection provisions to all leaseholders. These regulations are being issued free of charge to all known recipients of the 2022 regulations, and I put on record my assurance that the department will update GOV.UK guidance to further raise awareness of available redress options, with notifications sent to those who have signed up for them.

The circumstances surrounding the leaseholder protection legislation introduced last summer—particularly the speed of its preparation—were highly unusual, but necessary to ensure that leaseholders were afforded the financial protections under the Building Safety Act without delay. As my honourable friend the Building Safety Minister, Lee Rowley MP, said in his letter to the committee, we are confident that we can rely on the department’s processes that have long been in place, but which were abbreviated last summer, to ensure that, as far as possible, such mistakes will be avoided in the future.

I should like to deal with a couple of further questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred several times to developers and their related companies. I point out that these regulations refer to landlords; that is, building owners. The mistake has no effect on the liability on developers.

I have answered the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, in that we think that this is a very small number. Of course, if anybody knows of any such person, we will give them the support they might need to ensure they get the redress they should have. I hope I have answered all your Lordships’ questions. As ever, I will happily follow up in writing on anything I have not covered, and I am very happy to meet with any noble Lords to discuss this issue further.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward the debate today. We can all agree that qualifying leaseholders should be protected from the costs of historical safety remediation. This legislation is important in ensuring that landlords’ groups that meet the contribution condition must meet the full costs of both non-cladding remediation and interim measures. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their support.

The right reverend Prelate has been at the heart of this issue for the six years since the awful Grenfell tragedy; he knows first hand, as he said, the devastating impact it has had on leaseholders. Perhaps I am wrong in saying this, but it was almost the last straw, in that all of us across the House had tried so hard to get the Building Safety Act to provide legislative ways of delivering remedies for leaseholders, and at that moment when everything should have been put right as far as possible—there are omissions that I still intend to pursue—an error crept in. Even then, where things were put right, innocent leaseholders were at the mercy of landlords who wanted to pass on the costs to them. The Minister has said that it is a small number but actually, we have no idea whether it is small or large, and the Government should find out.

I am grateful to the Minister for apologising for the error on behalf of the Government. I accept that it crept in inadvertently, but apologies do not pay bills. Leaseholders have had enormous bills of up to £10,000 from the cascade cap, which they would be required to pay. I am disappointed with the Minister’s response, both to my regret Motion—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The £10,000 would have been over 10 years, and we have stopped it at the end of the first year, so the maximum that would have been required was £1,000. I just wanted to clarify that. I would not want it to be £10,000.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I will see what the legislation says.

I am very disappointed with her response and the response to the request by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which also made a very strong statement that the Government ought to find out how many leaseholders were affected and provide them with information and support. This is a government error, albeit one made inadvertently. The Government ought to be leading the way in showing that if errors are made, efforts are made to put them right. Currently, no efforts are being made to put this right. Therefore, I want to underline my considerable concern that the Government are not intending to take any action, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 511 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about capital finance controls in local government. All I would say is that every local authority is required to have an external audit by a professional audit company to undergo a thorough inspection of its finances. It seems to me that the easiest way round this issue is to extend the requirement of the external audit to include a detailed investigation of any capital financing arrangements. That would reduce or eliminate all the additional requirements in the Bill and put the requirement on the external audit company to do a thorough audit of the council’s finances. If problems are exposed, the issues can then be resolved. This would mean that other local authorities which behave prudently are not caught up in the fairly strict regime that is being proposed.

Turning briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I totally support his Amendment 177 on improving standards of consultation for public bodies, particularly local authorities. There ought to be—I am sure there is—a standard for consultations that every public body, particularly local authorities, ought to adhere to.

On business improvement districts, I say that it is shocking to me that they could be established without full consultation and understanding by local residents. I would say, just as a point of history really, that our local councils used to have a big voice from local business. Businesses used to want to be elected to serve on their local council, where their voices could be heard and they could influence decisions that were made. Sadly, that tradition has disappeared, and there are fewer and fewer businesspeople who seek election to local authorities. This has led to the use of another way of trying to engage businesses in improving small areas such as this by giving them powers through the business improvement districts. So, yet again, these districts bypass local democracy, which is why I support the proposals in Amendment 178.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for moving Amendment 177. I cannot respond on specific local authorities, as he may realise, but I think that noble Lords have had a good discussion about said local authorities.

Statutory frameworks and clear rules for consultation already exist in some service areas, such as planning, and provide guidance on the required length and scope of consultation. There is a statutory publicity code, which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. Councils can carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans. Greater involvement for local people can only be a good thing, and local authorities should be free to adapt their approach based on local need and requirements for these non-statutory consultations. A requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties would impose additional costs on local authorities, which might encourage less consultation and engagement, rather than more. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment and not press his other amendments in this group.

Amendment 178 concerns business improvement districts—or BIDs, as they are often called. It is best practice for a BID to promote its actions so that levy payers and the community can see what is being achieved. Many BIDs keep an up-to-date website and engage regularly via social media to discuss their work. BIDs are intended to be business-led, business-funded organisations. It is right that the businesses that will be required to fund the BID make the decisions on whether there should be consultations.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about local authorities on BID boards. There are local authorities on BID boards in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Newcastle, as well as in other places.

Regarding the review of BID arrangements, as I have said, the legislation does not preclude residents and members of the community from being consulted on a BID proposal or represented on a BID board. Many authorities are on BID boards in their local areas. We are not looking to review business improvement districts; in fact, we are looking closely at work that is being done on community improvement districts, which include community groups, local people and businesses. That work is being run by Power to Change, and we are keeping a close eye on the pilots and following them with interest.

Amendment 511, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would apply across the Bill and would require the Secretary of State to give local authorities advance notice where provisions creating new responsibilities for them are to be commenced. In any circumstances, those gaining new responsibilities should be aware of them in good time. However, we do not consider that this amendment is needed. As I hope has been clear from our responses earlier in the debate, the Government entirely agree on the importance of collaboration with local authorities for our reforms to be successful. We are already working with local authorities on many of our reforms and will continue to do so. I can therefore confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing responsibilities for local authorities without the appropriate preparation, including supporting them both to understand those responsibilities and to manage any transition. In many cases, this work will include further consultation with local authorities and others to shape regulations and inform supporting guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked a couple of questions. I will look at those and give her a written answer. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for setting out in Amendment 168B her suggested redistribution of the income raised by the council tax premium from upper-tier councils to district councils. The proposed premium will provide all councils, including district councils, with the opportunity, where they set a premium at the maximum level of 100%, to raise double the revenue from each second home in their area.

Revenue from council tax is essential for a wide range of councils, providing them with funding to make available a range of public services which best fits the needs of the local area. Under this amendment, in an area with two tiers of councils the district council would be able to retain all the income raised by the council tax premiums. This would disturb one of the key components of the council tax system—that local authorities should calculate their council tax charge for local services on the same basis as each other, with equal access to the revenues generated. The long-term empty homes premium has been in place since 2013 and has followed this long-established principle. We trust councils to make their own decisions on where their funding should be spent, and we do not consider it appropriate to engineer the system to direct part of the proceeds of council tax to one particular type of authority in some parts of the country.

Different communities will have their own set of challenges and solutions to second home ownership and empty properties. For instance, this may be through additional funding for transport or education, which falls within the remit of county councils. The current approach provides flexibility for a range of councils and other authorities to generate additional income, which can be used as they see fit. If a council feels that funding should be put towards a particular goal such as housing, this should be discussed with the other authorities in the usual way.

A change in the distribution method for the council tax premiums would also create an imbalance between two-tier areas and areas covered by unitary authorities. For example, in a single-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Cornwall, the council would be required to share the proceeds of the premiums with the other precepting authorities, such as the PCC or the fire and rescue service. However, in a two-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Norfolk, the amendment would mean that all additional income was retained by the district council. Notwithstanding the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment, there would be no obligation to enable precepting authorities to benefit from the increased income. This may be advantageous to the district but would prevent the income being spent on services provided by other authorities in the area that can benefit the local community, such as road maintenance and better care for the elderly.

I turn to Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We discussed earlier in Committee that the purpose of Clause 76 is to provide councils with an opportunity to apply a council tax premium on second homes. As with all properties, second homes may be in a variety of different conditions. For the purposes of Clause 76, however, a second home would be caught by the provision only if the property was substantially furnished. Indeed, this is an important factor in differentiating such properties from those that might be impacted by the long-term empty homes premium, as set out in Clause 75. Where such properties are substantially furnished, I would not envisage that they are likely to be in a condition to require significant work as a result of dilapidation. Therefore, the premium council tax on a second home applies only where it is furnished. However, in specific circumstances the local authority has tax relief powers as well.

Notwithstanding that potential distinction, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the clause already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from the effects of the second homes premium. Similar powers are already in place for the long-term empty homes premium. Obviously, before making any regulations the Government would wish to consult on any exemptions and to provide everyone with the opportunity to say what should—and, perhaps, what should not—be exempt from the effect of the premium.

The noble Baroness’s amendment also proposes a right of appeal against the imposition of a second homes premium. I can reassure her that, under Section 16(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, council tax payers already have the right of appeal against any calculation of amounts they are liable to pay, including any premiums.

Finally, Amendments 428 and 474 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The Government are of course aware of the pressures facing businesses, including those on the high street, and have acted to support businesses up and down the country. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Government have only recently concluded a comprehensive review of the business rates system. A final report on the review was published at the Autumn Budget 2021, alongside a package of reforms worth £7 billion over five years. The review recognised the importance of the system in raising funds for critical local services in England, worth around £22.5 billion in 2022-23, and concluded that there was no consensus on an alternative model that would be of sufficient scale to replace business rates.

At the Autumn Statement 2022, the Government went even further and announced a range of business rates measures worth an estimated additional £13.6 billion over the next five years. As part of that package the Government announced that the tax rate will be frozen for a further year. This is a real-terms cut to the tax rate, worth around £9.3 billion over five years.

In addition, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief will be extended for a further year and made more generous. In 2023-24, it will provide eligible businesses with 75% off their bills, up to a maximum of £110,000 per business. This is worth an estimated £2.1 billion to ratepayers, many of which are on our high streets.

Furthermore, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will, for the first time and subject to legislation, introduce a transitional relief scheme for the 2023 revaluation. This will be funded by the Government and is expected to save businesses £1.6 billion. This will mean that the 300,000 ratepayers—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her reply, but she seems to be listing all the ways in which the Government are providing help to businesses via different reliefs for their business rates payments. If the business rates system is so bad that it needs substantial relief from the Government for those businesses to survive—and the amounts that the noble Baroness referenced were substantial—I can only conclude that the business rates system, as it applies to businesses in town centres, is broken. That is the reason for the argument that I have made, and why I hope that the Government will accept that business rates need a fundamental change; otherwise, the Government will be continually asked to provide relief to enable businesses just to survive.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think I explained to the noble Baroness that we went out for extensive review—the issue is that we and local services need business rates—and there was no consensus on how they might be changed and made different, such that a similar amount of money would be coming in so that local areas could provide services. We tried but came to no consensus.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She has said that the decision will be made only if it is supported democratically. Yet Clause 33(4)(b) says that

“at least two thirds of the constituent members of the CCA”

can indicate that

“they disagree with the proposal for the regulations to be made”,

and Clause 33(5) says that the mayor, in providing a report to the Secretary of State, must give their response to those same proposals. I thought that democracy was about winning the argument, not finding a way around it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.

We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.

As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.

Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.

This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.

Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.

Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.

Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.

Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.

Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.

Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

But it was about a change in the type of election and there was a very clear result against it. I consider that to be a very clear result in support of first past the post.

Therefore, although I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, for all of those reasons I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her Amendment 157.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so that we can explore the issue, because it is a sort of twin part of fiscal devolution. This is not an arcane debate for election geeks; it is really important if we are going to renew our local democracy. The amendment is not asking very much; it is simply asking for local authorities to be allowed—there is an example of control from Whitehall—to choose their own voting system.

My noble friend Lord Stunell raised two important issues about first past the post. If electors feel that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, they do not bother to vote. You can see that in turnouts across the country. It leads to apathy and cynicism, which are the last emotions that we need to see in our voters when we know that we need to reinvigorate our local democracy. Change is going to be important if we are going to narrow inequalities, which is what this levelling-up Bill should be all about. However, change can be divisive, so if you have a broader representation of views and hear more voices, you have a better chance of drawing people together to agree to a change—not cutting down trees in the middle of the night, which is apparently what happened in Tory-run Plymouth council.

I will just say one or two things about the response from the Minister. I thank her for replying and claiming that first past the post is the only one that allows the link with electors. So what are the Government doing then allowing Northern Ireland to use STV, Scotland to use STV for its local elections and Wales to use different systems? If it is so bad and does not make a link, what is going on here? Local government is powerful in those countries, and we need to make it powerful here.

My last point is that the Minister, if I heard her right, said that if we introduce a system where local authorities can choose which voting system they wish to use, the current political makeup of a council would choose a system that suited them. But the whole point of a more proportional system is that you cannot do that. It is up to the voters to choose. Putting the power in the hands of the voters seems a jolly good idea. With that, I look forward to trying to change the Minister’s mind and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for raising issues in detail regarding mayoral names—or not—and some aspects of elections and powers, because that points to the fact that although we have a very long Bill with a huge number of clauses, a lot of the detail is insufficient for us to understand completely what the Government seek to do and how they hope these new CCAs and mayors—or not mayors—will operate.

An important issue is in Amendment 103, about what happens if the current mayor stands down for whatever reason. That would be worth knowing for all of us who live in combined authorities.

The second important thing is about the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments. One would hope that a panel of members who are not of the same party as the mayor would interview and scrutinise the appointment of the person, who will have significant powers conferred on them simply because they are a mate of the mayor; that never seems appropriate. There are a number of other probing amendments in this group, including that of my noble friend about “governors”. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but it points to the fact that the Bill has not been as well thought through as it might have been.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to some detailed mayoral matters including by-elections, the scrutiny of mayoral appointments, police and crime commissioner functions, deputy mayoral roles and alternative titles for the mayor. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.

Turning to Amendment 103 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I assure her that there are provisions which will enable a by-election if the position of the mayor of a combined authority becomes vacant. Paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the filling of vacancies in the office of the mayor of a combined county authority. This would include provision for a by-election where that is the appropriate mechanism for filling the vacancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

If I heard right, the answer to the question of what would happen if the mayoral position were vacant was that the Secretary of State would, by regulation, have the power to decide whether it would be filled by an election or not. What would the “or not” mean? Did I misunderstand that point?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, the noble Baroness did not misunderstand. It is important that we wait for those regulations to come out. There could be a point where the mayor stood down a month before an election; there may be a period of time when there has to be a decision, as you would not have two elections close together. The regulations are what is important here. We will wait to see further detail that is being worked up, but I assure her that it is expected that there would be a by-election.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did not say it has nothing to do with the districts or the county—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister. I just thought I would add to the questions now and not interrupt further.

Is this an admission by the Government that the current system of independently elected police and crime commissioners has not been effective? I cannot think of any other reason why the two separate roles should be combined unless it is felt that the separate role of the police and crime commissioner has not been as effective as the Government wished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am struggling with this logic. The combined authority mayor can appoint a deputy to be responsible for police and crime, but the elected mayor will take the accountability if things go wrong. Why, then, can we not have an elected police and crime commissioner? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is not the logic. It is an opportunity for the directly elected mayor to be able to join up all these issues within their geographic area and deliver more joined-up services by working with others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not think so. I will make it very clear: these amendments are nothing to do with the West Midlands. These amendments were in the White Paper a number of years ago and were fully consulted on. I will take the noble Baroness’s point, but that is not what normally happens. You would normally have one of your team as a deputy mayor responsible for one thing or another, as you do in London. In this case, it could be for police and crime. I do not know what West Yorkshire will do.

I would also add that Parliament’s approval is needed for a combined authority to take on any new function. PCC functions can be conferred on a combined authority mayor by secondary legislation only, which needs parliamentary approval before it can be made.

Finally in this group is Amendment 469, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson. This would confer new powers on local authorities to run their own bus services, which we believe is premature. The national bus strategy states that the Government would review whether it remains right that local authorities cannot set up new bus companies. Any consideration of change to the operation of the local bus market needs to be conducted in an orderly manner, with all views and potential impacts, positive and negative, considered. We therefore intend to wait until the review of the bus strategy comes out.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Following the Minister’s earlier remarks about the mayor being able to appoint a deputy to be responsible for policing, I was wondering: are there powers for them to appoint a deputy to be responsible for buses?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know about buses, but I imagine that there may be the ability for a mayor to appoint somebody to be responsible for transport in a large area. I will check that, but I am sure that it is within their powers. It is probably a very good thing to have in large geographical area, as the mayor cannot do everything in detail there. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords.

Voter Identification

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. It is good enough for Northern Ireland—which is part of the United Kingdom, and we should be following it—as it is for many other countries across the world. That is why we are rolling it out and why it will be successful.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant interests recorded in the register. Experience tells us that there are likely to be very large numbers of last-minute applications for the voter ID certificate, and local electoral offices might struggle to get them processed in time and returned to the voter. Will those voters, through no fault of their own, be denied their democratic right to vote if that occurs?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Many people do not see an urgency to apply if there are no upcoming polls. Only 50% of the country will be polling in May when we first use this process. Any voter can apply for one of these certificates within six working days of the poll itself. If they apply within six days of the poll, that is time enough to get their certificate printed and sent out to them for it to be used. There is a huge advertising campaign from the Electoral Commission and local authorities. I have even heard in London that some local authorities are putting leaflets through doors about this, and they are not even polling in this May election. A lot of work is going on to make sure people are aware of it and apply in time. As always, there will be people who do not want to vote who will not register, and therefore will not look for identification.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I want to know who measured that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, as I have set out in earlier debates, it has always been the Government’s intention that the first statement of levelling-up missions would contain the missions from the levelling-up paper. I want to repeat what I said yesterday about why we are not putting the missions on the face of the Bill. The missions will be published in a policy document laid before, and debated in, Parliament. The first example of this document will be based on the levelling-up White Paper and future iterations will include the headline and supporting metrics used to define the missions and measure progress towards them.

If we put them in the Bill, it would make this part of what we want to do—and what we think it is right to do—very inflexible. This way, Parliament and the public will have the opportunity to scrutinise progress towards the missions, including annually when the report is published. This is comparable to other key government objectives documents such as the Charter for Budget Responsibility, which is laid before Parliament for scrutiny. That is why we are doing it this way, and I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for supporting that way forward for the second day running.

I now move to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which inserts the Government’s levelling-up missions into the Bill. As I have said, that is not what we are going to do, because we do not feel that there would be flexibility if anything changes—for example, economics, data, pressures and issues in particular areas of the country. We would not have the flexibility to change the missions and scrutinise them, as I have said.

The 12 levelling-up missions are the product of extensive analysis and engagement. They cover the areas that require improvement to achieve an increase in the six capitals in the White Paper—human, physical, intangible, institutional, social and financial—and are needed to reduce the geographic disparities that we discussed today and that are identified in the White Paper. They are designed to be ambitious but achievable. They are necessarily spatial in their nature and definition, and they are neither national nor aggregate.

The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at an appropriate level of geography. These metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. The metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but are all clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities.

I reiterate that the Bill is designed to establish the framework for missions, not the content of the missions themselves. The framework provides ample opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions against a range of government policies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, brought up the allocation of levelling-up funds being made according to government priorities, rather than local need. Places are invited to submit bids—under the themes of the regeneration of town centres, local transport and culture —that they feel best meet the levelling-up needs of their area. Part of our strategic fit assessment test is on how far a place’s bid locks into its wider levelling-up plans and how well it is supported by relevant local stakeholders and community groups.

My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is not here and will therefore not move Amendment 13, but a number of noble Lords brought it up and I felt I ought to respond to it quickly. The levelling-up White Paper highlights the importance of the educational attainment of primary schoolchildren and sets out a clear mission to significantly increase the number of primary school- children achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and mathematics. In England, this will mean that 90% of children will achieve the expected standard, and the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst-performing areas will have increased by over a third. As we know, reaching the expected standards in these subjects is absolutely crucial for children to succeed at secondary school, which paves the way for success in later life. Ensuring that as many children as possible have these skills, regardless of their location or the current quality of their school, is an ambitious target, particularly as we work to recover lost learning from the pandemic.

We are already starting on that. The Education Endowment Foundation, which gives guidance and support to schools, has a £130 million grant. Importantly, we are supporting 55 education investment areas, including starting interventions in schools with successive “requires improvement” Ofsted ratings. We are also delivering a levelling-up premium—a tax-free additional payment to eligible teachers in priority subjects—which is very much weighted to those education investment areas. We have started already, with over 2 million tutoring courses, particularly for young people who were affected by the lack of education during the pandemic.

From Second Reading, I know that many noble Lords are interested in health inequalities in this country—we heard that again today. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is not here, but her Amendment 15 was nobly spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It puts forward that the missions must include reducing health disparities. I note Amendment 59 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 30, tabled my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who is not here, although it was mentioned by noble Lords. All of these would mean that geographical disparities include health outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, three issues have been raised by this small group: defining geographies—we talked a lot about geographies and spatial disparities— and granularity; independent scrutiny, which is really important; and then funding allocation and how that happens. I am beginning to think that the Government and the Minister may regret the publication of the levelling-up White Paper because it is a fountain of really good information.

On geographies, we need to understand what we mean by “geographies”. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about very small pockets of multiple deprivation, and largely we have been speaking in the previous debates, yesterday and today, about big, regional or county-wide differences across the country. We need to understand at what level—or is it at all levels?—levelling up will take place. The levelling-up White Paper is quite handy in that regard—the Minister is nodding, so that is a good start. It has not taken IMD—the index of multiple deprivation—but it has a great map; I love maps which are mapped out according to datasets of this sort. It is figure 1.13 in the book, if noble Lords want to know. It has mapped, across local authority areas, gross value added, weekly pay, healthy life expectancy and level 3+ equivalent skills in the adult population. It is very revealing.

The map shows where there are all four of those indices in the lowest quartile of the measures. Where are they? According to this map, it is not always where you suspect. One of the areas is north Norfolk— I would never have thought that. Another area is where we would expect: the north-east, shown as a great, dark blob where that is a problem. Then there is the area down the Yorkshire coast and then obviously on the Lancashire coast, where you would expect—and then central Devon. So this is a very important sort of dataset to use. That is on a big scale. However, when my noble friend Lord Shipley introduced this, he talked about being able to go below that level of dataset to understand where the highest levels of multiple indices are occurring on a regular basis and how that can be tackled.

So that is the first point: it is not defined in the Bill, and we need a definition of what we are tackling in terms of geographies. So I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Foster about the granularity and importance of the data, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Scriven on supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hullock—I am so sorry, I always do that; I meant the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on the importance of independent scrutiny.

Finally, on the allocation of levelling-up funding to date, if this is a symptom of how it is going to occur in the future, we may as well abandon levelling up. The House of Commons Library has a report on the funding to date and where it has gone. The Government have put local authority areas into priorities 1, 2 and 3, with 1 being the most needy. I would expect that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the money would go to priority 1. But no: 59%, only just above half the money, has gone so far, in the first two rounds of funding, to priority 1 areas. Some has even gone to priority 3 areas, which, by the Government’s own definition, are doing okay. So what is this about levelling up?

In response to the question about the cost of bids, I know, because I spoke to the chief executive of Leeds City Council, that it spent a third of a million pounds on drawing up bids for level 2 and got not a penny piece in return. When local government across the country, or certainly where I am, is cutting its budgets—£43 million has to be found in my own budget in Kirklees because of rising energy prices, inflation and all the rest of it—local government cannot afford to spend a third of a million pounds on making bids that then get turned down because the Government decide to hand the money to local authorities in priority 3 areas. It is not right, it is not levelling up and it needs to change.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the assessment of levelling up. Amendment 10 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with whom I am more than happy to have a teach-in on data for anybody who would like to come and learn more about the technicalities—please just let me know. The amendment would define criteria that could be used to evaluate levelling-up policies that aim to address geographical disparities.

As I set out in detail to noble Lords in our first day of Committee, the missions contained in the levelling-up White Paper are a product of extensive analysis and engagement. The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at the appropriate level of geography, and these metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. These metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but all are clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities. This has been set out in the White Paper.

I turn to Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. This amendment would require an assessment by the independent evaluating body to be included in any review of statements of levelling-up missions. We have accepted in this Chamber that scrutiny and seeking expert advice will be important in ensuring that we deliver on our missions and level up the country. That is why we have established the Levelling Up Advisory Council to provide government with expert advice to inform the design and delivery of the missions. The council includes voices from different parts of the UK.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, might not have been here for the debate on a previous group but I should say that the advisory council is chaired by Andy Haldane and its membership was published in the White Paper. The council members are not tied to government views and the council is made up of renowned independent experts in their field, such as Sir Tim Besley, professor of economics and political science at the London School of Economics; Cathy Gormley-Heenan, a former deputy vice-chancellor of research and impact at Ulster University; Sacha Romanovitch, the CEO of Fair4All Finance; and Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive at L&G. All are independent experts in their field. We welcome the challenge and expert advice that the council provides and have been clear that we want it to provide us with candid views and challenging recommendations for how the Government are delivering levelling-up policy.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that and for the work she is doing in encouraging the private sector to get involved.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We have had a bit of a discussion about priority areas 1, 2 and 3. I would be grateful if the Minister could write and let us know what criteria the Government use to categorise areas and how, between the first and second round, some moved into category 1. I do not know whether any moved down. It would be useful to have that information.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will be very happy to provide that information.

Capital Projects: Spending Decisions

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

No, we do not expect local authorities to fill the funding gap. There has been an issue—that of inflation—across many of the programmes. There is no additional funding, but we are working with local authorities to ensure that local priorities can still be delivered. Where requests for rescoping are submitted, we are looking to deal with those flexibly, provided that the changes are still likely to represent good value for money. We are also providing £6.5 million of support for local authorities. We will be evaluating, and those evaluations will be made public.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests. The highly respected and independent Institute for Government wrote last month that the levelling-up fund

“is another ineffective competitive funding pot that is neither large enough nor targeted enough to make a dent in regional inequalities.”

Does the Minister agree? If not, what is wrong with that statement?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not agree. I think that a £9.9 billion investment into levelling up shows a Government who are putting their money where their mouth is. They are delivering levelling up across the country and will do so in future. They have already done so with the future high streets fund, the towns fund, the UK shared prosperity fund—which is about to come out—and even small funds such as the community renewal fund. These are all delivering things for people in this country.

Levelling Up Fund

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree with some of my noble friend’s views. If I remember rightly, I answered a similar question yesterday from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and said that the Government are committed to reducing the complexities of local government funding, as set out in the levelling up White Paper.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in response to a question earlier, the Minister said that the assessment was made by excluding those councils that had already received funding. Were those councils told before they spent huge sums of money to make bids that they would be excluded at the first step? Secondly, how many of the Government’s 139 council priority areas have not yet received any money?

Levelling Up: Funding Allocation

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, competitive funding can be a very effective tool for protecting value for taxpayers’ money. Competitions such as the levelling-up fund can also support fair and transparent awards of funds and drive innovation, but I understand my noble friend’s concerns and the Government have committed, within the levelling-up White Paper, to reducing the complexities of local government funding.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister has just said that competitive funding is an effective way of accessing this funding pot. There were 525 bids in this latest round; only 111 were successful; that means 80% were not successful. Each bid is estimated to cost £30,000 to make; that is £12 million of hard-pressed council funding basically wasted on bids. Can the Minister not find a more effective way, such as devolving the money to local authorities, so that this money is not wasted when it is desperately needed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this is capital funding. There were 111 successful bids this time; before, there were 105 successful bids; and there will be a third round. If we added all this money and gave it to local authorities, I do not think there would be enough for the large infrastructure projects—projects that people are very happy to be delivering and projects that local authorities have put forward because they are important to their people. I think this is the way to do it.

Residential Leaseholders

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is an interesting remark that I will take back to officials to discuss further. I will come back to my noble friend.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I want to pursue what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, called rip-off charges, which the Government could take urgent action to address. I shall give the Minister an example. Fire doors are now to be inspected—rightly. Leaseholders are unable to make the arrangements for that inspection but freeholders or their agents do. One leaseholder contacted me to say that they are being charged £80 for their front door to be inspected each time—£320 a year. That is a rip-off service charge. What on earth are the Government going to do to address these rip-off service charges?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot comment on the individual case, but the law is already clear that service charges must be reasonable. That is set out in Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If leaseholders feel they are being ripped off, they can apply in First-tier Tribunals for determination on this. However, I agree that there is more to do. The Government are committed to ensuring that charges, particularly service charges and these extra charges, are transparent. There should be a clear route to challenge or redress if things go wrong.

Housing: Cost of Living

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend brings up a very interesting point. I have looked at that in the past from a local authority point of view. I will certainly take that point back and would like to talk to her more about it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, leaseholders living in blocks that are under 11 metres are also at risk of losing their homes. They were excluded by the Building Safety Act from any grants for remediation for cladding and building safety works. The Minister has received from me a lot of emails from desperate leaseholders looking to the Government for support and help, to ensure that they do not have to fund the developers’ problems that were caused. They are at risk of losing their homes because of the high costs of cladding removal. Can the Minister now tell us what she and the Government intend to do to help these desperate leaseholders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am fully aware of the noble Baroness’s concerns about this issue. I have a large group of documents from her and am working my way through those with officials. I will come back to her to discuss it fully, as soon as I possibly can in the new year.

Domestic Abuse Victims: Housing Benefit

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is bringing up two issues. First, on mould and damp, the Secretary of State has made it very clear to social housing providers that this is not acceptable and he is keeping a very close eye on what they are doing and the outcomes of that. Secondly, regarding very vulnerable people, I urge anybody who needs help and support to go to their local authority. What worries me is that they are looking online for housing, and that is where they are being very badly exploited.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, following the Minister’s response about urging women who are suffering domestic abuse to go their local authorities, perhaps it would help if she looked at last September’s report from the Public Interest Law Centre, which outlined eight ways in which local authorities are not providing the support that they should under the legislation. For example, they are making offers of unsuitable temporary or long-term accommodation, and survivors are being refused support until a threat of legal action is made. Has the Minister seen that report? If not, will she do so and refer it to her department so that they can make some changes in the legislation?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have not seen that report, but I will certainly look at it. Under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, local authorities must commission enough of the right support to meet the needs of all of those victims and their children, and they must monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of that provision. Therefore, if they are not doing that, I will certainly take that back to the department and we will look into it further.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. It is probably best if I go through the speakers in turn. First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Bourne that we have elections in a lot of different ways, across the United Kingdom. There are two points for me. First, the Elections Act 2022 started to make sure that many, at least in England, were more similar. There is nothing we can do about, for example, the Welsh Government and the way they have their elections; that responsibility is devolved to them, apart from for general elections. We can only talk to them, but that is what devolution is all about and we welcome those changes.

As for devolution in this country, the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement mentioned a number of authorities that were looking at different ways of combining so that they could have devolved responsibilities. I will get an updated briefing on that, let my noble friend have it and put a copy in the Library, because things in that area are moving quite fast and I should like him to have that up-to-date information.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hayward; I have noted the Gould principles. We just need to remember that returning officers need plenty of time and notice to make some of these changes to elections: they have to make different order forms and ballot papers, and train staff, if things change. The Gould principles can be flexible, as we have seen, but a certain amount of time is needed and we should be getting this through as soon as possible for May 2023.

Moving on to a number of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance to the Government. We were elected on a manifesto that included a commitment to continue to support the first past the post voting system. The Government believe that that system is a robust and secure way of electing representatives that is well understood by voters and provides for strong and clear local accountability. It also ensures a clear link between elected representatives and constituents in a manner that other voting systems may not.

The Government’s manifesto position in favour of first past the post also reflects that in the 2011 referendum there was a significant vote, as the noble Baroness will remember, in favour of retaining first past the post for parliamentary elections, when the proposal to introduce a transferable vote system—the alternative vote—was rejected by a majority of 67.9% of voters. Voters have had their say. It is simple and understood, and the Government have made it very clear in our manifesto that we support it and will move forward by changing any elections that we can to make those systems simpler.

The noble Baroness also brought up challenging spoiled ballots in other electoral methods. To give your Lordships an example, around 5% of votes cast in the May 2021 election for the Mayor of London, under the existing supplementary vote system, were rejected. The noble Baroness said that it is normally about 1%, but 5% is five times that. The Electoral Commission report of 2015 on the general election found that the percentage of votes rejected in the supplementary vote elections, held on the same day as the general election, was 12 times higher than for the first past the post vote.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Does the Minister have a breakdown of the spoiled ballot papers? As she will know, having been involved in elections for many years, rejected ballot papers are spoiled for a number of reasons. Sometimes voters do it deliberately, writing “None of the above” or words to that effect—sometimes quite strong words—or deliberately voting for every candidate. Those papers are spoiled not because the voter does not understand but because they reject all the candidates who are standing or for other reasons. Lumping it all together like that does not reflect validly what went on. I gave an example from Wakefield district where less than 1% were rejected for valid reasons of obviously not understanding the way the election system worked.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware that there is a target. I will look to see whether there is one and come back to the noble Lord. As we have heard in this debate, the social housing sector is in fact better than any other sector at getting to EPC level C.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Young asked whether we have an energy-efficiency programme and what we are doing about it. We do have an energy-efficiency programme—my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned it: the social housing decarbonisation fund. In the 2019 manifesto the Government committed £3.8 billion to this over a 10-year period. This will upgrade a significant proportion of the stock that at the moment is below EPC level C up to that standard. The latest funding round was launched in September this year, so it is continuing and ongoing. There is £3.8 billion to do just that.

I now turn to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, regarding cladding remediation. Nothing is more important than keeping people safe in their homes. The department continues to work closely with registered providers to facilitate the remediation of unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. However, we are not persuaded that the type of monitoring suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment is necessarily appropriate for the Regulator of Social Housing. The regulator is not a specialist building safety body, nor does it collect data on hazards, safety breaches or associated remedial works. As I believe I said in Committee, the department is examining options relating to the monitoring of fire defects, including unsafe cladding. I know we are always saying this, but we will set out our plans in due course and I will keep the noble Baroness updated on those plans. As I said, I will personally keep an eye on them now that I am in the department.

The noble Baroness also asked what progress had been made on the monitoring of cladding for social homes and about shared equity. The Secretary of State made it clear that no leaseholder living in a building of above 11 metres will ever face any costs for fixing dangerous cladding, and that applies to shared ownership too. The Government will provide grant funding for the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding in buildings that are over 11 metres. We have also introduced a new model for shared ownership which will include a period during which the landlord will provide support for the cost of repairs in new-build homes as well. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question—I know that I am also answering a further question that she asked earlier in the week on a similar issue.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked for some details. I think I will need to write to him because he wanted quite a lot of detail. We recognise that some social landlords face significant building safety costs and that they are having to balance their existing budgets to support this. The Government committed over £400 million to fully fund the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding systems on buildings over 18 metres that are owned by registered providers of social housing. The Government have also committed to meeting the costs of removing other types of unsafe cladding on social sector buildings over 18 metres where the financial viability of a registered provider would otherwise be threatened. We are working on it. My noble friend asked me a lot of other questions and I will make sure that we answer those in writing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has tabled two amendments relating to tenant engagement. I thank her for these because that is what the Bill is all about—tenants. I begin with Amendment 3, which seeks to require a social housing tenant to chair and set the agenda for the advisory panel. As I said in Committee, tenants are at the heart of the Bill. It is vital that we empower tenants and ensure that their voices are heard. I reiterate that the advisory panel is intended to allow a diverse range of individuals to share their knowledge and opinions with the regulator. The views of tenants are absolutely central to this objective.

However, I do not believe that requiring a social housing tenant to chair the advisory panel and set the agenda is necessary to ensure the views of tenants are heard. In line with the White Paper commitments, the panel will listen to, and balance the interests of, the full range of stakeholders, including tenants. We want all members of the advisory panel, along with the regulator, to shape its agenda and how it operates, and decide who is the best person to chair it at any one time; that might mean different chairs for different debates. The panel will provide an essential platform to give tenants a voice, which will be listened to and considered, alongside the opinions of other stakeholders. Tenants will continue to be central to the regulator’s work; it is already enabling tenants to influence the design and implementation of the new regulatory regime through a number of tenant engagement events.

I now move to Amendment 31 from the noble Baroness, which proposes that the Secretary of State introduces tenant satisfaction measures—TSMs—within 30 days of the Bill passing. The regulator has already consulted on and issued a standard for TSMs, which comes into force on 1 April 2023, alongside technical guidance to promote compliance. Tenants will be able to scrutinise the first full set of survey results in 2024 to evaluate the performance of their landlord.

The regulator developed the TSMs regime through a detailed consultation process, gathering over 1,000 responses from stakeholders, including tenants, landlords and trade bodies. Given this detailed process, and the progress that the regulator has already made in implementing TSMs, there is no need for an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to introduce them. In the light of the commitments and points I have made, I hope that noble Lords are reassured and will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone around the House for a good debate on the issues, particularly those of energy efficiency and the affordability of energy for heating homes. I add my thanks to the Minister for being so open about having a discussion and trying to resolve some of the issues that we have raised. She has been very generous with her time, especially when she has had this Bill put in her lap at the last minute, so to speak. I thank her for the support for Amendment 1 in my name.

On Amendment 2, it is still unclear to me why, if one of the fundamental objectives of the regulator is safety, monitoring the remediation of cladding cannot be included—but there we are. I am pursuing this issue elsewhere, as the Minister well knows, and I shall do so.

The key issue is how very disappointing it is that the Government are apparently unable to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We need a strategy that will work, and clearly we do not have one, otherwise one-third of houses in the social housing sector would not still be well below the EPC level C rating. I am fed up with all this bidding for money at the centre; it is very ineffective. We need a proper strategy to get this done, as Kirklees Council did when I was leader, with the Kirklees warm homes scheme.

With those final comments, I beg to move the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the speeches from across the House today are a tribute to the role that real scrutiny of legislation can play. I personally thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, my noble friend Lady Sanderson and the noble Lord, Lord Best, among others, with whom I have had extremely constructive conversations on this critical issue over recent days. I also met Grenfell United and told them what I have to do and why I have to do it.

I will start by answering a couple of questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said that her amendment is permissive not prescriptive. Unfortunately, the existence of a power in legislation for the Government to in effect control hiring and firing decisions would still be deemed a government control by the ONS, even if it is permissive and flexible.

A number of noble Lords asked why we cannot ask the ONS about its decision before we make any further decisions—it is a question that I asked too. The ONS is the independent body statutorily responsible for making classification decisions, which includes determining whether bodies are part of the public sector. The ONS will make a formal assessment only once a new policy or regulation has been implemented; it does not classify the impact of policies still under development, so we cannot go to it until the decision is made.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says, but have the Government actually asked the ONS whether it would be prepared to give an indication of whether the level of reclassification is reached? As others have said, that would really help.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It will not engage, as far as I understand. His Majesty’s Treasury would deal with this and it has advised that we cannot do that, as that is not what the ONS does. The ONS publishes its assessments and its decision cannot be challenged. It will review its decision only in very limited stated circumstances, including when new legislation, policy proposals or machinery of government changes impact the operations of an organisation or, in this case, a sector.

I go back to the point that, in 2015, following further legislation on the social housing sector that had tipped it over, the ONS changed the classification and we had to introduce new legislation again. We do not want to be in that position—that would not be what anybody would want—and the time involved in doing all that would be extensive.

My noble friend Lord Young asked whether the review of professionalisation would feed through to the development of standard. Yes, it will: the review will inform the Secretary of State’s direction to the regulator about the context and objectives for the standard, so it will be used in that way.

My noble friend Lady Sanderson asked whether the Secretary of State could direct the regulator to include qualifications in the standard. Again, directing the regulator to require qualifications would also risk reclassification. However, in setting standards for the competence of their staff, landlords would have to provide assurance that their staff had the requisite capabilities, and I suggest that ensuring that their staff have appropriate qualifications would be a key way of achieving that aim.

Housing: Leasehold Properties

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 17th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for the work that he did on that group. The Government are making sure that tenants and homeowners are protected from abuse and poor service; it is happening—we know that. This includes raising professionalisation and standards among property agents, protecting consumers and defending the reputation of good agents. There are many good agents out there and they have to be protected from the actions of rogue operatives. The Government welcome what the industry itself is doing; it has set up a code of practice for property agents. We will work continually, keeping our eye on the working group on the regulation of property agents, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, but also working with the industry to ensure that it continually improves best practice.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I wish that the Minister, who I welcome to her position, would recognise the urgency of leasehold reform. I have had a letter from leaseholders in a single block who have themselves had letters from their freeholders listing their liabilities as a consequence of the building safety scandal. The liabilities are an astronomical, unbelievable £3.4 million—for a single block. The developer responsible may pay some of those costs but certainly not all of them. The leasehold model is broken and urgent action is needed to reform it—abolishing it would be a preferable way forward. I recognise that the Minister wants to make a difference but please can she help these leaseholders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I obviously cannot comment on a particular instance. I would like to have more information; if the noble Baroness would like to write to me, we will meet and I will look into it. That is not what should be happening. Leaseholders should not be paying; it should be others who are paying. We made that very clear in the Building Safety Act.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for tabling these amendments, which all relate to the implementation and review of the Bill. Before I start, I will respond to the issue raised about social housing rents by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as it does not really fit in to this debate. I would just say that we are consulting on setting a ceiling on rent increases in 2023-24. The consultation sets out several options for the ceiling; responses will be considered once the consultation closes, which we expect to be in a short time rather than a long time.

I will begin with Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of social housing supply, but also that it is not just about any houses; it is now very much about specific housing—housing for older people and families as well as for disabled people and vulnerable people. The Government are committed to increasing the amount of social housing but also to looking at the prioritisation of specific housing for specific groups.

Housing will be provided through our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme and I think it entirely appropriate that the regulator should have an objective to support the provision of social housing. However, I do not accept the noble Baroness’s request that it should be the regulator’s role to assess the need to increase the provision of social housing or to make recommendations as to how that might be achieved. There are many other organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Housing, Savills and Shelter, which publish reports on these important issues at regular intervals.

I am concerned that asking the regulator to fulfil this role would not only be unnecessary but divert resources and attention from its important responsibilities, such as registering providers, setting standards in social housing, assessing risks across the sector, conducting financial checks of providers and carrying out enforcement action where needed. Instead, I believe that the regulator should continue to support the provision of social housing through its work to ensure that private registered providers are financially viable, efficient and well-governed. This in turn helps to ensure that the private registered providers can obtain funding to enable them to deliver more social housing.

Amendment 12, in the name of Lord Foster of Bath—who has already given part of my response—concerns the electrical safety consultation. As the House has already heard, we fulfilled our commitment to consult on electrical safety in social housing and the consultation closed only last week. In my opinion, it would not be right to pre-empt its outcome before carefully reviewing the responses we received. However, the Committee may note that the Electrical Safety Working Group, which included representation from across the social sector, was supportive of mandatory electrical safety checks, and I would not be surprised if the outcome of the consultation chimed with those views. However, it is only fair and reasonable that we do not pre-empt the final consultation.

Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, relates to directions issued by the Secretary of State to the Regulator of Social Housing. The amendment would require the direction relating to information and transparency to be laid before both Houses. There is already an established process for issuing directions to the regulator, set out in Section 197 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The process requires that any direction be published in draft and subject to consultation ahead of being formally issued. This provides an opportunity for stakeholders, including parliamentarians in both Houses, as well as members of the public, to have a say on the drafted direction before it comes into force. In our opinion, this already provides sufficient opportunity for scrutiny of the information and transparency directions before they come into effect.

Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to timetables for performance monitoring of registered providers. Clause 21 of the Bill enables the regulator to deliver tenant satisfaction measures, including setting dates for the publication of such data and the period it covers. As the body granted legal powers through Clause 21, it is right that the regulator, not the Secretary of State, decide matters relating to timing of performance information. The regulator has already consulted on these matters and will respond in due course.

Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, concerns scrutiny of the impact of the Bill. The Government recognise the importance of appropriately reviewing the impact of legislation. We will work with the regulator, and the Housing Ombudsman where appropriate, to conduct a full review at the end of one regulatory cycle to determine the impact of the measures introduced. This will be after four years of the new regulatory regime being in place. We committed to that in our regulatory impact assessment, and I am happy to commit to it again today.

The commitment to a review after a four-year cycle is important for two reasons. First, following the passage of this legislation, a number of steps will need to take place before the proactive consumer regime is implemented in full. These include the Secretary of State issuing directions to the regulator and the regulator subsequently consulting on the revised consumer standards. A review after one year would not allow sufficient time for those changes to take effect. Secondly, it is right that we wait for a four-year regulatory cycle, at which point the measures will have had time to take effect and have had full impact on the sector.

Amendments 53 and 65 have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The former would mean that the entirety of the Act came into force on the day it was passed, and the latter would require an assessment of the impact of this legislation’s timing. The noble Baroness asked me one very important question: why has the Bill taken so long to be introduced? We spent time listening to residents, hearing first hand about their experiences and how they wanted to see change. Over 8,000 residents contributed to these discussions. We published our social housing White Paper in November 2020. This is a complex process and programme, and we want to make sure we get it right, so it will take time for us to fully implement it.

The legislation will have a significant impact on the lives of social housing tenants across the country, and the measures will be implemented at the earliest appropriate opportunity. The majority of the provisions in this Bill will come into force on such a day or days as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations. The timing of commencement is directly linked to the overall implementation of the strengthened consumer regulation regime, and we need to allow time for the sector to prepare.

The Regulator of Social Housing has already begun its work to develop this new regime. It plans to commence its statutory consultation on the regulatory standards following Royal Assent and the issuance of directions from the Government, with a view to full implementation in 2024. However, the message to registered providers is clear: do not wait for regulation to make changes—act now. I hope that noble lords are satisfied with the responses I have given to the amendments, and I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I note that my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath is probably the only person this afternoon who is receiving a positive “thumbs-up” response, to his determined campaign for electrical safety. That is one win for my noble friend, and some “maybes” for the rest of us.

I have listened carefully to the answers the Minister gave to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I will check because some of them sounded acceptable, but I am not sure about leaving the regulator to determine the timing of the impact. I will read Hansard to see whether those issues should be pursued further.

That brings me to Amendment 5, on the sufficiency of housing, which is fundamental to any debate on social housing provision. I am sorry to say that I had a bit of difficulty with the response. It is all very well saying that other organisations provide statistics and scrutinise social housing provision numbers, quality, decency and so on, but we need in our legislation a regulator or the ombudsman to be able to state the facts and comment to the Government—and to have the stature to do so.

I will read what the Minister said carefully, but the essence of the argument seems to be, “There are other people who do it, so why should the Government?” The regulator should be concerned with housing numbers because it is required to think about and has a responsibility for the safety, provision and quality of social housing. Adding “sufficiency” to its list of responsibilities would be a positive move. However, I accept the Minister’s supportive words on not only the number of houses but their suitability. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leasehold Reform

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I totally understand the issue that my noble friend raises. As I have said to the noble Lord opposite, I will do my best to ensure that all the issues that noble Lords bring up today are communicated to the department and to the new Ministers. My noble friend understands that I cannot give the commitment that he requires but, again, I assure him that the Government are still very strongly committed to taking forward a comprehensive long-term programme of reform in the house ownership sector. However, as I have said before, it is complex and we need to get the detail right.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, here is something that maybe the Minister could address. Ground rents are not controlled for the vast majority of leaseholders, and there is obviously no service for that, just a payment that they have to make. Leaseholders are telling me that often that is linked to RPI, which is obviously going through the roof, resulting in very high additional charges for the leaseholders affected. It is profiteering that is inexcusable in the circumstances. Will the Minister use whatever influence and pressure that she and the Government can to put on to freeholders to stop these extortionate rises in RPI-linked ground rents?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will use every opportunity I can to do that, and the Government are looking at capping rents across the social sector. I will also bring up the issue of ground rents while they are looking at those issues. I think that is an important point we can take back from the noble Baroness.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by going back to where the Bill came from, the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The point of the Bill is to ensure the safety of residents, particularly, in this case, in high-risk buildings, and the building safety manager is the day-to-day eyes and ears. I do not know whether people realise, but I did two or three years’ work after the tragedy in Kensington and Chelsea. Before I did that, I spent a lot of time in high-rise buildings, not in London but elsewhere in the country, and it was quite interesting, on a day-to-day basis, when I went round with fire brigades and dealt with issues such as safety doors. People took them off and put B&Q doors on. Those things cannot be done every five years, or every year; they need somebody going in and out of that building, checking up.

There will be stairwells with stuff stuck in them that is stopping people going up and down. There will be holes between the sealed containment of flat against flat. All those sorts of things need somebody who is not at arm’s-length but is working day to day. Yes, they will need new competences, but those competences are out there, I would argue, within the community already, and we will have to work on those competences. As for cost, obviously, that depends on the building. Some of these managers will be able to do multiple buildings if it is felt, by their accountable person, that they will be able to do a good job on that. One building is not the same size or requires the same amount of work as another building.

I shall now go through the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The crux of Clause 80 is the duty to appoint a building safety manager. The creation of the building safety manager role was recommended made by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review to ensure, I say again, that the day-to-day management of buildings is undertaken by suitably competent people. That is what she said and that is what we are delivering in the Bill. Clause 80 establishes the role and creates a duty for principal accountable persons to appoint a building safety manager and provide them with support and assistance to manage building safety risks, except where they have the capability to meet the duties without needing such support. So there will be times when principal accountable persons have the time and the competences to do it without appointing somebody else. The skills, knowledge and experience offered by building safety managers will help drive up safety standards and, we believe, deliver positive outcomes for residents.

While the building safety manager will hold responsibility for certain tasks, to be agreed in their contract, accountability for meeting the duties set out by the Bill cannot be transferred by accountable persons to the building safety manager or anybody else. I think that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about who is ultimately responsible. Whether the building safety manager is an organisation or an individual, they must possess the necessary competence to deliver the role. If an organisation is appointed, it must have a nominated individual named and in place to oversee delivery, providing reassurance to residents that their safety is being maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up the competence issue. Work is ongoing with the British Standards Institute to establish a competency framework for the role, which will be supported by further guidance.

Moving on, Clause 81 deals with the appointment of the building safety manager where there is more than one accountable person for the building. Despite the often complex ownership structures of many high-rise residential buildings, we are committed to delivering a system that ensures a whole-building approach. This was a central tenet of the findings and recommendations of the independent review.

Where there are multiple accountable persons, the principal accountable person will be responsible for appointing the building safety manager. The building safety manager should play a key role in delivering a whole-building approach, drawing on the duty placed on all accountable persons to co-ordinate and co-operate with each other.

Before the appointment is made, the principal accountable person must consult on the proposed terms and costs with their fellow accountable persons. We expect agreements to be reached so that the scope of the building safety manager’s functions and the method of delivery of the whole-building approach are agreed by all. If an agreement cannot be reached, we are providing a process for resolution through applications to the First-tier Tribunal. This approach protects the rights of accountable persons and holds them to account for ensuring residents’ safety.

Clause 82 ensures that building safety managers hold their position through the contractual arrangements agreed with the principal accountable person. If either party wishes to end the contract, they may do so by giving notice to the other party in writing. When the contract ends, a new building safety manager must be appointed by the principal accountable person as soon as is reasonably possible. If a building is not being managed appropriately and is placed into special measures, which is the last resort for taking control of buildings with significant failings, the building safety manager’s contract will end.

I mentioned earlier that there is an exception to the principal accountable person’s duty to appoint a building safety manager. Dame Judith’s review was right to point out that many building owners already operate and successfully manage their buildings through competent in-house teams. Where the principal accountable person’s existing management arrangements deliver safe outcomes for residents and this can be demonstrated to the building safety regulator, their mode of delivery will not need to change. The competency requirements for qualifying for this exception are of course the same as those expected of any other building safety manager.

This approach is likely to be favoured by organisations such as housing associations or local authorities, which potentially have many buildings that fall under the scope of the new regime. Residents of these buildings will rightly expect to be able to identify individuals who play an important role in maintaining their safety, and the clause requires the identification of the individual responsible for overseeing delivery. This person will not be expected to carry out every task alone, but they will be required to provide oversight such that a holistic and systemic approach to managing safety is achieved.

The exception to the duty to appoint a building safety manager also applies where there are two or more accountable persons for the building. The competency requirements remain consistent. As in the case where they would appoint a building safety manager, the principal accountable person must, as I said, consult their fellow accountable persons and seek to reach agreement on the proposed arrangements. We expect the consultation process to follow the same route as already explained for appointing a building safety manager where there are two or more accountable persons.

Safety has to be our main priority and the building safety manager plays an important role in delivering this. The Government will reflect further on all the points raised today. However, at this point we maintain that Clauses 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for responding. I wonder whether she could explain something. I am still confused about what appear to be the conflicting roles of the accountable person and the building safety manager. I am looking at page 106 of the Explanatory Notes, where the accountable person is defined. It states:

“The Independent Review”—


the Hackitt report—

“identified that there should be a clear dutyholder during occupation who will have statutory obligations”—

this is the definition of “accountable person”—

“to maintain the fire and structural safety of the building.”

So we already have somebody who is being appointed to have those responsibilities. That is why I cannot see why there has to be a further role to undertake those duties. The duties are very important, but why should there be two people?

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, what I am saying is that a higher-risk building, or any building which has certain issues, will need a qualified fire risk assessment. What I am also saying is that those people cannot subcontract or have anybody working with them who is not competent as well. In the case of Kensington and Chelsea, and Grenfell, they would no longer be able to have somebody who is not competent and does not have the relevant qualifications to do that fire risk assessment. I have seen with my own eyes where that has been done in the past. Does that make sense? I shall make sure that the noble Lord gets it in writing, so that he is clear, and I shall put it in the Library.

That amendment will also include a definition of the competence that is required—which I think also answers the noble Lord—and we will issue guidance to support responsible persons in identifying a competent fire risk assessor. Significant work has been done by the industry-led Competence Steering Group, the working group for fire risk assessors. Industry continues to lead and develop the work in relation to competence for the sector and has developed a centralised list of professionals where a responsible person can identify a competent fire risk assessor to assist them in undertaking a risk assessment. There is also further work taking place by the sector to develop a fire risk assessor industry competence standard. Again, I think that is very important.

I move on to Amendment 119A. We have had a lot of interest shown in the training and qualification of fire risk assessors. The fire safety order requires that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions they need to take. A responsible person can undertake that assessment themselves using guidance to help them do so if they have the requisite level of competence, and this is generally what happens in relation to buildings that are simple by design. When buildings are more complex—and I think that here we are probably getting to a better answer to the noble Lord’s question—responsible persons will often choose to appoint a fire risk assessor to undertake the assessment on their behalf. Fire risk assessors come from a range of professional backgrounds, and it is quite often the case that they themselves need to seek input from other professionals with specialist knowledge when undertaking a fire risk assessment on more complex buildings.

When a responsible person does appoint a fire risk assessor to complete the fire risk assessment, it is of course vital that they ensure that person has an appropriate level of competence. That is why we are introducing a requirement, through Clause 129 in the Bill, to the effect that the responsible person must not appoint a person to assist them in making or reviewing a fire risk assessment unless that person is competent. Clause 129 also includes a definition of the competence that is required, and we will issue guidance to support responsible persons in identifying competent fire risk assessors. We are also working closely with the professional bodies in the fire safety sector to consider capacity and capability issues in relation to fire risk assessors, and work is already being taken forward through the industry-led Competence Steering Group fire risk assessor sub-committee to develop a fire risk assessor competency standard.

I am clear that the initiatives I have set out represent the most effective approach to further professionalising the fire risk assessor sector at this time, and it is right that this work continues to be led by industry. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for raising these important issues, but I must ask them at this point not to press their amendments.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her final amendment in this group, Amendment 136. I am happy to reassure her that the Government believe that this amendment duplicates many of the existing provisions in the Bill. Clause 10 requires the building safety regulator to establish the industry competence committee and provide support as necessary. The committee’s activities could include overseeing and monitoring the industry’s development of competence frameworks and training, undertaking analysis to understand areas that need improvement and working with industry to drive gap-filling. We expect the committee to provide reports of its work to the regulator periodically.

As a precursor to the statutory committee, the Health and Safety Executive has already established an interim industry competence committee, which is developing its strategy and work plan for supporting the industry’s work, including looking to understand its current competence landscape. It is for the industry to lead the work to improve competence, identify skills and capacity gaps and provide appropriate training to upskill its members for the new regime, and it has already started this work. Training and certification of competent professionals is not a function of government or the regulator under the Bill. We and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to monitor the industry’s progress and provide support where necessary.

Clause 135 legislates for the appointment of an independent person to carry out a periodic review of the system of regulation for building safety and standards and the system of regulation for construction products. The review will act to ensure the functioning of the systems and provide recommendations for improvement. The review must consider the building safety regulator and the system of regulation established by Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill and the Building Act 1984. However, the independent reviewer is not limited and may review connected matters at any time. An independent reviewer must be appointed at least once every five years, although the Secretary of State can appoint a reviewer more regularly if necessary. By ensuring that the report must be published, the Government have created a system of public accountability in building safety.

When defining “independent”, we have struck a balance that excludes those with a clear conflict of interest without overreaching and excluding everyone with relevant experience. This clause will help to protect the integrity of the system and ensure that it continues to create a safe built environment in future. Further reporting requirements risk duplication, complexity and additional bureaucracy, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Once again, in conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this interesting debate. I hope I have given the reassurances that will allow them happily not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her very full response to the issues raised, particularly on Amendment 136 about workforce reporting. She has obviously had some support in going through all the clauses in the Bill to work out where the reviews and so on will take place. She spoke about competencies being reviewed regularly, and I will look again and read carefully what she said when it is reported in Hansard to see how that works. But on the face of it, it appears that this is covered in the Bill.

That brings me to the other issues that I raised. The first was about the building safety regulator overseeing the new roles of building control inspector and approved inspector. I understand that, but when I read the clauses, no details were given about what competencies and qualifications were required for those new roles. If we are determined to improve building safety, which we all are, some definition of what is expected of each inspector role should be in the Bill—not the detail; I totally accept that one would expect the building safety regulator to define those in detail. However, there should certainly be some indication of that, and it is not there. Hence, the amendments that I have tabled. Again, it may be that discussion with the Minister before the next stage could be of help in that regard.

I turn to the fire risk assessors. I remember the wonderful Fire Safety Bill. The issue of fire risk assessors came up at that stage and my noble friend Lord Stunell had amendments about them. He talked about a register, a lack of capacity, ill-defined qualifications and competencies, and we have not moved forward. That is the problem. We must move more quickly. The point is well made and I know that the noble Baroness has tried to explain and will put something in writing. We will look at it, but I must say that assessors and fire risk assessment is critical, particularly to some of these high-risk buildings.

Lastly, there is the issue of accountability, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is one of my themes that I come back to all the time. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? Who overlooks all this to make sure that people are accountable? Unless we do that, we get into the mess that we are in now, where so diverse is the golden thread of accountability that nobody understands who is going to take control. I am not sure that I totally accept the noble Baroness’s views on this part of the Bill, but I certainly do on the next part in terms of overseeing safety within already-constructed buildings. There is a good point to be made about it being so diverse and unclear who will be responsible for what that nobody will be responsible for anything and we will be in the same mess that we are now.

I thank the Minister again for a detailed response, which has been helpful. I shall read it carefully as we cannot take in all the detail—well I cannot, anyway. Perhaps in discussion with the Minister, we may make some progress before Report. With those comments, I shall withdraw or not move the amendments in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 4th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock]

When I spoke at Second Reading, I made a plea for the Government to consider shifting money to early intervention and prevention so that we would not have to address issues of looked-after children and care leavers. The idea would be to put effort and funding into family support at an early stage so that children can remain safely with their families and not have to enter the care system. That would be the best outcome for the child and for the state, which is funding children in care. The thrust of my argument is that this is all focused on looked-after children and care leavers. I urge the Government to put the focus on family intervention and prevention of family issues that lead to children going into the care system. The difficulty with that is that we know across the country that children’s centres, which are the focus for early intervention and prevention, are closing. Only at the end of last week, Hampshire County Council made a decision to close all but 11 of its 53 children’s centres. That is the thrust of my argument. I would much rather that we did not have to debate support for care leavers because we had prevented all those children going into care.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister not to make this provision too prescriptive. Good local authorities like flexibility and support. What is important here is the outcome for young people. Yes, I understand about early intervention and prevention work, which is very important, but the reality is that we will still have children in our care, for many reasons. The importance of the Bill is that it gives local authorities the flexibility to give that support in the way that is right for that young person. The noble Earl was quite right in saying that some young people get to the age of 16 and the last person on earth that they want to speak to again is their PA or social worker. We need the flexibility to use family friends or members to whom they may be close and to give them support to support that young people. They may be volunteers or mentors, but we need that flexibility to look at different ways of doing it.

As for money, it is important that every local authority makes every member of that local authority understand the importance of being a corporate parent. In Wiltshire, where I am the leader, every single member of that council has to sign up to agree that they are a corporate parent and have a day’s induction to understand what that really means. When it comes to budgets and prioritising budgets, the whole council then really understands the importance of that position. It is important to have flexibility and not be too prescriptive—and that we can look at each young person as an individual, as we would our own children, and give them the support that they need into the future.