Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these three amendments, which enable planning appeals to be heard virtually, where the choice is being made by an appointed inspector. I wholly support the opportunity for virtual hearings. Currently, as the Minister explained, there are two options for appeal hearings: one is by written procedure and the other is by a full public hearing. It is usually the choice of the appellant which procedure they use. So someone appealing against, say, a planning refusal can ask for it to be heard in a public setting. I would like reassurance that that will still be the case.

Some members of the public find it easier to join virtually, and that is a really positive move. I accept the argument the Minister has made that it opens it up for more people to take part. Equally, though, there are always some who find that difficult, especially if they live in more remote areas where access to good-quality broadband is not possible. I am thinking of colleagues I have who live in North Yorkshire; when I have Zoom calls with them, it is hit and miss. I would just like reassurance that those people would be able to engage if they wanted to.

Now I have a question about the future. Some planning appeals are so important that, in my view, they are better heard in a public session. If there is a wide interest in the locality, a public hearing in person gives more reassurance to a local community than one that is held virtually or by the written procedure. The reason I argue this is that if you are in a room full of people, you feel the mood and sense what is going on much better than you do in a similar virtual hearing.

I support what has been said, with those provisos. Lastly, local plans have, obviously, planning inspector involvement. Is it anticipated that these too could be heard virtually, or will that still be largely in person?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership as set out in the register. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has said; I would perhaps go a little further in some areas.

My understanding of Clause 123—and, therefore, my reason to seek its removal—is that, through its inclusion in the Bill, it seeks to give authority to any Government to amend primary legislation that underpins planning and compulsory purchase legislation through the means of secondary legislation. Such changes might have a profound impact on the way planning is delivered. It is not appropriate that this legislation gives such a wide remit to the Government to change primary legislation for an objective that is yet to be determined without the full scrutiny of Parliament through debates in both Houses.

In other words, Clause 123, which gives the Government the ability to consolidate and amend compulsory purchase legislation, should be deleted from the Bill as it gives the Government too wide a remit to encroach on property rights without a clear objective. It could lead to changes in compulsory purchase legislation that tip the balance further towards the developer and away from protecting the home owner’s and landowner’s rights. The ability to amend more than 25 key pieces of primary legislation, described as “relevant enactments” in Clause 123(2), in any way that any Government see fit—potentially with limited consultation or scrutiny—must raise very serious concerns.

Additionally, it is premature to propose amending compulsory purchase legislation before, as I understand it, the Government have received the outcome of the Law Commission’s review into compulsory purchase reform. There is also the matter of the lack of a government response to the consultation on compulsory purchase compensation, which is still awaited despite the Government including some of these controversial measures in this Bill. The department is clearly in breach of the consultation principles, which state that it should:

“Publish responses within 12 weeks of the consultation or provide an explanation why this is not possible. Where consultation concerns a statutory instrument publish responses before or at the same time as the instrument is laid, except in very exceptional circumstances (and even then publish responses as soon as possible). Allow appropriate time between closing the consultation and implementing policy or legislation”;


that last point is relevant in this particular case. Planning legislation is the foundation of so much, particularly in the rural economy. There is a real risk that growth of the rural economy and housing delivery could be held back by amendments that have gone through without proper scrutiny.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and reasons.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, regarding Clause 123, we believe that this provision was added to the Bill subsequent to consideration in the other place, so it has perhaps not had the same scrutiny as other parts of the Bill.

Amendment 285AA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to have the status of combined mayoral authority with planning powers added to the list of exemptions. A distinction was drawn previously in your Lordships’ House between the devolution powers conferred on mayors and the legislative powers devolved to Administrations, but what meetings and discussions have been held with devolved Administrations in this respect?

I express our concern, alongside that of the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington, about the implications of this clause in any case. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, argues that the clause should not be part of the Bill at all. I can understand this view as in this part of the Bill, as in others, there are very significant powers being taken by the Secretary of State to amend these long lists of 25 pieces of primary legislation, with limited scrutiny or consultation and without reversion to either House. That would give us great cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can respond to this, but we support the clause stand part notice.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington, and hope and believe that I can fully reassure them both. I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a second, but will begin by addressing Amendment 285AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

This amendment would restrict the nature of amendments that can be made under the power contained in Clause 123 so that the Secretary of State could not use it in relation to matters within a devolved competence or where a mayor has planning powers. Noble Lords will be aware that under Clause 123(6) any changes made by regulations under this section do not come into effect except where Parliament enacts a relevant consolidation Act and that Act comes into effect. In practice, these regulations will smooth the transition of the law from its current unconsolidated state to its future consolidated state. To do this, they have legal effect for only a moment, immediately before the relevant consolidation Act comes into effect.

Noble Lords will know that consolidation is a highly technical exercise restricted to the clarification and restatement of the existing law. This power is likewise restricted. It cannot be used to change the terms of devolution, nor to interfere in policy matters which are devolved. The power to make incidental provision in relation to a devolved competence is included here to reflect that much of planning and compulsory purchase law pre-dates devolution. Without this power allowing the Secretary of State to disentangle the law in England, we would be unable to ensure that in substance the legal position within devolved competence would be unchanged when the law applying in England was disentangled. In relation to the second—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for giving way. The provision in Clause 123(4) says:

“For the purposes of this section, ‘amend’ includes repeal and revoke”.


That sounds like a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut if it is a matter of consolidation.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Consolidation in this area of the law is immensely complex. Frankly, we do not know the full extent of the relevant planning provisions that must be considered in any common consolidation exercise because the exercise has not been commenced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am sorry to hear that. The point I was seeking to make is that the general public need to trust the law and know what the law is, as does anyone dealing with the planning system. That is why the Government’s ambition is to put in train a consolidation exercise, which may take a considerable time. I have been quite frank with the Committee that there are not only 50 Acts that we know about which deal with planning and compulsory purchase, but—as my notes say—innumerable other Acts which cross-reference those 50 Acts. It will require a major legal exercise to bring all the threads together.

I cannot commit to a timescale for consolidation from the Dispatch Box today. There is a large amount of work to do before we can get to that stage and that will naturally have to be balanced against the wider legislative programme. It is for that reason that we are asking for this power to prepare the way—I think that is the best way of putting it—to make the ultimate consolidation a more achievable exercise.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry to keep pursuing this point but it is really very important indeed. Any of us who has worked on this Bill knows the difficulty of how many crossovers there are with other Bills. On the previous group of amendments, from my perspective and I am sure from those of colleagues on these Benches, we ended up referencing back through various Bills to get to the point that the amendments referred to. That does not make life easy, and I am sure it makes it very opaque for professionals and the public trying to deal with the system. That simply underlines yet again, as we have done many times through this process, that a planning Bill might have been a better option to get to the rationalisation of the planning system, but we are where we are with that.

We remain concerned about just how this exercise will be done. Will a whole series of statutory instruments come through? Will it just be for the Secretary of State to make the decisions and then change the legislation—I am not entirely sure how that works in process terms—or will we have a whole other Bill that will be the “consolidation of planning Bill 2025” or something? I am interested as to what the process will be for this, because we have 25 Acts here at least—there are probably more than that, in truth—that need amending.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

As I said, the exercise is an enormous one. It requires legal brains to get their heads around the statutes before we can even think about putting a consolidation Bill together. I am afraid I cannot be precise in answer to the noble Baroness but I will see whether I can clarify and distil what I have tried to say—obviously not very adequately—by writing to her. I will of course copy my letter to the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Carrington. In doing so, I hope I can provide complete reassurance about the intent behind these regulation-making powers.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I believe it is in one local authority, but I will check that. I will let the noble Lord know and make sure that everybody else in the Committee is aware.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for yet another thorough and thoughtful answer in response to the amendments.

When I moved my amendment last week, I said that I was pleased to see that the government amendment seemed to be complementary to my amendment, and therefore it was good to hear that some new steps are coming forward as regards placing some more requirements on developers in this respect. The Minister outlined some of those, such as publishing data on developers and diversity, the proposal on slow delivery and how it results in turn-downs, and financial penalties that we would be able to impose from local government, and so on. However, it would be good to see the details of those and how they are going to be incorporated. I assume they may go into the National Planning Policy Framework, but again, to echo the point we made several times, so far we have not seen that.

I remind noble Lords that the Local Government Association has said that it did not believe that “tangible powers” had been brought forward in the Bill to enable councillors to encourage developers to build out. I hear what the Minister said about secondary applications from those builders, but local authorities need powers to deal with current applications, where the buildout is slow too, so I hope some more thought might be given to that. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the fact that builders may operate across different areas, which is a good point. However, if we take action on developers in the first instance, perhaps they will be encouraged not to go and apply elsewhere if they think that there will be action and that financial penalties will be imposed where they are too slow to build out.

I reiterate our strong support for Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. On the issue of diversification in larger developments, I take the Minister’s point that that might also apply to other developments in terms of making sure they include all types of accommodation. We have had long debates in your Lordships’ House around supported accommodation, but it can also apply to student accommodation—I have a particular passion for social housing. That is important. I also wanted to make the point that those types of accommodation being requirements, whether it is through the local planning authority or as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, would also help encourage the development of specialist builders and help us to get a wider picture across the country with specialist builders who have great experience in developing for those particular areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the viability issue, which I am sure has and will be the subject of discussions. On the Islington example she gave, those questions have arisen across the country. It is important we continue to debate that as part of the Bill, because I believe it is an opportunity to try to crack some of these issues around viability that we have been trying to wrestle with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave examples of the huge failure to build out, which means that 2.8 million permissions have been granted since 2011 but only 1.6 million homes have been built. We desperately need those homes, so we need to do whatever we can to push that forward and end the delays in the system—from land banking but also from other issues.

I come back to the issue of diversification of property. If we are not going to have a proper diversification strategy built in, we need a proper definition of affordable housing, because the current definition just does not work; that has been a theme throughout discussion of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the affordable housing definition does not work for lots of people in our communities, as we have discussed many times in this House. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 261 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in giving general support to the thrust of the amendments, not only on the grounds advanced by other noble Lords but because they would mitigate something I regard as a positive evil. It has become possible in recent years for major developers proposing major projects to offer to local planning authorities to fund the salary of a planning officer to help deal with their case. When I had responsibility in a London borough for planning policy, I resisted accepting that sort of offer, but perhaps we could afford to do so.

This strikes to some extent at the heart of public confidence in the planning system, which is always a little fragile. Noble Lords who have been involved in it will know that there are always people who suspect that there has been a fix and that something corrupt is going on, but that is not the case in my experience. However, to allow a developer to fund a planning officer only exaggerates that perception and damages public confidence in the planning system. The way out of this, not least in the context of devolution, must be to allow the charges to cover the costs. It also seems appropriate if we want to empower elected officials in local authorities. It is open to the possibility of abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, and a local authority could seek to deter applications by setting punitively high fees, but my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment broadly addresses that possibility. It might need a little refinement, but the principle is none the less clear and acceptable. I encourage support for this amendment because we are not taking sufficient notice of the evil I mentioned, which harms the planning system.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was music to my ears; Amendment 287 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is very similar. I have never understood why the public purse—the hard-pressed local government public purse at that—has to subsidise the development industry even for the very largest and most profitable developments. We have long spoken about a “polluter pays” principle in discussions on the environment; perhaps it is time we had a “profiter pays” principle in planning.

This issue has long been debated in local government. It is the subject of general incredulity that, at this time of financial crisis for local government, it is still allowed to continue. The Local Government Association has lobbied consistently on this point, stating in its recent response:

“We welcome the proposal to increase planning application fees, as it has for a long time been our position that there is a need for a well-resourced planning system. However, the Government should go further by allowing councils to set planning fees locally.”


I do not think it is a surprise to any noble Lords that local authority planning departments are at full stretch already. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to how they will respond to the 47 clauses in this Bill, never mind the issue of street votes—they will have plenty of work to do, that is for sure. It is an area of specialism where there are considerable shortages of professionals. In spite of a great deal of work being done to encourage young people to consider planning as a career and increase the number of routes into the profession, there remain difficulties in recruitment and retention. This is even worse in areas surrounding London, where it is almost impossible for local authorities to compete with the packages offered to planning officers in London.

This is exacerbated by the pressure of work; I know that many noble Lords in the Chamber will have sat through contentious planning application hearings, and I do not think any of us would be surprised to learn that our officers subject themselves to considerable stress. Therefore, it is only right that the industry makes a fair contribution to the cost of processing applications where it will reap substantial developer profit. This will enable local authorities to ensure that their planning teams are resourced adequately.

We also strongly support Amendment 283 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, and so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She is absolutely right that statutory consultees, often hard-pressed themselves, should be able to recover the costs from applicants. I understand that of the £50 million bill for this, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, 60% was incurred by Natural England and the Environment Agency as the two statutory consultees dealing with the greatest number of planning consultations. It was as far back as 2018 that the top five statutory consultees came together to form a working group to identify potential alternative funding mechanisms to address the increasingly critical and unsustainable position. They made recommendations to DLUHC in March 2019. This work highlighted the need for a change in primary legislation to provide a broad enabling power under which statutory planning consultees could pass on the costs incurred in providing statutory advice to applicants, either as part of the existing planning fees or as an additional separate charge.

We welcome the inclusion of a power in the LURB to enable statutory consultees to recover costs incurred in providing advice on nationally significant infrastructure projects. That alone, though, makes only a modest contribution to addressing the challenge of establishing the sustainable funding model. I believe for Natural England, approximately 70% of the statutory consultation work will continue to be reliant on grant in aid. Will the Government introduce a power that will help us? If not, the Government are, in effect, committing to rely on the Exchequer as the primary means of funding the essential role that statutory consultees play in support of the operation of the planning system.

There is also the danger that we will create an inconsistent funding model between NSIP cases and non-NSIP cases that are of a comparable size or impact, such as large-scale housing developments. That could result in the need to prioritise resources for NSIP work over non-NSIP work, create inconsistency in service levels and potentially disadvantage large housing developments, which would be the exact opposite direction to the way we want to go. I hope that the strength of my noble friend Lady Young’s amendment will be taken into account.

Consideration should also be given to other statutory agencies. We have seen similar pressures on colleagues in the National Health Service, for example, where they have to comment on planning applications. There is also pressure on the resources of county councils to respond to matters relating to highways, flood risk, education and adult and children’s care provision—to name just a few—which is required on almost every major application and some smaller applications. It is simply not right that those costs should fall on public agencies whose funding is limited. If they were adequately recompensed, their ability to respond to applications in a timely manner might be improved.

Government Amendment 285C is similar to that proposed by my noble friend Lady Young—I hope we can at least agree on that—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, this may not refer to charging for local authorities. We would want to see both local authorities and statutory consultees able to charge something like the recovery of the costs they incur in relation to the planning system.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 267 and 287 have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, respectively. I assure your Lordships that the Government understand the concerns about stretched resources in local planning authorities. However, we do not believe that enabling local planning authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues, and it does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies. Local authorities having different fees creates uncertainty and unfairness for applicants and, if set too high, could risk unintended consequences by discouraging development.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

275: Clause 107, page 142, line 8, after “completed,” insert “or 4 years if there is a significant impact on the local environment,”
Member's explanatory statement
This means that the extended time limits for enforcement of planning controls does not apply when there is a significant impact on the local environment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 277, 280 to 281B and 282 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman and in mine. I shall also make some comments in relation to Amendments 276, 278 and 279, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and Amendment 281C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

The increasingly acrimonious circumstances in which planning is often discussed, debated and granted has significantly increased the burden of enforcement. This is combined with a contraction of local authority planning teams due to reductions in local authority funding, which is putting increasing burdens on the planning process, as we have already debated today in Committee. Our amendments are in recognition of that and to ensure that timescales, fines and practices are developed in a way that is proportionate to the current circumstances.

As one brief example, most local councillors will be familiar with their weekly planning list having a number of certificate of lawfulness applications—they are a particular bugbear of mine. These mean that the applicant has not applied for the appropriate permissions in advance and, having now built out their development, is only now seeking the approval of the planning authority. There is little if any appropriate sanction for this behaviour, which seems grossly unfair to all those who take the necessary steps to submit their applications properly in advance of building.

It is fair to say that such developers face the risk of the planning authority turning down their retrospective application, and there have been notable examples of authorities requiring buildings and/or alterations to be taken down. However, with the powers of enforcement diminished, both in this respect and for straightforward breaches of planning, simply by the lack of resources to deal with enforcement, the danger is that we continue to see from the worst offenders a cavalier approach taken to the planning process.

Amendments 275 and 277 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock are designed to draw attention to the fact that it may be necessary to foreshorten the extended time limits for the enforcement of planning controls where there is a significant impact on the environment. We appreciate that the 10-year window is necessary for raising issues relating to planning enforcement, but it will be important that all involved in development understand that, if enforcement relates to an issue where substantial harm is being caused to the environment, planning officers will expect these to be dealt with more quickly. We hope this amendment will give them the power to do so. The amendment aims to prevent a delayed response from developers, not to limit the amount of time planning controls can be exercised over environmental matters. This should be 10 years, as for all other matters.

We have discussed previously in Committee the need for rapid digitisation of the planning process, where that has not already been done. Amendment 280 is a probing amendment to ensure that this is the case for the enforcement aspects of planning as well.

As in other parts of the Bill, we believe that new burdens may be imposed on local authorities in relation to enforcement. Amendment 281 in my name is to flag up again that there will be a need for an overall assessment of all parts of the Bill to understand the likely financial impact on local authorities. We have received previous assurances from the Minister on new burdens funding. It would be good to know that relevant professional and representative bodies will be consulted on this important issue as quickly as possible after the Bill passes into law, so that no undue financial burdens are placed on already hard-pressed local authorities.

As we have discussed in previous clauses, the financial burden of planning does not fall proportionately on the developer, which is true of enforcement too. Amendment 281A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is included to ensure that we do not inadvertently create an enforcement fine regime where it is more cost effective for the developer to breach planning rules and guidelines because the cost of non-compliance is less than the profit they are likely to make from any breach.

My Amendment 281B seeks to introduce a very important provision that would prevent developers applying for an exemption to the provisions in a planning application to deliver affordable housing in a development. We are all very familiar with the long wrangles that planning authorities are having over viability. Our concern is that, if this exemption from enforcement clause were to apply to the delivery of agreed affordable housing, it would simply be another get-out clause in the armoury for developers, with their significant legal firepower, to avoid providing much-needed affordable housing.

Clause 116 is concerned with ensuring that the planning process works as efficiently as possible and makes best use of digital technology. My Amendment 282 seeks to set the purpose of this in the Bill, so there can be no doubt that it is the intention to avoid delays wherever possible.

Amendment 276 is in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon. Just as our amendments recognise the importance of a shorter enforcement period for environmental issues, it recognises the importance of changes of use to a dwelling house. We agree that, where enforcement relates to somebody’s home, a shorter time period than 10 years would be preferable.

Amendment 278, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, recommends consultation with affected parties on extending the time limits for planning enforcement from four years to 10 years. We would always support such steps, as professional bodies and local government representative bodies can be essential consultees in ensuring that all consequences are understood from the outset and that any unintended consequences can be predicted and mitigated.

On Amendment 279, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Devon, we will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on whether it is the intention for the provisions of the Bill to be retrospectively applied to developments which, under current legislation, have reached the time limit for enforcement. Is the legislation to apply only to enforcement for developments started after the commencement of the Act? Will there be a transition period, or will it automatically apply to all developments that have reached the current four-year limit?

Amendment 281C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seeks to insert in the Bill the explanation of the purpose of Clause 113, as is contained in the Explanatory Notes. We have had a number of examples during our examination of this Bill where the absence of these explanatory clauses could potentially cause ambiguity in their interpretation. Therefore, we support this sensible move to insert the explanatory clause in the Bill. I beg to move my amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, probing Amendment 276, and Amendments 278 in 279, are in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is regrettably unable to be with us today. Apart from declaring an interest as a property owner, I must also explain that I have in the past been threatened with enforcement proceedings—so guilty as charged, or perhaps not guilty as charged. I am very grateful to a number of planning practitioners who explained some of the finer points of all this to me.

These amendments relate to Clause 107 and refer to what is known as the four-year rule. The current position is that, if works to a property have been undertaken more than four years previously, the owner is immune from enforcement action by the local authority. The equivalent period for changes of use, which of course may be harder to spot, is 10 years. A minimum of 10 years unchallenged enjoyment of both works and change of use is required before a lawful use certificate can be claimed. If you like, the entitlement at that stage becomes absolute.

I should add that, for works or changes of use to a listed building or, I think, for one in a conservation area, time does not run against the enforcing authority, and so protection of heritage is not an issue. Furthermore, works of development that are done secretively or by concealment are, I believe, also not protected by the four-year rule. So the building of a house within the confines of an agricultural barn, as happened in one rather infamous case, would not escape.

The system has operated for many years, quite successfully as far as I know. In the most recent review of the arrangements, the four-year cut off remained unamended. My own sense is that, if works have not been spotted after four years, it is quite unlikely that they will be spotted more readily in years five to 10. Indeed, one might conclude that, if it is that unobtrusive, it should scarcely be a planning concern anyway. It is more likely that it will crop up to ensnare an unwary owner who makes a subsequent application and some historic non-compliance is spotted at that stage.

The four-year rule also recognises that planning is complex, with many pitfalls for the unwary, and that it is not necessary or desirable to micromanage planning uses of land and buildings. For instance, erection of deer fencing, construction of ponds and the placing of certain structures on land may in some cases require consent but in others they do not. A movable item nearly always does not trigger a planning issue but leaving it in the same place for too long does.

Many households think that a permitted development right absolves them of the need for any consent at all. I believe it is government policy to reduce burdens on householders. Furthermore, where a local planning authority has issued what is known as an Article 4 direction, removing permitted development rights for certain types of development, owners may not be aware of this or be made aware, even in a purchase situation. As in one instance which occurred in my professional career, a shopkeeper might find that they are subject to enforcement procedures for displaying an internally illuminated sign fixed to the interior of their shop window glass, but not if it is a foot or two further back. The rules are opaque, convoluted and may be interpreted differentially per authority. As I see it, the four-year rule served to prevent this becoming a more serious issue.

But Clause 107 would remove this protection. I know of no justification for doing this, nor any public consultation that underpins that decision to include it in the Bill. I think that most householders, and possibly quite a few lenders, would view this with concern. But the removal would have, in my opinion, a somewhat more sinister side-effect. I know of instances whereby an annoyed builder has set out to shop a property owner who did not award him a contract of works, or shopped the successful contractor—or a neighbour averring to the authorities that works in non-compliance are taking place, either because of neighbourly detestation or, as in one case known to me, because the neighbour took umbrage about the builders’ vehicle parking and plant-unloading arrangements in the street outside their home. So to leave the door open for an additional six years to this sort of risk of a snooper’s charter is socially, economically and administratively undesirable.

--- Later in debate ---

My department is already working with local authorities to tackle the very issue this amendment raises. We are working collaboratively with local authorities through the Open Digital Planning project, which aims to increase efficiencies in the development management process through creating modern development management software. The local authorities that are using the modern development management software we are trialling have seen an estimated 35% time saving in the pre-validation process, when an application is first submitted, and, post validation, in the process the reach a decision. Before enacting these powers, we will fully engage with local planning authorities and the sector as a whole. Given that one of the core aims of this power is to streamline the process, we will, of course, consider the impact on speed of decision-making. So, while I support the intention of this amendment, I hope the noble Baroness will be content not to move it when it is reached.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his response. I am afraid that enforcement is an element of planning that is little understood by the public; they often think that our powers and resources are much greater than they are to deal with some of the issues that arise. I pay tribute to planning officers who field all of this on a daily basis. Even in our short discussion here, it has been clear that it is not always very straightforward. We are all striving to improve confidence in the process as we go through the amendments to the Bill.

Some confusion has arisen around the proposed amendments to the time periods, but, having had the explanation from the noble Earl, that is a bit clearer. It was about whether the four-year time limit was there to begin enforcement action and that was now being moved to 10 years, which gives a longer wind. I accept all the comments that have been made—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—asking whether, if nobody has noticed it in four years, they will notice it in 10 years, and whether it really matters if they do. However, these issues can be very serious, as we have heard in previous debates in this Committee. I think a longer time period for enforcement to be able to be taken does not make sense, particularly where, as explained, there are two timescales at play in the Town and Country Planning Act.

Our concern is that this might give reasons for delay to the enforcement action itself, particularly for issues around environmental action. We need to make absolutely sure that we are not going to give any opportunity for delay in responding to enforcement action. If there is going to be a delay in the reporting of it, that is one thing. If there is going to be a delay in responding to it, that is a whole other issue. In terms of the points made by the noble Earl on engagement with key stakeholders, I was reassured to hear him say that the delay to the time period had come directly from the key stakeholders involved.

We have had plenty of discussions in previous Committee sessions on the Bill about digitisation. I think that local government has gone quite a lot further than some of the people in DLUHC might think. I will leave that there, but of course we can always do better on digitisation.

The issue of local authority resources is very important to all of us, as we are constantly debating. There are quite a lot of acutely aware people in the public who might see the introduction of enforcement notices, potentially creating an expectation that we are going to have further action on them. We always have to be careful that we look at the resources that are going to be required to deal with new measures, and the same applies to this part of the Bill. I was extremely pleased to hear about the increase in fines for retrospective applications, which have been a long-standing bugbear of mine, as I said earlier.

The noble Earl mentioned that it is not the intention to give relief from affordable housing provisions. I understand what he said: that that provision is directed at emergency provision for construction sites. Those of us who were in local government at the time had plenty of contact from both the construction sector and from members of the public about changes to that—there was a need for emergency procedures then. We will take a closer look at that, as we believe there could be unintended consequences—particularly on the provisions for affordable housing—from that issue.

I will now turn to some of the comments made by other noble Lords. I have already mentioned the comment by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who asked whether, if something had not been spotted in four years, it was really an issue at all. It is often surveyors who pick up these issues at the exchange of property: a surveyor might go in and realise that something is not quite right with the property. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Earl say that there should be a line drawn under this after four years. Owners may not be aware of the Article 4 directions; I do think there is a very widespread lack of understanding around Article 4 directions and what they can mean. The rules are certainly a bit opaque, but I do not think it is repressive and intrusive local councils that are causing the problem here.

We do have the issue around HMOs and permitted development—which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to very powerfully—where you end up with these beds in sheds developments. The permitted development and HMO regimes exacerbate that and may need just as much attention as the enforcement mechanisms. I would agree that a better outcome would be trying to get compliance, rather than going into litigation. I really chimed with her point about people chopping down trees with TPOs—they would do that and then worry about the TPO afterwards.

I am grateful for all the responses to the points that have been made. I do remain concerned that the Bill is not terribly clear about whether it is enforcement or reporting of enforcement breaches that are extended to 10 years. That could do with some clarification. We will take a further look at that. With that, I withdraw my amendment for the time being.

Amendment 275 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is quite right to raise the issue of accessible and inclusive design. Everyone benefits where design is accessible and inclusive for everyone, so all planners and all local plan strategies should bear that in mind as a prior consideration. The noble Lord has our complete support.

We must say two things to the Government that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said several times today. We need the content of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the national development management plan before we get to Report, otherwise we will have to include in the Bill content that may later appear in either of those two important plans. We cannot operate in this vacuum of lack of knowledge and information about the content of two absolutely fundamental building blocks of strategic planning. We need to keep raising that—I think it was also raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—and I hope the Minister has heard the pleas from across the Committee.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not just for his amendment but for his continued work to ensure that we keep issues of inclusivity at the forefront when considering all aspects of the Bill, particularly planning. Levelling up must relate not just to tackling inequalities between the regions and places in the UK but to ensuring that no group is excluded from opportunities that are open to the rest of us. That is why the amendments in this group are so important.

We absolutely support the principle behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 217 and will definitely support the consideration of observations and advice relating to inclusive design as local authorities go through their plan-making process. But for the sake of practicality, if this amendment is accepted, there may be a need for further guidance about whether local authorities could be exempted on individual developments if they are able to demonstrate adequate reasons for that. I certainly do not suggest that they should be able to do so on many grounds—they would have to be very exceptional circumstances—but if that was not included, there may be examples, such as where heritage assets are involved in the development or something like that, where there would need to be some consideration of other factors. But it is a very good amendment, as is Amendment 302, which is an unequivocal statement, which we absolutely support, to ensure that inclusive design is enshrined in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

A hugely important issue has been raised, because it is not just the area of the Fens that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned in terms of water shortage but the south-east and the east of England, where water supply is restricting housing development. He is absolutely right in those terms. All I would say on that score is that the north of England has a good supply of water, and we are willing to sell it, at a cost, to those areas of shortage—actually, that does not work either, because it is very difficult to move water around the country. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say—I always do—but this is a fundamental issue about strategic planning on a national scale, so it would be worth hearing what has been said.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords. It will be just a very brief intervention from me. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for raising what is a very important issue, having been involved with two very long-term major projects in my role as council leader and having seen how difficult it is to tie in the provision of major infrastructure, which is generally done at the national level because that is the way that the operators and the regulators work, with what is going on at the local level.

At the heart of this is the need to create a very smooth path for the provision of infrastructure, so that, when there are interruptions to the process along the way, the system can cope. If we do not do that, we end up with disconnection between the development itself and the provision of infrastructure, with one holding the other up. In our case, in the east of England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, water is an issue, so we have to think about that. One of our major developments related to a greenfield site that had not been developed—it still has not; we have been working for 27 years on that one. When we started, we would not have thought about solar or wind energy, but now we have to think about those things, so there must be flexibility—and of course we also have new forms of infrastructure coming in, such as broadband.

This is a key amendment that points us towards looking at how we deal with the infrastructure of developments as we go through the planning process, linking the bodies that work at national level, national infrastructure funding and so on with local development. How will that work and fit in with this system? We have talked a lot about how the various bits of the planning system fit together, and a probing amendment on this issue is extremely helpful; I am very grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it. If the Minister does not accept it today, I hope she will give it some thought as we go through the rest of the Bill.

Supported Housing

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for securing this important debate, and all noble Lords who have participated. I also thank the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the National Housing Federation and Shelter for their exceptionally helpful briefings, and, of course, our brilliant Library, which, as ever, has provided us with a comprehensive, relevant and balanced briefing.

Many of us in local government care passionately about supported housing and genuinely understand the importance of having safe, secure and stable accommodation accompanied by support tailored to individual needs. However, we often feel that we have been trying to deliver this for years with both hands tied behind our backs. We make the case over and again that, for vulnerable groups such as older people, those with learning or physical disabilities, families at risk—including the homeless—those who have been in the criminal justice system, people with complex needs that may include drug or alcohol dependency, those with poor mental health and those fleeing domestic abuse, a safe, secure and affordable home is the starting point for supporting their other needs.

We should also take note of the overwhelming evidence that providing these groups quickly with the housing and other support they need has the potential to save the public purse billions, as it prevents more expensive interventions having to be used, as comprehensively outlined by my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and other noble Lords.

It is fair to say that there are some fantastic examples of just what can be achieved all over the country, and it is to the enormous credit of local government that it has delivered some of these innovations in spite of the truly unprecedented cuts in local government funding and unfunded inflation experienced in recent years. The problem now is that we see a patchwork approach to this instead of what we want to see, which is excellence delivered everywhere.

I will give a couple of examples from Stevenage, which I know best, but there are great examples all over the country, including the one that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester kindly outlined about One Roof Leicester. We are developing new residential accommodation for older people, based on their ambitions and aspirations articulated during our consultation process. Sheltered housing will be located alongside extra care facilities so that people do not lose their community connections, neighbours, shops, faith groups and so on when they need more support. There will be on-site provision of health, podiatry, chiropody, hairdressing and so on—all available for them.

Our “No More” service started as a support project to help those with complex needs sustain tenancies, providing one-to-one support from a caseworker. Following the pandemic, it extended to incorporate a new range of housing under our housing first project. Using a combination of modern-method-of-construction buildings, new builds and regenerated homes, we are making sure that people have a roof over their heads and are supported by a package we have negotiated with the adult care team at the county council.

Lastly, for domestic abuse victims, we have our safe space accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Young, clearly articulated the need for this, and kindly referred to the supporting people funding programme, which provides fully equipped homes for abuse victims and their families which have everything they need, even if they flee with nothing but the clothes they stand up in. They receive support from our team and initially occupy under licence but, in some cases, we are able to convert to a permanent tenancy if that proves in the interest of the victim.

However, there remain structural, financial and, occasionally, legal challenges to making the best provision for those who need supported housing. With support provision being under the remit of adult care and the NHS, as well as voluntary and community sector providers, and housing sitting with the district council, this becomes very complicated in two-tier areas and, I suspect, not much less complicated in areas with unitary government. The National Housing Federation reports that nine out of 10 supported housing residents have complex needs and at least one health condition or disability; half of them have more than one of these conditions.

Financing is always a challenge. With housing authorities still facing considerable difficulties, with receipts taken from right to buy by government and rent levels capped, it takes herculean efforts to fund the innovation we need to see in supported housing. Does the Minister have any idea what further steps the Government can take for financial incentives to deliver supported housing?

We had a useful, thoughtful and helpful debate in Committee of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill about what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, described as a challenging planning environment. In response to a question in your Lordships’ Chamber this morning, the Minister indicated that she would be open to amendments to LURB to encourage supported housing provision. We would be interested whether she has any further thoughts on that this afternoon.

I will conclude—I could go on about this all day but will try not to. We know that there is an unmet need for supported housing, alongside all the other community aspects that can improve physical health and well-being. Sadly, the important role of all of these in public mental health is under great pressure following years of austerity cuts, as outlined by many noble Lords. We believe that this is short-sighted and only puts far more cost pressure on acute services. Let us pick up the innovation already under way in local government so that everyone who needs it has the supported housing provision best suited to their needs, leading to, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester mentioned, the transformational outcomes that we all want to see.

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

My Lords, I am very conscious that I do not have an awful lot of time. I will get through as much as I can and, if I do not answer everything, I will write to noble Lords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for securing in such a timely manner this important debate on supported housing and its impact on homelessness prevention, health and well-being. I also thank all noble Lords for their considered and insightful contributions. I have a personal interest in this sector. My daughter, Sarah, who has been physically handicapped from birth, has just moved into wonderful supported housing in Winchester. It has transformed her life. She thought that she could not continue to be independent, but she is and has that support. However, noble Lords are absolutely right that funding for supported housing is more difficult and can be more expensive for people. We must consider this; as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said, there are good facilities but there are also some bad ones.

The reach of supported housing is wide, providing vital support for many people to live independently. These include older people, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities and those with mental ill health. There are many good providers, but there are others that we need to deal with.

The Government see supported housing as key to the delivery of successful outcomes in areas of utmost importance, including rough sleeping, domestic abuse, and adult social care, as we have heard. Not least through the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is supported housing for those people not just in numbers but of good quality into the future. We are hearing horror stories about what is happening in the sector.

I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for commissioning its important research on the impact of supported housing on homelessness prevention, health and well-being. Its key findings include the finding that, were it not for supported housing, there would be an increase in homelessness and more need for in-patient care and prison places. The research also highlights the importance of pathways from supported housing, as we heard, and the difficulties that may be experienced by some people when moving on—there was a lot of talk about moving on, which is an important issue.

As I said, the Government are very aware of having enough accommodation for people, not only supported housing but accommodation afterwards. That is why two things are happening: there is £11.5 billion in the affordable homes programme, which includes a necessity for local authorities to look at housing for older, disabled and vulnerable people in their areas. Our planning rules, which will be strengthened through the LUR Bill, mean that, in councils’ local plans, they must consider the needs of these people, which is perhaps an important change in attitude.

Socially rented homes often serve the needs of the most vulnerable in society, and, as I said, the Government recognised this in the levelling-up White Paper. We want people who need help to live independently to be able to access supported housing, but, where possible, they should also be able to move forward with their lives and into general housing in a timely way.

There is evidence that the demand for supported housing is growing, particularly among certain cohorts. Research by the London School of Economics in 2017 projected that, by 2030, the amount of supported housing needed in England for older people and people with learning disabilities would increase by 35% and 55%, respectively—that is a big increase. However, national data is outdated and needs to be improved, which is why the department has commissioned research to provide an up-to-date estimate of the size, cost and demand of the supported housing sector. The findings are expected to be published at the end of this year, and they will be important in further policy development in this sector.

In the longer term, and subject to Royal Assent, strategic planning and licensing measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill—which the noble Lord, Lord Best, will ably lead through the House—will enable further opportunities for data collection to support national and local decision-making on supported housing. Taken together, these steps will build a better national picture of the need for, and supply of, supported housing into the future, as I said.

The Government encourage new supply of supported housing through capital subsidy—I mentioned the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme—alongside the Department of Health and Social Care investment in supported housing through the care and support specialised housing fund. But, as noble Lords said, we know that supported housing is more than the bricks and mortar of a building; it is about the critical support services that come along with the home, to enable people to live independently.

Funding for housing-related local support services is through the wider local government settlement. This will perhaps be difficult for anyone in local government to take into account, because they are under so many pressures, but local government got £59.7 billion in England this year, and much of that was for use in adult social care.

But the integrated care systems coming together in areas are also key to this, because that is where we can look at the joined-up health and care services—the council working with the health community—to see where we can keep independence. I have to say that it is also probably where we can look to save money locally, or at least get more service than is currently there, by keeping people independent in really good accommodation, such as supported housing. So that is an opportunity to have those conversations locally in integrated care partnerships.

Supported housing is, and will continue to be, an integral part of achieving the Government’s manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. However, as I have said, we do not care just about the amount but about the quality. That is why the Government are backing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Best. We look forward to its Second Reading on 21 April. The Government will support it wholeheartedly.

I just make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that care homes are separately regulated under the CQC. They are not supported housing, but some forms of housing with care—such as extra care or supported living—are. It is quite a complex issue and it is important that we understand that. That is why the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Best, is so important: it covers the regulatory bit of the supported housing that the CQC provides at the moment in care homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked about poor housing that is not fit for purpose. Again, I ask that we make time for the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Best, because that is an important part of taking that forward.

We have talked about moving-on accommodation; I think that I have covered everything that noble Lords have asked, but I will go through Hansard. We recognise the benefits of supported housing and what it can deliver for not only residents but wider society. The Government are committed to ensuring that supported housing is available and provides good-quality support—quality is important—and accommodation for all those in our communities who need it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I raise a point about the funding that has gone to upper-tier authorities in two-tier areas for adult social care? There is no requirement for those authorities to passport any of that to the housing authority, which is a really big issue. We can deliver what we can with the funding that we have in district authorities, but there is no requirement on those other authorities to pass that funding on. That is something that the Government may want to think about.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I take that into account; I will look at it and come back to the noble Baroness.

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

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

I apologise to the Minister for saying again that this has to be put right, but what is in the regulations is positive. With those few questions, which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer, I support this instrument.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we absolutely support the introduction of these regulations, which are the latest welcome—if somewhat belated—step in establishing a more stringent building safety regime for higher-risk buildings, as recommended in Dame Judith Hackitt’s review as far back as 2018. Although we are going in the right direction, it remains an appalling scandal that tackling the shocking failures in building safety standards has now dragged on for more than five years.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the push for the deregulation of building control in favour of the private sector providing those services was at least a contributory factor in some cases to non-compliance with building safety regulations. I know that the Minister is aware of the case of Vista Tower in Stevenage and Sophie Bichener, who has fought a long campaign on these matters. We welcome the focus now on ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator is the building control authority for all higher-risk building work carried out on public body buildings.

This SI also removes the power for the Secretary of State to grant exemptions for higher-risk buildings, although, as the Minister told us, the exemption power still remains for non-higher-risk buildings. We will need to be reassured that these definitions are very tight and will be adhered to so that we can be assured that all building work will be correctly categorised in terms of the building’s risk. There will need to be clear criteria for the change when an authority is required to declare that its building has gone from “non-higher-risk” to “higher-risk”.

I have done so before, but I want to pay tribute to the tenacity of the campaigning Grenfell survivors, building safety campaign groups and individuals across the country who have worked tirelessly to bring the seriousness of the issues being dealt with here today to the attention of the Government and the public. I draw the Minister’s attention to a number of questions that have been raised in relation to the Explanatory Memorandum, although, of course, we will be happy to receive responses in written form if she is not able to answer them today; they are questions of clarification and do not change our support for the regulations.

First, when looking at the building safety leaseholder protections regulations, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee identified the issue of public bodies claiming that their SPVs—special purpose vehicles—are responsible for building safety, rather than the bodies themselves. Would these regulations also apply to SPVs?

The Explanatory Memorandum to the earlier Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023 quoted a number of 13,000 higher-risk buildings in the UK. Do we know how many of them are the responsibility of public bodies?

What estimate has been made of the resources needed by the Building Safety Regulator to assess and carry out this building control work? I am aware that, earlier this month, the Government announced a welcome £42 million to recruit building control inspectors and fire inspectors for the Building Safety Regulator. Do we know the timeline for their recruitment and how quickly that will move forward?

Has any thought been given to the possibility that public bodies may have to pass on charges to tenants for retrospective building safety work? Have the Government specifically prohibited public bodies from doing so? Once the Building Safety Regulator starts looking at buildings, it may well identify further causes of work and that charge may be passed on to tenants; they can be very substantial bills.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a separate instrument that will limit the Metropolitan Police’s existing exemption and ensure that the Building Safety Regulator is the sole building control body for its buildings. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock: I cannot think of any reason why it is exempt from this in the first place but, clearly, that needs a separate instrument. How many buildings are affected by this and when will the instrument be introduced? Do we have a date yet?

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a “for information” letter that has been sent to all government departments. Will the Minister please lay a copy of it in the Library?

The impact statement on this SI, as on other similar regulations relating to building safety, states:

“There is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector.”


Surely the assessment and collation of information, particularly where public bodies such as housing authorities have significant property holdings, will present a resource issue. If the Building Safety Regulator identifies significant issues, that, too, will result in potentially expensive remedial works. I am thinking particularly but not exclusively of local authorities, whose resources are already stretched to breaking point. Has the Local Government Association been consulted on this or asked for a view on the impact of safety regulations such as these on public bodies?

This is my last question; I am sure the Minister will be pleased to know that. Does Section 32 of the Building Safety Act apply similar provisions to those in this SI to buildings in the private sector? Does this mean that the framework for building control of higher-risk buildings is now complete, or are there still other regulations to be laid before the House?

In conclusion, we are pleased to see this suite of building safety regulations come forward and that this SI puts building control back into the hands of a regulator who will, we hope, ensure that the highest standards are met. We welcome the Government’s commitment, as stated by the Minister. We have some concerns about the resources and capacity of the Building Safety Regulator, on which it would be helpful to have some reassurance from the Minister; about the potential impact on resources for the public sector; and about whether this can be passed on to tenants. However, with those caveats, we welcome this better regulation overall and hope that it will give some further reassurance to those who occupy the buildings belonging to public bodies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Committee and the two noble Baronesses opposite for their support of these regulations. This marks another step for building safety reform and the introduction of a higher-risk building control regime overseen by the Building Safety Regulator. I will go through a few of the questions that were asked.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked why a public body would be exempt. I have to say that these are just procedural exemptions; public bodies still have to comply with building regulation. They provided public bodies with some flexibility, if the Government agreed, but no more bodies will be drawn in; we are at the end of that now.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why the Met Police got an exemption. The Met Police will be included from October for all its higher-risk buildings. We will have a separate SI for the Met Police so it is not going to get away with it; this will cover it as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked how many public bodies with existing exemptions are affected. As I said, all public bodies interested in getting a building control procedural exemption, either partly or wholly for higher-risk building work, are affected. They will no longer be considered for an exemption as these will be unlawful. Interest in using this exemption has been very low: there is currently only one public body with an exemption and only one exemption has been granted since 2000. We are talking about one body and no public bodies are currently requesting a new exemption. As I said, the one public body that has that exemption is the Metropolitan Police. It covers all its building work but it was agreed that, from October 2023, it will be limited to non-higher-risk building work only. This change will be included in separate regulations later in the year, as I said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the definition of higher-risk buildings. She is quite right that this is about residential buildings—they must have at least two residential units in them—and care homes and hospitals. They also have to meet the 18-metre or seven-storey height threshold. The other areas that she was talking about are non-residential and are therefore subject to separate fire regulations.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who asked about the recruitment of building control officers. This is important. We have put £42 million into this and we have started a programme of recruitment over three years, before we have to recharge it. That work is already happening; I will ask if there are any further details or updates on that as well.

I might have to look in Hansard for the details of some of the further questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, but I have noted some. I will write a letter on SPVs; the overarching answer is no but I want to make sure that I give the noble Baroness the details of why.

We talked about the 13,000 properties and how many the SI affects. It is one; that has been answered. As I have said, we have put in £42 million to help with recruitment. There was also something about retrospective charges in the public sector but I will look at the details of the noble Baroness’s question and send her something. We have discussed the Met Police.

The noble Baroness mentioned a letter. I am not aware of it but we will look into that and, if possible, put it in the Library for all noble Lords. We will also give the noble Baroness more detail about the private sector and local authorities in a letter, and make sure that both noble Baronesses get that letter and a copy is put in the Library.

As noble Lords know, these regulations are an important part of this Government’s reforms to ensure that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes. Before I sit down, I once again pay tribute to the Grenfell community. Without them and their sad loss, we would not be discussing these things. They are always in our thoughts. I once again thank noble Lords for their contributions today.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

185A: Clause 86, page 94, leave out lines 28 to 30
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove inserted subsection (5C), which would give primacy to the national development management policies over a development plan in the event of a conflict.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous discussion highlighted some of the concerns we have about the contradictions between the matters that have been enshrined in the Bill, which some of us might think are not quite so important, and those which have been left out. Getting the balance right is clearly important. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Hayman all said, now really is the time for nature recovery and such issues to be a clear focus and for them to be put into the Bill.

We have had lengthy earlier discussions relating to the unwelcome and centralising shift represented by the introduction of NDMPs. I hope that the Government have been left in no doubt about the deep disquiet in the local government community about this provision. Further to the earlier comments made on those serious planning matters, we believe that the Bill is simply not clear enough about how conflicts between local plans and NDMPs are to be dealt with. Our amendments in this group therefore address these issues.

Amendment 185A in my name seeks to take out the lines from Clause 86 that give automatic primacy to the NDMP where a conflict arises between it and the local plan. It is simply unthinkable that this could happen by virtue of statute, with no dialogue relating to why the local authority or the combined county authority considered it necessary to depart from the NDMP. Let me be provocative and suggest that it would, in effect, mean there was almost no point in preparing a local plan at all, if any conflict arising is to be determined in favour of the NDMP—which is, after all, determined in Whitehall. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on this. Surely the provision goes against the key principles of devolution.

Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is similar but refers to “insignificant conflicts” between the local development plans and the NDMPs. If I know local government, I fear that this would involve considerable arguments, perhaps even resulting in legal arguments about what is and is not insignificant.

My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 187 aims to clarify the situation relating to how conflicts between local plans and the NDMP might be dealt with. It would add a further subsection to Clause 86, setting out how conflicts could be resolved in favour of the local development plan where a CCA had been handed powers over planning, highways, the environment and other functions of public bodies under the circumstances outlined in Schedules 16 and 17 or where the development plan comes under a joint spatial development strategy, or if it is in Greater London.

Amendment 192 is a probing amendment. It would insert a clause in the Bill setting out the primacy of the development plan over the NDMP, should there be a conflict. This amendment sits alongside other amendments to Clause 87 which aim to ensure—I want to be really clear about this—that the voices of local people and their democratically elected representatives have the primacy in determining the development of local areas.

Amendments 193 and 195 probe if there is to be any role for parliamentary scrutiny of how conflicts between development plans and the NDMP are resolved and/or whether Parliament is to be informed of the Secretary of State’s intention to override the local process. They also probe what role there is to be for a CCA whose constituent member or members may find themselves in a conflict between their development plan and the NDMP.

In summary, what is the mediation process to be? Surely there will not be an automatic assumption in favour of the policies produced centrally with no reference to local people. There is not much in the way of devolution in that proposal. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 186, 187 and 187A because of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The point is to make clear that there is no conflict.

Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to

“lay a Statement before both Houses of Parliament”

if there is

“a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan”.

As I have noted, actual instances of conflict between national development plan policies and those being included in the plans should be relatively unusual, as the Bill makes clear that planning policies should avoid such conflicts—something that will, in cases of doubt, be assessed transparently through public examination of those emerging plans as they are made. Should any conflicts arise when considering individual planning applications or appeals—for example, where the local plan has become very out of date—this will need to be made very clear through the report on the application, or the evidence before the planning inspector. These procedures will ensure transparency for communities. At the same time, it would be impossible for the Government to track every instance of such a conflict arising and to report to Parliament on it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand that this is not an amendment we can support.

Amendment 195, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to consult county combined authorities if it is deemed that there is a conflict between the national development management policy and a development plan. As I have already explained, where any inconsistencies arise between an emerging plan and the national development management policies, these will be evident during the plan preparation and examination. We expect that any county combined authority will be engaged in this process at the local level. There is no need for an additional statutory requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State in the way the amendment would do.

I have also pointed out the impracticality of applying a requirement of this nature in relation to any inconsistencies which might arise in the handling of individual planning applications, the great majority of which will not be cases that the Government are party to. Consequently, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we are unable to support this amendment. I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 185 and for other amendments in this group not to be moved as they are reached.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked what intervention powers the Government will have to get involved. We think that local authorities know their area best and, unequivocally, are best placed to produce their own local plans. However, if local plans are not produced or are failing, or if something is absolutely wrong with that plan, the Secretary of State will retain the power to intervene if necessary.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the problems that those of us who have been very involved in the planning system are having is that we cannot see how this all fits together and works in practice. In her last statement, the Minister said that local authorities know their area best, and those who have been involved in this system would certainly agree with that but, as we go through the process of looking closely at the Bill, it is getting more rather than less confusing.

We had a good discussion and some key issues have emerged, first around how little detail there is about the hierarchy of this new planning process. I accept that the Minister has offered to have a round table with us to discuss what that structure looks like and to listen to more of our concerns about how this is going to work in practice. There was a great deal of consideration of the issues around the strategic development plans for these new CCAs. A lot of work will go into the joint working on those strategic development plans, with their constituent members and partners. They reflect the significant new powers that they will have over transport, environment and issues relating to some other public bodies—potentially health, policing and so on. Some of us are struggling to understand why, after all the work that has gone in, there may be an intervention from the Government via the NDMPs to say that the planning process has to be intervened in or overturned. That is also of concern.

Another element was the consideration of whether this would be different depending on whether an up-to-date plan is in place or not. That is a key consideration and I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it may make a great difference as we go through the consideration of how these plans will work and what the review requirements are. We made the point in previous discussions, and I will make it again, that the big difference between the NPPF and the new NDMP is that the NPPF is guidance. As we have discussed previously, it can be flexible to local needs and often is, whereas the NDMP is going to be statutory. For example, how would it deal with applications made within the green belt? These are some of the practical issues with which some of us are wrestling, and I hope that a round-table discussion helps clear some of that up.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave a very clear exposition of how he sees the word “significant” making a difference. I appreciate that. Of course, lawyers will be lawyers—I know there are some in this Chamber, so I will not take this line too far—but they embrace any words that can be interpreted in different ways, as we know. Those of us who have been in legal battles around these things before have the scars to show for it. My concern about that amendment was simply that it would result in a great deal of litigation.

We were discussing the planning powers of constituent local authorities and, of course, the role of these new CCAs will be very different from the role of either district councils, when they are doing their local plan, or county planning authorities, when they do things such as mineral and waste plans. I think we need some careful consideration of how those much more strategic plans will relate to NDMPs.

I have commented on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about up-to-date plans; I think, where we have one, they should take precedence. The Minister also talked about how, if the neighbourhood plan is more up to date than the local plan, the neighbourhood plan would take precedence. By logic then, if the local plan is more up to date than the NDMP and there is a conflict between them, the local plan should take precedence. I cannot see why one would apply and the other would not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

196A: Clause 88, page 95, line 24, leave out “are” and insert “the Mayor considers to be”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove ambiguity about whose opinion is relevant in relation to whether or not a matter is of strategic importance to more than one London borough.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 196A, 197 and 197A relate to implications from clauses in the Bill that impact specifically on London. The devolution proposals are, perhaps understandably, focused on areas outside London, with an emphasis on mayoral authorities, and do not always recognise the unique governance arrangements within London. London councils continue to make the case for further devolution to London and that boroughs should have a central role in this alongside the mayor.

Amendment 196A would clarify the ambiguity in the current wording of the Bill regarding the spatial development strategy for the development and use of land in Greater London. Policies that the mayor considers to be of strategic importance are included in that statement.

Amendment 197 would ensure that there are no unintended consequences of precluding policies that may apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London uniquely.

Amendment 197A refers again to an issue that we discussed extensively last week. We were very clean to clarify it, but I am not sure we did to any great extent. It would remove the words that specifically preclude any clause from the NDMP being put into the spatial development strategy. In the case of London, as elsewhere, the Bill is saying that the strategy must neither be inconsistent with nor repeat anything in the NDMP. Surely all development plans will necessarily set out how they are using the NDMP and adapting it for their local context. In some cases, this may mean repeating what is in the NDMP.

My next amendment in this group, Amendment 199, would remove the restriction in Schedule 7 that a combined authority may not prepare a joint spatial development strategy. Combined authorities set up under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 may have established working arrangements that could well be used to work constructively towards developing joint spatial development strategies. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view about why they should be explicitly excluded from doing so in this clause.

I am interested to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in relation to her Amendments 198A and 198B, but to confer powers to develop spatial development strategies on county councils would be yet another major change to the current planning system. Combined authorities will already have authorities within them that have planning powers. County councils, as the system stands, have powers only over mineral and waste plans. Is it the noble Baroness’s intention that we should also have this major restructuring of the planning system in two-tier areas?

Amendment 200 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would include a permissive clause to enable the joint spatial strategy to include strategic employment sites. This goes over and above the more general provision in Schedule 7 for new Section 15AA(2)(c), which is a general power to promote or improve economic well-being in the area. This seems a very sensible inclusion for the Bill.

Similarly, my noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 200A is a permissive amendment to Schedule 7 to allow the inclusion of specific sites for health and social care purposes—including, importantly, palliative care services—in joint spatial strategies.

The amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, point to the need for those preparing joint spatial strategies to identify sites for vital infrastructure needed to support development at an early stage in strategic planning. This helps communities that are engaged in considering developments to be reassured that the infrastructure has been considered in detail and gives certainty, in the case of employment sites, to investors, and, in the case of health and social care sites, to both public and private providers, that their needs are being fully considered.

Amendments 202 to 204, my next three in this group, refer to the sub-paragraphs in Schedule 7 on consultation and engagement with all those who may have an interest in the plan. Amendment 202 is designed as a catch-all to ensure that all community groups are considered. The current provision refers to voluntary bodies; groups representing racial, ethnic or national groups or religious groups; and business organisations. Every area is different and has its own network of community organisations, so this would make sure that every relevant group is included.

Amendment 203 is very important. It removes the inexplicable sub-paragraph in the Bill that states:

“No person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public.”


The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 contains specific provisions relating to when representations may be disregarded, but it seems a singularly swingeing provision for the Bill to suggest that no one has a right to be heard. I suspect that the intention is that the emphasis is on “right” rather than “no one”, but, at a time when we are trying to encourage more engagement of the public in planning and democracy generally, the wording here is particularly off-putting.

One of the huge issues that councils face is that the public often do not engage with the planning process at all until an application that immediately affects them is submitted. We should be encouraging more public engagement at a time when, for example, sites and land uses are being designated, so that the public feel that they have been able to contribute their local knowledge and views. I have another amendment in a later group on this. Will the Minister reflect on this wording?

People should absolutely have a right to be heard at an examination in public. For that reason, we have included Amendment 204, which adds an additional subsection to proposed new Clause 15AC, after proposed new subsection (7). At the moment, it states that only

“participating authorities, and … any person invited to do so by the person conducting the examination in public”

may attend. We believe that this should be amended so that people who have made representations to the inquiry in public and wish to attend should be able to. We appreciate that consideration may have to be given so that the examiner can decide not to hear representations, for example where they are not legitimate planning matters or are vexatious. In those cases, the individual should be informed of the reasons why they are not invited to appear.

Amendment 205, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, sets out a new provision in the Bill to ensure that all relevant authorities in a travel to work area of a joint spatial development strategy are engaged in the preparation of the strategy. It has been a feature of planning in recent years that, increasingly, travel to work areas are a key consideration of the planning process. Indeed, as far back as 2014, in a letter addressed to the Planning Inspectorate, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis, urged that local plans take account of travel to work areas for their strategic housing market assessments. As borders between authorities become more fluid due to their economic profile, housing markets, transport and infrastructure; because the factors associated with climate change mitigation cannot operate within tight boundaries; and because of the strategic nature of joint spatial strategy preparation, it makes sense to us to incorporate this provision, which we would support.

In a similar vein, for the reasons that I have just explained, my Amendment 206 writes into the Bill a duty to co-operate where there is no joint spatial development strategy in place. In effect, most areas are already undertaking such joint planning exercises, and it would be unusual for a planning inspector or public inquiry not to look at this in some depth. It seems sensible to ensure that this is now enshrined in the Bill to give it the necessary foundation in law, and certainty to local authorities. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will take the point back and consider it further, because some important issues have been brought up. I will make sure that, having given it some thought, we will discuss it further before Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before we move on from this topic, I will add another observation: the county members are the ones that have the places on the combined authority. The districts do not have voting rights on those combined authorities. So I do not understand how it will work if the counties will not be included and cannot make decisions over planning when they are the constituent members with the powers to put the plan through. I think that this needs a little more thinking through.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I quite agree, and that is why I will take the point back and think further on it. As a county person myself, I have a lot of sympathy.

To make sure that our plan for a joint spatial development strategy happens, we are giving county councils the formal status of statutory consultee, as I said, so they can bring forward their expertise, particularly on matters relating to transport, highways, flood risk management, education, and minerals and waste, as noble Lords have said. Planning inspectors examining a joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence that the work on these key issues has been done, and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.

Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would leave out new Section 15A(2)(b), which is inserted by Schedule 7. This would enable local planning authorities within a combined authority to be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In an area with elected mayors, we believe that it is vital that the mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why the authorities within a combined authority should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the mayor, with the support of the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for the spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal. Obviously, we do not want to see competing spatial development strategies in any area.

Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would extend the list of groups that local planning authorities must consult to include community groups. Although I understand the reasons for this, the list of bodies in new Section 15AB(3) that participating authorities should consider sending a draft joint spatial development strategy to is already comprehensive and can reasonably be assumed to include most community organisations. It is not, however, an exhaustive list, and authorities are free to send drafts to whichever organisations they feel necessary.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 203 and 204 would give people a right to be heard at an examination in public in relation to a joint spatial development plan. The current procedure for the examination of a spatial development strategy is now well established and, although it is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right to appear in person, we are confident that the current arrangements are fair, proportionate and effective. Experience shows that planning inspectors ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations for spatial development strategies.

The final amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness is Amendment 206. This would introduce a new clause mandating a duty to co-operate where no joint spatial development strategy exists. Unfortunately, the duty to co-operate is widely agreed to have been an ineffective mechanism for achieving co-operation. It has been criticised as an inflexible and burdensome bureaucratic exercise, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. We intend to replace the duty with a more flexible policy requirement within the revised National Planning Policy Framework, providing local planning authorities with greater flexibility.

Clause 93 introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making to ensure that the key stakeholders whose involvement is vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure, are required to be involved. This places a requirement on specific bodies with public functions—an example would be Historic England—to assist in the plan-making process if requested by a plan-making authority. Taken together, these measures mean that there is no need to revert to the duty to co-operate in any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to Amendment 205 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that proper cross-boundary engagement is undertaken when preparing a joint spatial development strategy. This is laudable and something that I see as essential to making good planning. The Government have committed to including an alignment policy within the National Planning Policy Framework. The aim of such a policy is to ensure that the policies and proposals of plans are aligned, or if not aligned that there is a very good justification for different approaches. This policy approach is being taken because of the failings of the current duty to co-operate contained in Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—I spoke about this in relation to Amendment 206—which this Bill revokes. I assure my noble friend that, in line with the Government’s commitments, the detail of the alignment policy will be consulted upon as part of a wider package of changes to the NPPF to support this Bill. I hope my noble friend will not press his amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for a good debate on these topics relating to spatial planning. They are very important issues, and this is a key part of the Bill.

There are some key themes that have emerged as part of this discussion. The first is the integration of plans and timetables and how important that is going to be as we move forward with these proposals.

Secondly, we have had long discussions around the services that county councils deliver and their engagement in the process of the strategic development strategies. As well as transport, highways, minerals, waste and so on, we had an earlier discussion in the Committee about healthy homes. Our county councils look after a huge range of services that relate to social care provision and so on, and that is another reason why it is essential they get involved in strategic planning at this level. I should have referred to my interests in the register as a county councillor and a district councillor; I wear both hats in this respect.

The third overall point was around the inclusion of combined authorities. I know it is late but I want to relate the experience in Hertfordshire. Without having any of the processes of the Bill in place, the 10 Hertfordshire authorities and the county council have got together, separating Hertfordshire into two clusters, to work on employment, housing sites, climate change, transport—including a new mass rapid transit facility that we have been planning for—community wealth-building, town centre regeneration, digital infrastructure and a number of other things. In Hertfordshire, we are helped by having coterminous boundaries with both the local enterprise partnership and policing. We do not have coterminous borders with health, but I do not think anybody does—that is a little more complicated. We do not necessarily need legislation to do this. However, I am anxious that, as a part of the Bill, we do not stop people doing things which are ambitious and have vision for their areas.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think that is an important point. That is what I was saying: the Bill will not stop that; it will give the opportunity to do something. Many authorities do great things informally, but sometimes, if there is a formal agreement to it, other doors are opened. That is part of what we are trying to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance.

We had some discussions around borders—I will say more about that in a moment—but Herts has boundaries with London in the south of the county and with very rural areas in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire in the north of the county.

The other key point we mentioned was the urban-rural split, on which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke very powerfully, and the value of counties understanding how this helps move the development agenda forward for rural areas as well as urban ones. I echo the point that people feel that this is largely related to urban areas. It is important for us to make sure that people in rural areas feel that their interests are taken into account in both levelling up and regeneration.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated. I have referred to the points on healthy homes that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made earlier in the debate. We need to give some more thought to that before Report and to how we can make sure that we take the opportunities the Bill might offer to better co-ordinate planning processes. The point about timetables is very well made. We have lots of different plans that run on lots of different timetables in local government and in other parts of the public sector, and it would be helpful if we could think about how we might bring some of that together.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about the very important potential of the Bill to enable us to tackle climate change and the housing emergency in a more co-ordinated way. I do not want to miss those opportunities, which is why these points about planning are so important. She mentioned the ability of county councils to convene councils to work together. That has certainly been my experience, and I hope we can find a way to develop that.

I have mentioned the points that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about making sure that we focus on rural as well as urban areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the travel to work areas. The point is not that we do not want to make plans for boundaries, but you have to think beyond the boundaries and take them into account, particularly with employment sites—otherwise, for example, you will not be planning properly for your transport arrangements. We have to think about what we are doing in a wider sense than the boundaries of local authorities as they would appear on the Boundary Commission register.

To summarise briefly, we have to be careful. We could miss opportunities for combined authorities and for the ambition we all have for levelling up to reach right across the huge areas of our country that are covered by two-tier local government—or three tiers in some cases, as we know. I know the Minister wants to reassure us that rural areas will be included, but the picture in this planning realm can still be a bit confused, particularly with the way that there are different plans for different places, which do not seem to be particularly well co-ordinated. I hope we can give that some more thought.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her detailed answer to all our amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 196A.

Amendment 196A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

198: After Clause 90, insert the following new Clause—
“Deliberative democracy: local planning(1) Before preparing any development or outline plan, a local planning authority must undertake a process of deliberative democracy involving the community to set—(a) the balance of economic, environmental, infrastructure and special plans,(b) the type of housing to be delivered,(c) the infrastructure that is required to be hosted,(d) the type of economic space, and(e) environmental considerations, including making sites sustainable.(2) A process of deliberative democracy under this section must—(a) invite all residents of the local authority area to apply to be a representative in the deliberative democracy process,(b) include measures to try to ensure that there will be a diverse representation of that community in the process, and(c) provide for a forum of representatives that—(i) will determine its terms of reference, number of meetings and agenda at its first meeting, and(ii) will produce a report from the deliberative democracy process.(3) A report under subsection (2)(c)(ii) may determine the scope of development on a site.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce a deliberative democracy forum comprised of members of the public prior to the formation of a new development plan or outline plan.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry that we come to these amendments so late in the evening. Amendment 198 and the subsequent amendments are things I feel particularly strongly about. Amendment 198 would introduce the principle of deliberative democracy as part of the planning process. Recent years have seen a wave of interest in doing democracy in a more deliberative way, enabling citizens to participate in a reflective and informed discussion about key policy questions before any of us, who are decision-makers, reach those decisions.

The Constitution Unit at University College London has been at the forefront of applying such approaches in the UK. In two recent projects, it took part in running citizens’ assemblies to explore how such bodies could help resolve complex policy problems. In other projects, the unit has examined ways in which deliberative approaches to politics could be applied in the UK context. Rather than go into the realms of theory and testing everyone’s patience at this time of night, I shall briefly give the rationale and two quick examples of how this type of engagement with complex issues can help develop understanding and buy-in with complex policy decisions.

In terms of planning, as I said earlier, residents often do not engage with planning at the stage of the local plan and by the time they are faced with a planning application they object to, the land use, housing numbers, infrastructure requirements, environmental policies and so on are already set out and have been through the extensive local plan process. They have often been through the inspectorate and a public inquiry as well. This leads to a great deal of frustration for residents, who may feel that the process, in this case the local plan, has been done to them, rather than with them. Even where residents do engage with the local plan process, the formality of proceedings can be daunting and impenetrable.

The introduction of a deliberative democracy element into the planning process would give the opportunity for local people to get more involved in a meaningful way much earlier in the process. The format can be designed to encourage debate and contributions and careful facilitation can draw out the minority views as well as those with the loudest voices. All this can help inform the local authority or the combined authority as it goes into the formal stages of developing its plan. This approach also enables participants to be provided with information that is accurate, relevant, accessible and balanced. It helps to tackle misinformation and enables deliberations to be informed by accurate, fact-checked data; for example, that provided in the UK by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

In Stevenage, we have used this method to enable debates on our budget process. As the cuts to local government funding deepened, we wanted to hear our residents’ views on how we should tackle the subsequent budget exercise, so we asked an independent agency to pull together a group of around 50 people from a mixed demographic. Using independent facilitators, we took them through an exercise of information sharing on the challenges we faced and carried out exercises of budget prioritisation with them, to see what their preferences would be. The learning was considerable on both sides. Some participants told me at the end of the day that they were glad it was not them who had to make the decisions. The other impact was that a group of people was then out in our community with all the facts of decision-making to take into conversations at work and in social settings, et cetera.

The Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change involved a randomly selected representative sample of 50 Oxford residents, who learned about climate change and explored different options to cut carbon emissions through a combination of presentations from experts and facilitated workshops. Oxford was the first city in the UK to deliver a citizens’ assembly on climate change. As the evidence around man-made climate change is clear and overwhelming, it was treated as a given, and the assembly was not asked to consider whether or not that was a reality, but participants considered measures to reduce Oxford’s carbon emissions to net zero and, as part of this, measures to reduce Oxford City Council’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030. In that case, Ipsos MORI was appointed to undertake the recruitment of participants and provide overall facilitation for the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change. Following that approach, Oxford has been able to undertake an ambitious programme of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

We want the Bill to be ambitious in the way that it tackles levelling up in all its aspects. We believe that a move to deliberative democracy in the planning system will create a whole new dimension for community engagement and provide a channel for our residents to contribute to tackling the complex challenges of the modern planning process.

--- Later in debate ---

With those explanations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her amendment and other noble Lords not to move theirs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for a very interesting debate on very important aspects of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response on all the amendments that have been discussed in the debate.

I will address the key themes coming out of the debate, starting with my first amendment in this group on deliberative democracy. I was very grateful for the comments on this from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Like him, I was a bit of a convert to this; I was a bit sceptical about it when I first heard about it. However, the intention of deliberative democracy is to complement and support the work of decision-makers, not to take it over, and it can provide a very useful technique. Now that we have all been through Covid and we all know how to use things such as Teams and Zoom, it can be greatly assisted and facilitated by digital engagement as well. So it is a good technique for developing a wider picture and for engaging our citizens in the important aspects of planning.

On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this subject, from my understanding of how deliberative democracy works, it does not matter what size your authority is, because you would engage a representative group and there are plenty of places where you can go to get help to draw together your representative group. There is nothing in deliberative democracy that excludes the contribution of parish councils; they have their own methods of communicating and engaging with the planning process. While I accept there are a variety of techniques to engage local citizens in the planning process, I think that it will be important for us all to consider how we will refresh and review not just the ability for people to get involved but the methods we use to engage them. We all know that there are flaws at the moment in the way we try to engage people, and anything that can help to improve that would be useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to having a legislative structure which should underpin what is in the guidance, and we would certainly support that. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have seen that there are not always clear links. We are told that one aspect is in guidance and that another aspect will be in the Bill, but the links between the two are not always as clear as they should be. We should be using the process of the Bill in Committee to help to resolve some of those issues where it is not as clear as it should be. I think that a clear distinction between policies which are strategic and not strategic will be quite important for those people tasked with delivering the plans going forward, so I hope that some thought might be given to that.

We had some comments on the need for certainty and clarity on the local plan in response to my noble friend Lady Hayman’s amendment on the possibility of amending after local elections. There were some fair points made there, and we will go back and look again at aspects of the Bill that enable local authorities to review parts of their plan. Although we do not want to overturn the plan every time there is an election, it will be important that people can look at things. As the picture changes in a local area, it may be necessary to undertake reviews for that reason, not just because there has been an election. I think we need to have another look at that as the Bill goes forward.

It really rang a bell with me when the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the need to boost the supply of homes. We have further groups of amendments that cover that topic. He referred to not weakening or removing levers for housing. Those of us who have been trying to deliver more housing over the last few years feel as though sometimes we have had our hands tied behind our backs on housing delivery and that that has gone on for too long.

We must be ambitious and work on delivering the housing we need, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is quite right to say that growth must incorporatethe issues that we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House on the environment, sustainable employment and sustainable housing growth. However, that makes planning more important, not less. Communities should be planned, not just the delivery of housing. After the Second World War, at a time when more than 100,000 homes a year were being built, there was still time set aside for master-planning and building for communities, not just delivering housing in dormitories. I suggest that deliberative democracy might play a part in that process.

The other aspect that was discussed extensively in this short debate was environmental outcome reports. I hear the Minister’s words of reassurance around how they might be incorporated in the planning process, but I think we would want to go through some of the other discussions around climate change to make sure we understand how that works. The Minister described the plans as an alphabet soup, which is probably a good description. We heard her talking about neighbourhood priority statements. This aspect of the Bill is another layer of planning that sits in this new hierarchy. It is difficult to understand from what is in the Bill exactly where it sits, so we look forward to the round table that will help clarify some of these issues. As for neighbourhood priority statements, it saysthat any of the authorities involved can make these neighbourhood priority statements, but it is not clear exactly how that works.

This has been a good debate on these very important planning issues. As I said, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, and I am sure that some of the issues we raised will come up again in future debates. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 198 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

So you have a local plan, it goes to a nominated planning inspector to be heard in public and no person is to have a right to be heard at an examination in public. Now then: what is the quickest way to aggravate people? It is that: taking away their chance to have their say. With those fairly stringent remarks, I leave it to others to further comment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a really fascinating debate on a key part of the Bill. It has been good to hear voices with such great expertise and wisdom around the Chamber this evening. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. They have rightly emphasised the importance of a development system that is properly plan led. I greatly appreciate that.

If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has declared his passion for housing for older people, I should probably declare that mine is localism, devolution and community engagement. So I want to be optimistic about this Bill, but in these crucial aspects of planning I genuinely feel that it is going in the wrong direction.

I should probably give a brief confession that I am very bruised by experiences I have had relating to the planning system. Our Stevenage local plan, after some two and a half years of public engagement and consultation, a public inquiry which was extended to three weeks, which is quite unusual for a district local plan, and the approval of the inspector, was then called in by our local Member of Parliament and held by the Secretary of State for 451 days while we waited for a determination to be made about whether it could go ahead. It was eventually released under certain conditions, which I will not try noble Lords’ patience by going into. So the thought of this kind of centralising tendency in planning in the way proposed in the Bill makes me exceptionally nervous. I hope that explains a little bit why.

It was, as ever, a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Young. I respect his great knowledge and expertise in these areas. It is very concerning that only 39% of local authorities have a local plan. One reason for that is that, if you do not have a local plan in place, developers can pitch up and do virtually whatever they want in your area because you cannot resist it. That is not the whole case because you can use an extant plan, but it is much more difficult to resist unwanted development. I completely support his points on stream- lining and simplifying the process.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley, asked where NPPFs stand in relation to NDMPs. The NPPF will be retained to guide plan-making, but those parts which relate to decision-making will form the basis of the new suite of NDMPs, which will be given statutory weight by the Bill. They will be coming in as we are consulting. As the consultation comes to the fore, it will guide the NDMPs for the future. I hope that that makes sense.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry; I do not want to try the Minister’s patience, but we are not understanding how the various things sit together—the NPPF and the NDMPs. It is not quite clear to me how that will work, and it will make life very difficult for planning inspectors. We have talked before about a meeting to explain some of this in more detail, and that would be extremely helpful to those of us who are considering the Bill closely. If we could get a better understanding of that, it would be very helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am really happy to do that, because it is complex; there are a lot of acronyms and what have you. I do not think that this is the time of night to be discussing detail, so I am happy to put together a meeting as soon as possible, and we will go through it in detail.

I turn now to Amendment 189, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would allow Parliament to make national development management policies itself. Like national planning policy made at present through the National Planning Policy Framework, national development management policies will serve a broad purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as a starting point in considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. This is a key function of government, which would be undermined by the creation of a dual-power system, as this amendment seeks to do. An effective planning system cannot be achieved if Ministers and Parliament could create contradictory policies by both having the vires to do so. Such a role for Parliament in planning has not been previously proposed, and I am afraid that it is not one that we can support.

Amendment 190, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would impose a legislative restriction on setting fixed standards through national development management policies, while retaining an ability for those policies to set floors which could be exceeded. Unlike building regulations, national planning policies are not used to set specific standards in most cases. Nevertheless, I understand the concern behind the amendment: that national development could, potentially, be used to constrain what locally produced plans are able to do.

The question about how national development management policies are to be used is one that we have consulted on recently. Through that, we were clear that our intention is that they will address planning considerations that apply regularly in decision-making across the country, such as general policies for conserving heritage assets and preventing inappropriate development, including on belts and in areas of high flood risk—the types of policy already contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Our consultation also said that we were minded to retain the scope for optional technical standards to be set locally through plans so that local planning authorities can go above minimum building standards. The responses to the consultation are being assessed at present, as noble Lords know.

More broadly, it is important that we do not impose restrictions on the national development management policies, which could prevent sensible use of them. It may be appropriate to set absolute standards in one or two instances for reasons of consistency or to prevent harm—for example, in relation to pollution limits. This is best addressed through policy on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket restrictions in legislation. For these reasons, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to impose specific requirements or limitations of the sort that this amendment would entail, so I hope the noble Baroness will understand that we are not able to support it.

I move to Amendment 191, which seeks to probe the direction and modification powers of the Secretary of State to revoke and modify national development management policies. The power to revoke and modify the policies is bound by the same requirements as those to make them, including those on consultation. We recognise that, once the first suite of those policies is published, there must also be a clear legal framework for modifying and revoking them. Like the National Planning Policy Framework, national development management policies will need to evolve over time, reflecting new government priorities and changing economic, social and environmental challenges, as well as trends in planning practice. That is why the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke and modify these policies; without this power, they would become too rigid and potentially ineffective.

However, I would like to reassure noble Lords that the power to revoke and modify the policies will not be used lightly. It is not a mechanism to remove long-standing national planning policies, such as protecting the green belt or tackling flood risk. We want to see consultation, engagement and debate across the sector about potential changes to the policies, in the same way as happens now with the National Planning Policy Framework. Given that any revocation and modification must follow the same procedural requirements as the creation of the new national development management policies, we feel that this amendment is unnecessary and, therefore, not one we can support.

I turn to Amendments 191A and 191B in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which seek to change the requirements for making national development management policies so that they more clearly mirror those for national policy statements. National policy statements are used to set out the policy for nationally significant infrastructure projects—planning decisions that are made by Ministers. National development management policies will serve a broader purpose than this and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans when local decision-makers consider the suitability of development proposals. As previously mentioned, they will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions.

Clause 87 already imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that consultation and participation take place as appropriate, and our recent consultation on the future of the NPPF and the NDMP confirms that public consultation will be carried out before they are designated.

The requirements in this Bill set out that the Secretary of State must explicitly consider public consultation when determining what consultation is appropriate. This is similar to the approach for national policy statements, which also require consultation as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, although they do not include explicit consideration of “public” consultation as in the existing clause.

I acknowledge that the existing clause uses the phrase “if any” in relation to consultation. It includes this as there may be rare occasions where it would be appropriate not to consult on a draft national development management policy, such as if urgent changes are needed in the national interest. For example, during the pandemic, the Secretary of State was able to issue an urgent Written Ministerial Statement in July 2020 to temporarily change national planning policy so that theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues could be given a degree of protection where they were temporarily vacant due to Covid-19 business disruption.

The changes that we discussed earlier to the decision-making test in Clause 86, which strengthen the weight given to the development plan over material considerations, mean that such a policy would have had significantly less weight in planning decisions today, unless it was made a national development management policy.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have developed a proportionate framework for creating national development management policies, and explained why we have taken a different approach from that for national policy statements, meaning that we do not feel able to accept this amendment.

Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of national development management policies within 120 days of the Bill’s passage. As I have set out, the Bill makes appropriate provision for consultation, which is reinforced by the clear commitment in our recent consultation that we will consult on these policies. Against this backdrop, we believe that a legal obligation to publish a strategy for consultation is unnecessary, and so this is an amendment that we feel unable to support.

I turn next to Amendment 194, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would require the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to publish annual reports reflecting the cost of producing and maintaining national development management policies and any support given to local planning authorities. I reassure the noble Baroness that national development management policies will not create a new financial burden for local planning authorities or central government. The cost of producing national development management policies as a function of the Secretary of State will fall to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We expect that the cost of preparing and maintaining national development management policies—in Civil Service resource and specialist expertise—will be similar to that for producing and maintaining the National Planning Policy Framework. We will also ensure that the Planning Advisory Service, which my department funds, provides local planning authorities with training and support to help manage the practical transition to using national development management policies when they are making decisions.

Against these upfront costs, local planning authorities will financially benefit from national development management policies, as they will not need to develop or justify these policies themselves when their plans are examined by the Planning Inspectorate. As our impact assessment makes clear, national development management policies will provide greater certainty to developers and communities, potentially providing significant savings for businesses. Our impact assessment estimates that the benefits of increasing certainty in the planning system due to the measures in the Bill will be just over £2.8 billion over a 10-year appraisal period. For the reasons that I have set out, while I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, it is not one that I am able to support.

Amendment 216, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would remove the requirement for local plans to be consistent with national development management policies and prevent such a requirement in regulations. These amendments would fundamentally diminish the ability of our reforms to make local plans easier to prepare and to create more certainty for applicants, communities and local planning authorities. Through the Bill we are strengthening the role of the development plan in decision-making by changing Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan and the national development management policies unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 183 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I cannot go back to 1906 or whatever the date was—1974, I think. I go back to only 1979 so I am quite young in this, but I did manage to fit in 11 years on a district council, 10 years on a county council and then eight years on a metropolitan borough, so I have a well-scarred back. If you get partnership and ownership, you can get joint endeavours and you success. If you get alienation, that is a recipe for failure. If you leave district councils out of the equation—if you make them subsidiary, just adjuncts to CCAs—I would not be surprised if, at least in some places, their co-operation was significantly less than it would be if they were active and valued partners of the CCA. I say that to the Minister because, sometimes, politics has to give way to human nature or at least has to recognise the existence of human nature, and if district councils are spurned, they are going to be less helpful and co-operative. He may say, “We’ll soon deal with that”, but that is not a recipe for success. All I say to him is that he should please give serious consideration to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, because he is giving the Government an avenue—a gateway—to unleash that co-operation between the two tiers of local government so that CCAs in fact prosper.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling the amendment. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his 50 years in local government and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on his many years in local government. I went into local government in 1997. I was leader of my council for nearly 17 years before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I am the baby of the party here. However, I learned a few things along the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, kindly remarked. I want to cover some comments about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and to make some general points about the role of district councils in the new world that we are looking at following the Bill.

The big question here was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which is: where does democracy lie? This is a very important question. We think about it often in local councils. In previous sittings, we have heard set out clearly before your Lordships’ House the incredibly valuable role that district councils play in many of our communities in the UK, and I am grateful that this has been brought before us once again today. That is why it is so disappointing that the Bill, which purports to be all about devolution and bringing decision-making closer to people, seems to ride roughshod over the very tier of local government and the 183 councils that are closest to many people and communities. District councils outstrip county council colleagues and national government by a very long way indeed on issues such as helping people feel proud of their area, tackling social issues in our neighbourhoods, responding to and dealing with emergencies and, importantly, bringing the views of local people into decision-making in their local area. The figures are 62% for the district councils, 32% for county councils and 6%—yes, just 6%—for national government. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, district councils cover about 40% of the UK’s population but, importantly for the purposes of the Bill, they cover 68% of the land of the UK.

In this country we already have the lowest number of elected representatives per head in Europe; France has 35,000 communes with mayors and Germany has 11,000 municipalities. It is the UK that has abnormal levels of underrepresentation, and our councillors lack the powers and finances of many of our continental counterparts. Across the country we have around 2,000 electors per district councillor, which may account for their approachability, whereas there are 9,000 electors per county councillor.

They also represent communities that people recognise —I think this is key for the Bill. The comments by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, were very important here; people relate to the communities represented by our district councils. Surely the Bill should aim to keep the devolution we already have, not snatch it away to bigger and bigger combined authorities. That does not sound like progress to me.

This is not to set up any false conflict or rivalry between counties and districts. We all have a job to do and county councils are currently doing a valiant job in very trying circumstances. But with the high-cost services at county level, such as adult care services and children’s services, impacting on around just 5% of the population, whereas district council services impact on 100% of the population, it is perhaps not surprising to see how valued district councils are by their communities. As well as environmental services like the ones that my noble friend Lord Hunt commented on—waste collection, fly-tipping, street cleaning, licensing and food safety—districts look after leisure, parks and culture. They often take a role in preventive public health initiatives—in my own borough we have a Young People’s Healthy Hub tackling mental health issues for young people—town centre and high street management, tourism and so on. They also deal with key strategic services. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on this, because without key strategic services such as planning and economic development, there would be no levelling up. Leveraging £1 billion of town centre investment, as we have done in my borough, and £5 billion for a cell and gene therapy park—these are important contributions to the local area.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, referred to neighbourhood planning, which is a key part of how we drive forward issues around housing. It is well documented that it is neighbourhood planning that has actually delivered housing; it is a very important part of what has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to issues around the structure and architecture of the national development management policies. Frankly, I do not understand how this is going to work in the way it is currently set out in the Bill.

There are plenty of other contributions that district councils make. It was alarming to hear the Minister contend in our earlier session this week that

“councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC.”—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1143.]

That does not take into account the very successful partnership working between district councils and the police. As well as managing CCTV systems and often funding neighbourhood wardens, districts have extensive programs for tackling anti-social behaviour and for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and are often linked with Housing First provision, domestic abuse, engaging communities in setting local policing priorities and tackling enforcement issues in licensing, fly-tipping and environmental crime, to name but a few. During the pandemic, in two-tier areas it was often district councils that stepped up to either take on the support of those who were shielding or help mobilise hyperlocal resources to do so.

Forgive me for perhaps labouring the point a little, but the premise of the Bill, which seeks to override the very important role that district councils play in our communities, may be based on a misunderstanding or an outdated view of what district councils actually do. Of course, on planning issues, when we are looking at big strategic planning, districts have to work in partnership with other bodies—the health service, local enterprise partnerships and county councils—but I contend that this means they must have a vote and a voice around that table. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment in this group, as I have with others in earlier sessions that give district councils—and indeed town and parish councils—the voice that they deserve and that their communities expect them to have.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 125A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, brings us back to a set of issues that we have discussed in a number of our earlier debates: the question of which authorities can prepare a proposal for the establishment of a combined county authority and submit the proposal to the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to add second-tier district councils within the proposed CCA’s area to this list of authorities. However, as the noble Lord is aware, the Bill provides that only upper-tier local authorities—county councils and unitary councils—can be constituent members of a CCA. District councils cannot be constituent members of a CCA and, as such, cannot prepare and submit a proposal for a CCA.

Let me take the Committee through the rationale for this approach. When CCAs come into being, they will ensure that there is a mechanism for strategic decision-making across a functional economic area or whole-county geography; in other words, co-operation over matters for which upper-tier local authorities already have responsibility.

In the Government’s view, therefore, it makes sense to enable upper-tier local authorities to decide, albeit following appropriate consultation, whether a CCA across a wider geographic area might offer advantages for such whole-county strategic decision-making. That is not to say that district councils should have no voice in the way a CCA comes into being; quite the contrary. While we believe that it is right for district councils not to form part of the constituent membership of a CCA, they are nevertheless key stakeholders in the devolution process. As we stated in the levelling up White Paper, while we will negotiate devolution deals with upper-tier local authorities across a functional economic area or whole-county geography, we expect county councils to work closely with the district councils in their area during the formulation of the proposal and subsequently. This is exactly what has been happening to date, and we have been pleased to see it.

How can we ensure that the voice of district councils is heard as a CCA proposal is being put together? As discussed in Committee previously, authorities proposing a CCA must undertake a public consultation on the proposal. As key local stakeholders, district councils would be consulted. Their views would be reflected in any summary of consultation responses submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.

The task of the Secretary of State is then to assess whether the consultation has been sufficient. In doing so, the Secretary of State will have regard to whether it reflects the views of a full range of local stakeholders, including district councils should there be any. The Cabinet Office principles for public consultations are very clear that those conducting a public consultation must consult the full range of local stakeholders, not simply local residents but businesses, public authorities, voluntary sector organisations and others with a legitimate interest. If the Secretary of State, mindful of those principles and in the light of the evidence presented, deems the consultation not to be adequate, they themselves must consult on the proposal. Any such consultation would include consulting district councils.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I do not accept the principle that the district councils in an area, which are the democratically elected representatives for their people, are the same as all the other stakeholders that the noble Earl referred to and just another consultee in this process. Fundamentally, that is where the discussions we have had on this so far have given us such a deal of trouble. District councils have an elected mandate from the people they represent. I appreciate that there are very strong rules around Cabinet Office consultations and so on in the principles that the noble Earl has set out, but surely there must be a different approach to district councils because of the elected mandate that their representatives hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley for raising this important part of the levelling-up agenda. I of course also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for linking it to the estimable White Paper on levelling up which, in many ways, has pointed to the importance of full devolution being equated with autonomy over local funding.

At the moment—I have probably said this before in the Chamber—we have the delegation of powers and funding from the centre to local government, be it combined authorities or local councils. This is therefore an important debate because, if we really want to be on the path to devolution, we have to address the issue of more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government.

The Minister may wish to pause at this point and take time over the weekend to refer to a House of Commons report that called for more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government. To be fair, it is 10 years old but sometimes, these big changes take a long time. It was published by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was of course all-party. I draw the Minister’s attention to two elements of the conclusion, and I hope she will then have time to read more of it:

“Power and finance must go together if local government is to become an equal partner… any attempt to make the relationship between central and local government more balanced would be meaningless without giving local government its own source of revenue… to achieve fully the potential of localism, a key plank of the Government’s policy platform, local government requires financial freedoms.”


The report stated that the Government, under the same political colours as now, should consider giving local authorities in England a share of the existing income tax for England. The committee did not propose a change in income tax rates, but:

“The concept of tax transparency would allow local people to see more clearly what their taxes pay for locally and encourage them to hold local councils to account for their expenditure.”


I agree. There is obviously much more in that report.

The debate here is about having real devolution. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have it, why not Yorkshire, the population of which is bigger than each of them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Why not Hertfordshire, with a population of 1.2 million people? I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for drawing us back to the White Paper and the ambition contained therein. One of the key themes of discussion on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill so far has been the missed opportunity to tackle some of the critical financial issues that, in my view, are holding local government back from playing as full a part as it can in delivering the Bill’s stated agenda and missions. There is a significant lack of ambition in not taking this further, described by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as the elephant in the room. The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, rightly highlighted that a key aspect of this is the extent to which the Government seek to reduce the current chronic overcentralisation of decision-making in the UK by empowering CCAs with enhanced fiscal powers. A great deal more could be done in that regard.

In the probing and thoughtful report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the LGA carried out a comparative study of fiscal devolution in the UK, Holland, Germany and Switzerland. It concluded that the UK should be working with local government to explore the full extent of fiscal devolution and what it could add to ensure that authorities have the strongest financial muscle to deliver what they know their areas most need. Commenting on the Netherlands, for example, the report says that

“fiscal freedom means that the broad suite of local taxes available to Dutch municipalities, and their tendency to collaborate cross borders, gives local government more placemaking levers while also providing residents with greater transparency on council finances. Fiscal freedom means a difference between money for core services and for place-specific social and cultural issues. It does not argue for fiscal autonomy with the idea that local government can become fiscally self-sustaining units of tax and spend but focuses on the potential that revenue-raising could have for placemaking.”

That goes right to the heart of this argument.

Even with the so-called trail-blazer authorities in Manchester and the West Midlands, one often gets the impression that achieving the fiscal freedoms they feel they need to serve their communities is like getting blood out of a stone. In previous sessions we commented frequently on the regressive, unhelpful and expensive method of creating multiple funding pots that means councils have to waste their precious funds pulling bids together.

If the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, were adopted, or something very similar to it, it would set into legislation the devolution of fiscal powers that, in my view, should always have been in the Bill. On Budget Day, it is important to say that no one in local government believes that a magic money tree is coming our way. I quote the LGA report again:

“Fiscal devolution entails the same suite of local taxes as we currently have in the UK, except with a higher level of devolution of central taxes. Unlike with fiscal freedom, this would not necessitate the introduction of ‘new’ taxes, but rather a reconsideration of the obligations and duties of each level of government. If fiscal devolution deals were done on the basis of local need for finance, following this German model would mean local authorities could fund their own care services in line with their own requirements.”


Europe also benefits from federalised banking institutions. How much more ambitious could local government be if that were the case here?

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to all finance being controlled from London. I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the Labour Government have already developed this and are making great strides in developing local banking institutions. Incidentally, Wales is also undertaking a comprehensive review of council tax.

Earlier this week a Question was asked in your Lordships’ House on the huge potential of pension funds in contributing to fiscal devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the extent to which local government and local decision-making is controlled by national finance, with council tax set by Parliament, business rates set by the Treasury and even rents set by DLUHC. That does not make any sense. It is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, to end up needing a pothole fund. When that announcement was made earlier today in the Budget, my first comment was, “Why don’t you fund local government properly? Then we could fix our own potholes.”

These revenue-raising powers are important to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly pointed at self-sufficient, independent and confident local government, and finding ways of delivering that through a different fiscal settlement. That is really important. We are not a federal state, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, but surely an aim of the Bill must be to create the kind of state where we can have a much more effective system of fiscal devolution, with local government having the freedoms to fund itself properly.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Baroness is making a very good point, but she will no doubt agree with me that sometimes things go wrong— for instance in the recent experiences in Slough and Thurrock —with inappropriate spending or error. In the absence of the Audit Commission, which I remind noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches was abolished under the coalition Government, surely there must be some sanction at central government for inappropriate expenditure. It may be just incompetence, and not even at a criminal level. In the absence of an equivalent to the National Audit Office for local government, there must be ways for Ministers to exercise discretion on financial issues in local government on behalf of taxpayers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not disagree that audit is required. We debated that earlier on the Bill. The authorities mentioned are Conservative authorities, as in Northampton, where my good friends in Corby lost their council because of the actions of a council of another political persuasion. That is a political point, which I probably should not make here.

A proper consideration of the role of further fiscal powers, with full engagement of local government— I am not suggesting that this is done to us because it would go against all the principles that we are talking about—could provide the basis for an empowered, innovative and dynamic shift for CCAs and their constituent members, sitting alongside the completion of the fair funding review, which has been outstanding for years now and which we have discussed previously.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, relates to the potential fiscal powers of combined county authorities, although we were slowly moving into a debate on English devolution, which we should leave for another time.

As set out in the levelling-up White Paper, level 3 devolution deal areas can look to finance local initiatives for residents and businesses. These include regeneration through a mayoral precept on council tax, and supplements on business rates. The Government are already considering putting powers in the hands of local people through greater fiscal freedoms and are exploring this further fiscal devolution, initially through the trail-blazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities. Negotiations are ongoing and progressing well. It says in my notes that they are expected to conclude in early 2023, so I assume that it will be very soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a short debate and it will be very interesting to see how the Government respond to it. I wait in hope that something can be done, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment, to turbocharge local democracy. There is no doubt that it needs turbocharging: we see elements of its alienation every day of the week. We are moving closer and closer not to better local democracy, but to perhaps better but certainly more intense local administration. I have spoken on that already today. My noble friend made the extremely powerful point, and certainly a very good debating point, that if ID cards are good enough for Northern Ireland, surely a proportional voting system is good enough for England. I hope the Government have a really plausible reason for not accepting that argument.

My noble friend Lady Harris has accurately reported, I am sure, the views of Richmondshire District Council—incidentally, it is in North Yorkshire, which we were of course discussing earlier today—and the value of every vote being equal and the opportunities for regeneration that flow from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to some examples of bad practice and pointed out the damaging impacts of single-party rule. Since we certainly think it is inappropriate, to say the least, in North Korea, it ought to be inappropriate in our town halls in England as well. Restoring that element of local choice and broader representation ought surely to be one of the objectives of this levelling-up Bill.

My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath drew attention to the not untypical situation with East Suffolk Council whereby a party with less than 40% of the vote finishes up with over 70% of the representation and therefore of the decision-making. We had debates earlier about the Government’s intention, set out clearly in the Bill, to suspend the operation of proportionality in local authorities in the formation of CCAs. I hope the Government Front Bench will take note of some of the malign consequences that can arise when proportionality is not adhered to. Of course, in terms of representation, a sense of alienation can grow in voters, and in non-voters but electors, who repeatedly say, “It’s not worth voting because they always get in”. That happens time and again, particularly in local government. Surely, we have to make sure that the voices of the silent ones—the voices being suppressed by that system—are in fact heard.

I want to hear the Government say, “There are things about this we do not like; we do not really want anything other than first past the post; but we do recognise that local communities, local councils, should have the right to choose for themselves the voting system they use”. My noble friend has set out in considerable detail a very compelling case: we are not suggesting throwing the whole system up in the air, but simply using systems already in operation in various parts of the United Kingdom, including in England.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Stunell. It has been a very interesting discussion. The arguments I have heard articulated many times over the years on voting methods have been rehearsed with great conviction this afternoon.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

103: Schedule 2, page 257, line 23, at end insert—
“(e) as to the holding of by-elections for mayoral vacancies.”Member's explanatory statement
This is to probe the possibility of Mayoral by-elections.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 115, 118 and 119 and Amendments 116, 117 and 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock.

In general terms, these amendments have been tabled to probe some of the issues around what appears to be a democratic deficit in both the existing elected mayoral system and the new provisions proposed in the Bill. They also consider how the Secretary of State will deal with the financial consequences of the powers given to him or her in the Bill to transfer functions to the mayor, as well as some further issues around the communication of issues relating to the mayoral system to members of the public in the area that he or she represents.

I know that communication has been covered extensively in our previous debates in Committee—we have heard extensive responses from the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on that subject—so I will be brief. However, if the new CCAs that choose to go down the route of an elected mayor are to be successful, it will be vital that all matters relating to the mayoralty are set out clearly and communicated effectively to the public in the area concerned.

Amendment 103 is intended to probe the possibility of mayoral by-elections. We need clarity in relation to what would happen in the event that a CCA mayor resigned or left office for any reason. Does there need to be specific provision in the Bill to enable a mayoral by-election should this happen? As the current proposal seems to be that the deputy mayor is simply appointed by the mayor, it does not seem appropriate for an unelected deputy mayor to step in and take over until the next cycle of mayoral elections is due. Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that a mayoral by-election should possible if the mayor is unable or unwilling to carry on in their role in a period that is not close to the date in the normal cycle of mayoral elections?

Amendment 115 would insert:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments.”


This amendment has been supported by the Local Government Association, which thinks it gives greater power to combined authority members to hold the mayor, and the mayor’s choice of deputy mayor, to account. We heard a great deal earlier this afternoon about the flaws in the process for appointing deputy mayors. The current system of appointment by the mayor to the role of deputy mayor seems to leave a gaping hole in any democratic process in this respect. Deputy mayors have powerful roles within the executive and administration of the CCA. As we have heard, they could potentially take the role of the current police and crime commissioner. They also receive remuneration from the CCA, which can be at a significant cost to the taxpayer. But this can be done without any provision in the Bill for scrutiny either by the overview and scrutiny committee or by an equivalent body, let alone any external scrutiny, which seems to set those roles apart from both the democratic process, in that they are not elected by the public, and the provisions that would be made in a local authority, for example, for the appointment of a senior member of staff. Would the Minister give consideration to any further provisions and safeguards that could be built into the Bill to ensure that CCA members and the public can hold the mayor to account for the appointment of deputy mayors?

Amendment 116, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming what additional funds will be made available to a mayor when making regulations under Clause 28, so we are back to funding again. This amendment is supported by the LGA. The clause gives the Secretary of State significant powers to transfer responsibilities for certain functions and activities to the mayor and the CCA. In some circumstances, we accept, this may be subject to the normal process of new burdens funding, although that process in itself has its own challenges. We would be more concerned that devolution may be used as an excuse to reduce funding for services, particularly core services. We absolutely support the transfer of powers from central government to local leaders, but of course these powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels. Our amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would confirm what funding was being allocated along with any new powers that are conferred. The LGA agrees with that opinion, saying that

“powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels, and devolution should not be used as an excuse to reducing funding”.

So, on that amendment, we have the support of the LGA.

Amendment 117, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, is on an annual summit of CCA mayors. This is similar to earlier amendments we laid down around the sharing of good practice. It is a probing amendment designed to explore how CCA mayors will share information on the implementation of the new types of combined authorities and best practice. It would give them a forum to enable them to discuss any issues arising from the operation of the CCAs, and liaison and co-operation between them and the Government, and to understand how different models of CCA are working—for example, those that have taken the powers of police and crime commissioners. We appreciate that there may be a role for the LGA. We discussed that earlier this afternoon; we can discuss it further in later stages of the Bill. Other bodies may have an interest in this area in relation to CCAs, but it is certainly not clear from the Bill how joint working, sharing of good practice and achieving an agreed stance where issues arise on policy matters around the structure of CCAs and so on would happen.

Amendment 118 is a probing amendment which would prevent the Secretary of State from conferring only partial police and crime commissioner functions on the mayor. This relates very much to the discussion that we had earlier under other amendments. I hope that it is not related to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt earlier, where a mayor does not agree with decisions made by a PCC of a different political persuasion—or even the same one, if you are in one of those types of political arrangements and they have had a fallout. It seems strange to have provision in the Bill which could lead to the possibility of a patchwork of different policing responsibilities being conferred on CCA mayors. This begs a further question about the role of police and crime commissioners in those circumstances.

This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s view on whether they would prefer the default position to be to transfer all the functions of police and crime commissioners to mayors in most circumstances, except where the CCA particularly expresses a wish not to transfer any of those powers, or whether it is to be left to CCAs at local level to determine which functions will be transferred to the mayor. Can the Minister please clarify this point? Policing is just too important in our communities to see it haggled over between different bits of local authorities. I hope we can have a clear line on this.

Amendment 119 is a probing amendment to allow the person appointed deputy mayor to be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Again, we had a very long discussion about this earlier today, but it is certainly not clear in the Bill whether it is the intention that a deputy mayor should never take the function of a deputy mayor for policing and crime. We have raised other amendments, and under those is our concern about the democratic deficit in the appointment of deputy mayors. However, if and only if the issues around accountability for those appointments can be resolved, it would seem perverse for the mayor not to be able to delegate this part of their responsibility. Indeed, in practice, it almost certainly would happen. Can the Minister comment on how this aspect of the Bill might be clarified to make that issue clearer?

Lastly, Amendment 125, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, would mean that a change in the mayoral title must be communicated to residents. We agree with Amendment 124 by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: a list of possible alternative titles for mayors is really unnecessary, as the CCA already has powers to choose alternative titles if it wishes. My noble friend’s amendment is intended to make sure that, if there is a change to the title, that is communicated to the public—to residents—and that that should be written into the process for any mayoral change of title. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 124 in this group, which relates to Clause 40, “Alternative mayoral titles”. I challenge the notion that a choice of titles is required on the face of the Bill. Powers to decide a title already lie with the CCA, under Clause 40, in line 25 of page 35, and to attempt to define possible titles is an unnecessary addition.

The titles suggested are,

“county commissioner … county governor … elected leader … governor.”

I am not clear where those four titles came from. I guess we could all add some more, but it is confusing since everybody else is using the word “mayor”. I do not understand why another title is necessary. If I look at the word “governor”, I immediately think of a school governor, the governor of a US state or the governor of a prison. I am not sure it helps public understanding of what is proposed with a combined county authority to have a mixture of titles for roles. The public will have great difficulty engaging with them, because the titles could be different in one place from another. The power is there for people on the CCA to decide what title they want but, frankly, if I had my way it would be “mayor” because that has become the term. For the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tees Valley and so on, the word is “mayor” and I am not sure it helps to have suggestions that they could be called “governors” or “county commissioners.” I hope the Minister may be able to look at that and come up with an explanation about why the Government want to confuse things so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is understood. I will take that back and do what I can; I will see what we have already.

On Amendment 115 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I agree with her that the decisions of a mayor of a combined county authority should be—as I said earlier—subject to effective scrutiny, as should those of any leader of any council. Devolution should combine strong, empowered local leaders with strong accountability, but also transparency. The Government will publish a new devolution accountability framework to ensure that all devolution deals lead to local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable.

Schedule 1 provides that a combined county authority will be required to have at least one overview and scrutiny committee, as we discussed earlier, which can review and scrutinise decisions made or actions taken by the combined county authority and the mayor. The schedule provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the overview and scrutiny committee, including membership, voting rights, payment of allowances, chair, appointments of scrutiny officers, circumstances in which matters may be referred to the committee, and the obligations on persons to attend and respond to reports that the committee issues. This will ensure a robust framework within which overview and scrutiny committees will operate.

We think that this gives sufficient scope for local scrutiny on decisions taken by the CCA or mayor, such as the appointment of a deputy mayor by the mayor from among the combined county authority’s membership, if that is considered appropriate. I make it clear that the statutory deputy mayor will have to come from the members of the CCA—from those local authorities. It is not the same as a deputy mayor for police and crime, who could come from somewhere else, because they would possibly be required to have different experience and background. I hope that makes sense. It is quite important that we have those two deputies separated.

On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we agree that information on funding should be available, and I can reassure the noble Baroness that that will be the case. Information on the funding available to a combined county authority and mayor will be in the public domain. The deal agreed between the Government and the area sets out both the funding arrangements and the powers to be conferred on the combined county authority and the mayor. The deal document is published and therefore publicly available. There must also be a public consultation locally on the area’s proposal to establish a combined county authority. We expect this to set out how the CCA will work and include the powers to be conferred on the CCA and the mayor and the funding available. The final proposal, which must be accompanied by a summary of the consultation, will constitute the formal submission to the Secretary of State seeking the establishment of the CCA.

In Amendment 117, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, probes whether there should be an annual summit of the CCA mayors. The existing combined authority mayors have themselves established the M10 group to enable them to work together. The Government engage with this group on a regular basis. We expect the M10 and the new combined county authority mayors to consider how best to work together. We think a locally led arrangement is better than a centrally imposed approach, and I expect it will evolve as more areas agree devolution deals.

In tabling Amendment 118 to Schedule 3, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is seeking to prevent a combined county authority taking on part of the police and crime commissioner role. Schedule 3 provides further detail, setting out the matters on which the Secretary of State either may or must make regulations to enable a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions to a combined county authority mayor. It provides the framework and arrangements for the mayor to exercise these PCC functions on a day-to-day basis.

The amendment would limit the ability of the Secretary of State to determine an appropriate limited scope to the conferral of PCC functions to combined county authority mayors. Combined county authority and combined authority mayors should have parity where possible to ensure that all areas of England have the same options. The schedule achieves this consistency by mirroring the scope of regulations that govern the conferral and exercise of police and crime commissioner functions by combined authority mayors, as set out in Schedule 5C to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The amendment would create an inconsistency between the schedule governing the making of regulations related to combined county authority mayors’ exercise of PCC functions compared with its equivalent for combined authority mayors, leading to unnecessary inconsistency in the legislative framework for the PCC model.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am still a bit confused about this. The Bill says that some mayors taking on police and crime commissioner powers can take certain powers to themselves and others can take others, so you end up with a picture around the country where they have different powers in different places. That was my concern, not that there would be an inconsistency between police and crime commissioners and mayors. What I wanted to understand with the amendment was whether, if the powers of the police and crime commissioner are transferred to the mayor, they will all be transferred. We do not want a different picture around the country depending on which powers of the police and crime commissioner have been moved over.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

All the powers will go. There will not be half a PCC left. Does that make sense?

Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to allow the person appointed as statutory deputy mayor of the combined county authority to also be appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Schedule 3 prevents this because the deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are two distinct, separate, and weighty roles. The role of the statutory deputy mayor is to step in and act as mayor should the mayor be unable to act or if the office of mayor is vacant for a time, as well as assisting across a whole range of general mayoral functions where applicable.

The deputy mayor of a combined authority is typically also a council leader, and we anticipate this will likely also be the case in combined county authorities. This would mean that this person is already accountable for the decisions and activities of the council they lead, in addition to their combined county authority responsibilities, where they will be accountable collectively, and possibly personally, for some of the CCA decisions, including personally for the mayor’s functions if the mayor cannot act. The role of the deputy mayor for policing and crime is to dedicate constant focus and attention to crime and policing and is usually a full-time role. Clearly, both the roles of deputy mayor and deputy mayor for policing and crime are significant and we believe that they should remain separate and distinct.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow CCA mayors to be called by their choice of alternative title. Clauses 40 and 41 already enable mayoral combined county authorities to resolve or choose to use an alternative title to “mayor” for their directly elected mayor. They can choose from a shortlist of titles listed in the Bill, or a different title not on the list, having regard to other titles used in the area. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from regarding the fact that the title “mayor” is beginning to take on some level of credence within the country, but if you come from a particularly rural county area—I counted last night that where I was leader of a council, we already had 16 mayors—an elected mayor would be confusing for some people. The role of a mayor in some rural areas is seen as a civic role, rather than a leadership role, which is very different.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, Amendment 125 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require combined county authorities to communicate to all residents in their area changes to a mayoral title. We entirely agree that it is important that residents are aware of the title used by an individual representing them. Clause 41 requires that combined county authorities publish a notice in their area whenever there is a change to the mayoral title. This requirement is to ensure that residents are aware of the change in that title. The Government therefore feel that they have already provided for effective, proportionate reporting mechanisms for changes to mayoral titles that cover what the noble Baroness is seeking.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her detailed responses and the other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned that the detail in the Bill is insufficient on how CCAs operate. That goes to the heart of a lot of these amendments. We have tabled a lot of probing amendments to try to find out some of the detail about how all this is going to work.

In relation to Amendment 103 and the appointment of deputy mayors, in local government we have an appointments committee, as the Minister will know, which oversees the appointment to local authorities of any senior post. When we tabled the amendment, we had not understood that it was going to be essential that the deputy mayor would be one of the councillor members of the CCA. I hope that we have been able to clarify that through the submission of this amendment.

Matters of governance and constitution are essential. I would normally say I understand that we have to wait for regulations, statutory instruments and so on, but as this will be such a major change for our areas, it is important that both the local authorities and the members who will enact this legislation—and the members of the public who are going to live in the new CCA areas—understand in great detail how it is going to work before we go into the new system. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a comment about having some draft regulations in front of us before we get to the end of the Bill. That would be incredibly helpful.

On provisions for by-elections, I understand the Minister’s comments about that being in the schedule. However, it sounds as if it will be a little in the hands of the Secretary of State as to whether to call for an election. That gives me a bit of concern because if a local councillor resigns midterm, you have to hold a by-election if the members of the electorate call for it. Unless it is very close to an upcoming local election, you have to do that between elections. I do not see any problem with having something further in the Bill so that we could understand how that works. It would be the same process, in effect, as for a local councillor.

On Amendment 115, I understand the responses. But would the accountability include the PCC or the mayor as PCC? The Minister mentioned a whole raft of accountabilities that the mayor comes under. Would it include the PCC and the mayoral role as PCC? I would like to understand that a little better. Is the whole policing element of the mayor’s role going to be undertaken a bit under the radar, as it is now, by a local policing committee?

On Amendment 116, the noble Baroness said that the deal agreed sets out the funding arrangements and that it is a public document. It was helpful to have that clarified. Her response to Amendment 117 was that there is an existing body, the M10 group of CCA mayors, and it is helpful to know that the Government expect mayors to participate in some kind of forum.

On Amendment 118, the schedule sets out the functions. Thanks to the responses we have had, we now know that they would be the same options, whether it was going to be a police and crime commissioner or the mayor undertaking those duties. I want to just ask one further question: does that mean that the deputy mayor for crime and policing does not have to be a councillor member of the CCA? Could that person be just appointed from outside the CCA? We would take an interest if that was the case.

On the list of titles, we just disagree. The amendment states quite clearly that we think it should just be left to authorities to determine that; there is no need for a list of titles on the face of the Bill. We have been told over and again that we do not need so much detail in the Bill, but in this case we have a whole list on the face of the Bill that we think is entirely unnecessary.

I am grateful for the points about communication because it is really important that, with a new system like this, the public understand exactly what is happening. If there is to be change to the title that should be communicated. “Communicated” is not as effective as I would like it to be. I would like them to be consulted on it, but communication is better than nothing.

That said, I am happy to withdraw my amendment for now. I stress the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made about having some draft regulations in front of us so that we can understand very clearly exactly what the provisions are. If the noble Baroness could write to us about the issue of the deputy mayor with responsibility for police and crime functions and whether that person is going to be a councillor or not, that would be helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am happy to answer that straight away. That person does not have to be a councillor. The statutory deputy mayor needs to be a councillor and the police and crime one does not.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I will speak very briefly; I will certainly not debate with the Minister all 35 amendments. I am taking on a brief inspection that these are indeed just minor and consequential. I want to use this as the opportunity to say that the Minister has written to us today, advising us of a whole range of further amendments that the Government will table. While most of them flow from the debates we have had so far, one particular amendment relating to the building safety regulator is completely off-piste, as far as I can see. In responding, can the Minister—perhaps being grateful for me not debating all 35 amendments—assure us that sufficient time will be given for us to think through some of the new amendments the Government have tabled today?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that I too will not debate all 35 amendments. They are largely consequential and drafting amendments. I noted that, earlier in today’s debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the consultation provisions contained in Amendments 151 and 152, so we will have a closer look at those, and we may write to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, if we have any further concerns on that.

I have one tiny question—forgive me: I know that it is late—on Amendment 143. The proposed new paragraph 7ZB in Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

“If the Secretary of State … thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and (b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document, the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.”


I do not necessarily need an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me. Is it the Secretary of State or the constituent planning authority who invites the CCA to intervene in the preparation or revision of the document? That was not clear. The amendment also makes provision for the CCA to charge the non-constituent authority for work done on the development plan. Would those charges be agreed between both parties in advance, subject to a fee scale or limited fixed charges? I ask that question because it may be that the financial position of the constituent planning authority was the reason for the delay in the first place. It may be that, either in preparing the plan or if the recruitment of planning staff in the area is difficult, the authority is not in a position to increase salaries and so on, so if there were to be a massive charge to it from the CCA, that might be an issue. I am happy to take a written response to that question in due course.

Other than that, I have no questions or comments on the amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her offer; I would prefer to give a written answer to that question, because it was quite complicated, and I do not want to give the wrong answer.

On the question of sufficient time for the new government amendments, I will ensure that I talk to the usual people to give plenty of time for noble Lords to look into them, because they were more substantive than this group of amendments. Saying that, I beg to move.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am a serving district and county councillor and a vice-president of the District Councils’ Network.

I will speak to our Amendments 78 and 85 and will comment also on some of the other amendments in this group. Many in this House who have connections with local government will be very aware of the significant issues in relation to formal audit over the last three years. This has been the result of a number of issues in the private sector audit regime that we now have, including the increasing complexity of local authority accounts and the resultant demands on training, the recruitment and retention of staff, and rapidly increasing fees, to name just a few factors that have been experienced by the private audit sector. In fact, it was estimated last year that only 9% of local authorities had been able to have their 2021 audits completed on time.

Audit is really vital, as the noble Lord said just now. It provides public reassurance and confidence for both members and officers, and more particularly for the public. It is disappointing that the Bill does nothing to address that issue. However, the amendments in this section are aimed at ensuring that scrutiny within the CCA is as powerful and independent as it can be, which should, in turn, mean that audit is effective and can develop a high level of confidence among members and the public.

Turning first to our Amendment 78, this is needed because of the proposals in the Bill that effectively exclude district councillors from being voting members of the CCA itself. I appreciate that we have some work to do to clarify that point. The fundamental impact of the decisions taken by the CCA must, therefore, be able to be scrutinised effectively by members with a detailed local knowledge of their area. As chairs of overview and scrutiny review the decisions of their own councils’ executive committees on a regular basis, they will have a good working knowledge of the strategic planning for their areas, and therefore will be able to assess the likely impact of decisions taken by the CCA.

There is a precedent for this. For example, in the policing panels, which scrutinise the work and budgets of police and crime commissioners, all districts in a PCC’s area are entitled to be present. It is not intended that this amendment would prevent other members being appointed to an overview and scrutiny committee—for example independent members, as referred to in Amendment 84, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

I turn now to our Amendment 85. This relates to the sharing of best practice on scrutiny, and there is some very good advice and support on scrutiny available from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. It will be vital to the successful operation of the CCA that best practice from around the country is shared among the committees. We appreciate that this is not necessarily the role of the Secretary of State, but it could be made clear in guidance to overview and scrutiny committees that they should give consideration regularly to how they operate and how they assimilate best practice.

I will now comment, if I may, on some of the amendments tabled by other noble Lords. We support Amendment 77, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which is designed to strengthen the role of overview and scrutiny in relation to CCAs. The Labour Party has long been advocating that local public accounts committees could be a way of pulling together local scrutiny of the impact of both national and local policy-making and decision-making on local areas. This would be a first step towards ensuring that overview and scrutiny committees have a level of independence from the CCA. The membership of these committees also needs to be carefully considered.

Turning to Amendment 79, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the fact that overview and scrutiny committees must be able to carry out their work without influence, and I totally support that. The overview and scrutiny committees must be completely unfettered from any interference from the CCA, including such devices as setting out workplans for them or prohibiting them from scrutinising any aspect of work undertaken by the CCA. Neither should the CCA be able to determine the process used by the overview and scrutiny committees. For example, if the committees wish to call witnesses, including members of the CCA, they should be able to do so. We would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification that it is the intention that overview and scrutiny committees are entitled to carry out their scrutiny of the CCA in any way that they determine will achieve effective scrutiny.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raise some important issues around the way in which rural issues—such as housing, education, transport, rural economies and so on—often differ from those that are the main consideration of a CCA. We should support the freedom of a CCA to create any sub-committee that is relevant to the work that it undertakes. If it helps to have a rural sub-committee specifically listed to ensure that rural issues are considered by a CCA, that is no bad thing. This is particularly useful where the CCA covers an area that is largely urban but contains smaller rural areas, as it will ensure that issues relevant to rurality are properly considered and reported back to the CCA. A report from one of our own Lords committees, on rural communities, showed that, on the whole, local enterprise partnerships are not great at delivering for rural areas, so the need for that sort of committee of a CCA is well evidenced.

Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is a belt-and-braces amendment, if noble Lords will forgive the expression, to ensure that, should a Member have recently crossed the Floor from one political party to another—meaning that they would have had very recent contact with the mayor, their decision-making processes and strategy—they are not then placed in a position to be able to scrutinise the mayor’s actions. It truly is belt and braces because, in my experience, people who change their political party do so because of disenchantment with where they have been, so it is possible that they may be the best critics of the mayor and their administration. However, this amendment would ensure that there could be no deliberate manipulation of the scrutiny function.

Similar to Amendment 82, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would mean that, if there is no party with an outright majority on the CCA, the chair of overview and scrutiny should not be a member of either of the parties that may hold the majority together. Depending on local circumstances, this might be difficult if, for example, a third or fourth party is very much in the minority and may not be able to put forward a chair. In those circumstances, it might be necessary to make provision for an independent chair; the fact that we need to continue to discuss this means that there are issues here that continue to need resolution.

The LGA has made some extensive comments on Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is worth recording what it has said about having independent co-opted members on audit committees; it is certainly in favour of it. It states:

“Having multiple co-optees enables them to have complementary skills (eg finance, risk management, governance) … The constitutional rules should still require the majority of audit committee members to be elected members. This is for two reasons”—


which are fairly obvious to me but perhaps they are not always so obvious. They are that

“audit committees are fulfilling a role delegated by elected members … who are jointly and severally ‘those charged with governance’, and … elected members represent the community and are in a unique position not enjoyed by independent co-optees to understand what the concerns of local people are in relation to assurance”.

So, although we would support the increase in transparency provided by an increased number of independent members participating in an audit committee for all the reasons that the LGA and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have highlighted, we question the need to have a specific number when the Bill already states that “at least” one member of an audit committee is an independent member. Perhaps it should be for the CCA to determine its preference for the number of independent members, based on the particular skills base that it feels it needs to carry out the audit role. In time, we feel that good practice would be developed by CCA audit committees as they understand what particular skills are needed in relation to CCA audit work; we are sure that they would be supported by national bodies such as the LGA in sharing good practice.

Another important issue arises here: the question of remuneration, which the LGA has raised. Independent members of a CCA audit committee are likely to be necessarily highly skilled individuals in, for example, finance, risk management and/or governance. While one could expect that they will give a certain proportion of their time for community benefit, it seems unreasonable to expect that they would carry out this role without any remuneration at all. Although the cost of the remuneration of independent members is likely to be minimal in the context of the overall budget of the CCA, consideration should be given to this at the initiation of the CCA so that the roles can be properly defined and recruited. The availability of the necessary skills in any particular area can be decided only in practice.

I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a member of Kirklees Council and one who has served on its audit committee for a number of years. Scrutiny and audit are close to my heart. My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised some important issues about scrutiny—about the importance of an appropriate person not being seen as a political nominee, because that would undermine the whole purpose of scrutiny, taking an independent view of the decision-making process in the combined authority.

The second thing, which has not yet been explored, is that scrutiny can be post decision-making and pre decision-making. In strategic decisions made by a combined county authority or a combined authority, the primary duty of a scrutiny committee ought to be pre-decision scrutiny, because that is one way of ensuring a very detailed look at what is proposed—through a semi-independent committee one step removed from the decision-makers in the combined authority. I look forward to what the Minister will say on that and whether emphasis could be put on pre-decision scrutiny, particularly in this role.

The audit function has been illustrated by my noble friend Lord Shipley, who pointed out the number of councils that are failing in their financial status because auditors fail to pick up what is going on there. There are two elements of audit, though, which, again, have not been explored today or indeed in the Bill. One is internal audit, which ought to be primarily the duty of elected members, and the other is external audit, where the appointed external auditors of every council have a very important role at looking at where deficiencies might occur and where decisions being made by the council pose a substantial risk to its future. I totally support the views expressed by all Members who have spoken so far about the importance of having independent experts on those committees from a financial, audit or risk sector to support and advise the committee, but in the end, it is the decision of the elected members. It is them who have to carry the can, quite rightly: if they make poor decisions and fail to expose issues of concern in their councils, they too must be held accountable. I look forward to what the Minister will say on those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to scrutiny of combined county authorities. I think that we all agree that effective scrutiny of a combined county authority, as with any other local authority, is a key aspect in providing the strong accountability that we all wish to see. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is absolutely right: it is about not just scrutiny after the event but overview before the event as well, as any good local authority would be doing at the time. I also say this to her: the Bill makes provision for payments of allowances to local authority members who sit on overview and scrutiny, and audit, committees.

Noble Lords will be aware that Schedule 1 provides the underpinning processes for holding a combined county authority to account. Through Amendment 77 the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, wishes to put provisions in the Bill requiring a combined county authority to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee if that committee believes that publication of that report is in the public interest.

I reassure the noble Lord that Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 provides powers to require the publication of reports of a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, including overview and scrutiny committees. Schedule 4 to the Bill amends Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to apply these provisions to combined county authorities. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord that further amendments in this area are not necessary.

Amendment 78 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. We absolutely agree on the importance of overview and audit, as I have said. We recognise that it could be appropriate for representatives from district councils within a combined county authority’s area to be members of a CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee. However, our approach is that this issue of representation is best decided locally. The Bill provides for combined county authorities to invite representatives of district councils, along with other appropriate persons, to be members of their overview and scrutiny committees. The powers are already available to achieve what she seeks.

I recognise that the noble Baroness is perhaps seeking to place a requirement on combined county authorities to ensure that chairs of overview and scrutiny committees of district councils in the CCA areas have to be members of the CCA overview and scrutiny committees. As we have said many times, we prefer a localist approach of enabling those in the area the ability to form their scrutiny committees, rather than dictating this from central government.

Amendment 79 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to prevent a combined county authority restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. The provisions in this schedule mirror exactly for the combined county authorities the overview and scrutiny arrangements in place for combined authorities. It is important to ensure consistency in approach to robust accountability across all those authorities that have functions and funding conferred to them from the Government.

As with combined authorities and local authorities, combined county authorities are public bodies required by public law to act reasonably in making decisions. It is only right that each combined county authority should be able to decide its own overview and scrutiny committee operational arrangements which best match its local circumstances. This is what this provision in the schedule does.

These operational arrangements will be set out in a combined county authority’s local constitution, to which it and all its members are bound. As such, there is no requirement for this amendment. A CCA cannot withhold an overview and scrutiny committee’s powers. Without such proposals in place that have been consented to by all parties, overview and scrutiny committees will not be able to undertake their role effectively.

Amendment 80 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who I thank for being the voice of rural committees, which are extremely important. This amendment seeks to give combined county authorities’ overview and scrutiny committees the ability to establish a rural sub-committee. I see that is very important for many county authorities, and I can confirm that the existing provisions enable a combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to do this, should it wish. Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 allows a CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee to appoint one or more sub-committees, and they could, of course, be rural sub-committees.

Amendments 82 and 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, are about the chairs of overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees. Schedule 1 sets out that a chair of a combined county authority’s overview and scrutiny committee has to be of a different political party than the mayor in the case of a mayoral CCA and of a different political party to the majority of members in the case of a non-mayoral CCA or an independent person. These amendments seek to provide an additional criterion that the chair cannot have been a member of the same political party as either the mayor or majority of members for a non-mayoral combined county authority for a period of five years prior to appointment.

While we agree with the noble Lord that overview and scrutiny committees are an important part of the accountability process, we believe this amendment to be an unnecessary extra hurdle. Potential chairs’ credentials should be treated on the basis of their current political membership, or lack of it in the case of an independent chair. This is a consistent approach throughout local government. There are no requirements to look back over previously political membership, and we do not think there should be one in these new arrangements.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, looks to increase the minimum number of independent members of a combined county authority’s audit committee to three. The Government believe that devolution should be locally led, as I have said many times, and recognise that greater functions and funding must come with strong accountability. The Government’s policy approach is to allow each combined county authority the flexibility to decide its own operational arrangements for its audit committee to best match the arrangements to local circumstances. Currently, this allows CCAs to decide how many independent persons should be appointed to an audit committee, providing that there is at least one independent member.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, brought up the issue of who will be the members of audit committees. The regulations that will establish combined county authorities will set out audit committee arrangements. They will provide that, where practical, the membership of an audit committee reflects the political balance of the constituent councils of the combined county authority. Membership may not include any officer from the combined county authority or the combined county authority’s constituent councils. We await that further information on membership. The amendment that the noble Lord seeks to introduce would take away some of this flexibility, which might not best fit the local circumstances of the combined county authority.

Finally in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, tabled Amendment 85, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate the sharing of best practice between overview and scrutiny and audit committees of combined county authorities. We recognise that sharing best practice makes an important contribution to the delivery of effective scrutiny functions across the local government sector as a whole. However, we believe that this works best where best practice sharing is locally led rather being a diktat from above.

When they are established, combined county authorities will become part of a broader local government framework and will receive support in developing and improving scrutiny functions. The existing combined authorities are already working together to share best practice between their organisations, including considering effective scrutiny. This includes via the M10 network, which is led by the combined authorities but which government engages with regularly.

Combined authorities are also supported in their work on scrutiny by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny, which looks at specific challenges across all local government, including combined authorities, and works with them to enhance the effectiveness of their scrutiny. Once established, combined county authorities will also be able to operate and share best practice in a similar way to those authorities already in place. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope the Minister will excuse me. I find that response about the sharing of best practice a little confusing. What we were trying to understand was how the work across the CCA picture nationally would be shared. I am not clear how that will work across the piece—across the country. There will, clearly, be the development of good practice in audit and scrutiny. Is it intended that that will sit within a framework such as, for example, the Local Government Association? Where will it sit, and how will those authorities be able to share what they are doing properly and effectively?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

For a start, they will still be members of the Local Government Association, I assume, as will their members; so there is that route. As we have said, the combined authorities already in existence are already joining together themselves and sharing good practice. I would imagine that the CCAs and further combined authorities will also be doing that sort of sharing of best practice. The department will obviously keep a close eye on a new structure, work with those local authorities and be able to share any good practice from that as well. As usually happens with change, everybody wants to get together to see how it is going. I can give your Lordships an example of when I took a local authority to a unitary authority, and other authorities were going to unitary authorities at the same time. We all joined together and shared best practice. It did not have to be imposed on us; we did it as a matter of course. I think local government is good at doing that and will continue to do so into these new ways of working.

I hope the noble Baroness will agree that, as the work currently undertaken elsewhere should be locally led, there is no need to place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate the sharing of best practice between combined county authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

87: Clause 14, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(4) A CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This means that a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the current local authority funding gap running at over £7 billion a year and much of the supposed increase trumpeted by the Government having to come from the pockets of already hard-pressed council tax payers, it is somewhat disappointing, as I have said before in this Chamber, that the Bill seems largely to overlook the underlying issues of the underfunding of local government generally and the fact that funding is not distributed fairly according to need.

That is key to the Bill, because those financial issues represent a barrier to the Government achieving their ambitions of levelling up. Indeed, the current rounds of bidding to get funding for levelling up only further add to the problem, because the authorities with the resources to put together the shiny bids that appear to be favoured are not always the ones with the most need. In that respect the Government are, at worst, turning the whole concept of levelling up upside down, and, at best, are applying sticking plasters to the gaping wounds of underfunding in our communities.

As a local government leader for 17 years, I can say from first-hand experience that the drastic savings that have been imposed on local authorities since 2010 mean that what has been achieved is all the more impressive. All major projects coming before any council are subject to detailed analysis of how the outcomes will be measured and monitored. That includes environmental, legal and equalities impacts and, especially, financial costs. At a time when even our Conservative County Council are announcing that it has exhausted all options in meeting its budget deficit, I hope the Minister will reflect on how we can better enable local councils to level up our areas. We are proposing a number of amendments in an attempt to address this deficit, and the amendments in this group would be the start of that process.

On Amendment 87, with a local government regime that is already incredibly regressive—from the benefit from council tax being skewed to those areas that are already better off to the many recently introduced funding pots which, as I said, enable those authorities with the resources to prepare the best bids regardless of the needs of the area—it is vital that there is a process to ensure the accountability and integrity of funding directed to CCAs. The publication of an annual statement would enable clear scrutiny to take place, both between and within CCA areas. It would also have the effect of making the funding of CCAs far more transparent for public purposes, as it would enable the CCA and the Government to demonstrate what funding had been allocated.

The second part of the amendment would take that transparency one step further, in that it asks for the annual statement to have a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate whether the funding allocated to the CCA is achieving the stated aims. Again, that would provide a good opportunity for internal scrutiny via the overview and scrutiny committee, which we discussed earlier this afternoon, and for the public to be assured that the funding provided to the CCA was achieving the aims of levelling up and the strategic objectives that the CCA had set for itself.

The national benefit of these statements would be that, once consolidated, they would provide a national picture of funding, the way that funding was allocated and why, and the benefits that were being delivered through that funding. I would like to think that the discipline of reporting on an annual basis would also ensure that, where bidding pots still got allocated—much as I might prefer funding to be done in a different way—there would be clear criteria for and assessment of those bids, with measurable outcomes, so that these could be reported in the annual statement.

On Amendment 123, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, while the clause in the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to requiring the mayor to maintain a fund in relation to receipts arising from, and liabilities incurred in, the exercise of general functions, and about the preparation of an annual budget, it is not clear whether that power for the Secretary of State extends to subsequently scrutinising that budget and fund in Parliament. Our contention is that local government, including any CCAs set up under this Bill, is already subject to extensive scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees internally, and externally through the audit process. So we would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on whether there is to be a further layer of scrutiny set up in relation to CCA budgets.

Amendment 172, submitted in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talks about this fair funding review—and I feel fairly strongly about this. The fair funding review has been under discussion for at least five years to my knowledge, and probably longer than that. It was delayed again in October 2022. The methodology we currently have for allocations is both flawed and completely out of date. For example, it takes traffic flows from 2011, unemployment data which is 10 years old, highways data which is 20 years old, and census data—and, as we all know, the census is undertaken only every 10 years and so is nearly always too out of date for allocating funding via that formula. Additionally, we all know about the failure to reset property values, which means that we are using property values from 1991.

Average council tax as a share of disposable income in London is the lowest in the UK. That does not mean that there are not areas of deprivation in London, of course—some of the most deprived areas in the country are there—but it is just over half of that in Yorkshire and the Humber, and in the north-east. So, in a dynamic economy and at a time of a cost of living crisis, this outdated and flawed approach, which penalises and exacerbates economic equalities, will not do—it is the exact opposite of levelling up. Our amendment is there to suggest that we need to get on with this fair funding review and get it enacted quickly, because we have got no chance of levelling anything up unless we get this fair funding review completed.

There have been comments from the LGA, which supports the fact that the fair funding review needs to be done. It makes a very good point that there needs to be enough time to allow formal consultation with local authorities, but I cannot believe that, after five years of working on this, that could not be done fairly quickly. When the review does happen, it needs to consider both the data and formulae used to distribute funding, and the Government need to ensure that overall local government funding is sufficient when the new-needs formulae are introduced. That will ensure that no council sees its funding reduced and that there are transitional arrangements for any business rates reset. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I think that these are three very important amendments, and my name appears on Amendment 172. It goes without saying that the fair funding review has been undertaken for too long and that it is reasonable that within one year of this Bill being enacted the publication of the fair funding review should happen. I also think that the other amendments are very important, but Amendment 87 really matters because it says that

“a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions”.

In other words, is the right amount of money being given to undertake the tasks which the CCA is due to undertake?

All of this relates to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Scriven and myself that relates to fiscal policy. There is an issue that we need to debate about fiscal policy and the powers of CCAs—we have the concept now of “trailblazer authorities” and I think the trend is a good one. Nevertheless, I want to be reassured that Ministers understand that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake things, and nor can CCAs, unless the local authorities or CCAs are able to fund them. For that reason, all three amendments in this group seem to me to be particularly important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the budgets and funding of combined county authorities and the scrutiny of them. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of a combined county authority’s funding, including in relation to any new functions.

The Government fully recognise the importance of transparency with regard to allocations of funding and regular reporting on the impact of wider and deeper devolution. That is why we introduced a measure to that effect in the Cities and Local Devolution Act 2016. This provision requires the Government to produce an annual report on progress with devolution that covers the areas suggested by the noble Baroness’s amendment; namely, funding and regular progress reporting on devolution of additional public functions. Combined authorities and local authorities are already covered by this provision. We laid a consequential amendment, government Amendment 152, on 9 February that will bring combined county authorities into its scope. I hope that is helpful to the noble Baroness.

It is also worth noting that combined county authorities will be subject to the same accounting and audit provisions as combined authorities and individual local authorities. Government Amendment 151, laid on 9 February, extends the provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to combined county authorities. These provisions include the requirement for them to have locally audited annual accounts available for public inspection on request. Taken together, these measures will ensure that combined county authorities operate in a transparent manner and are held to account for successful delivery in the same way that other institutions in England with devolved powers already are. The Government therefore feel that there are effective, proportionate reporting mechanisms already in place for combined county authorities that will cover what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve.

I read Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as probing whether Parliament will be able to scrutinise CCA budgets. I agree with what the noble Baroness said: combined county authority mayors and their budgets should be subject to scrutiny. Where I differ from her is that I believe that it should be a local matter. If it is to be worth the name, devolution should combine strong, empowered local leaders with stronger accountability and transparency. A directly elected leader, such as a mayor, with a fixed term and a clear mandate makes it much easier for local communities to make judgments based on local performance and local delivery, rather than the ebb and flow of national politics.

All combined county authorities will be required to have at least one overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. These will be instrumental in holding the authority and the mayor to account for their decisions and activities. The Government will be publishing a new devolution accountability framework to ensure that all devolution deals lead to local leaders and institutions that are transparent and accountable, work closely with local businesses, seek the best value for taxpayers’ money and maintain strong ethical standards. Requiring combined county authorities to lay their budgets before Parliament would be excessive and would also place CCAs on a different footing from combined authorities and all other local government institutions.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I said when I moved the amendment that our contention was that local government, including any CCAs, is already subject to extensive scrutiny, so we agree with that. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify that no further layer of scrutiny will be applied to CCA budgets. Was that the content of the his response?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

In broad terms, yes. But if I can elaborate on that, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.

Amendment 172, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 76. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the fair funding review. I take this to mean the most recent government consultation on fairer funding for local government, which is the 2018-19 review of relative needs and resources.

The review of relative needs and resources was undertaken in 2018-19. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this assessment is now out of date. It does not take into account more up-to-date census and demographic data. The events of the past five years, including, notably, the Covid-19 pandemic, mean that the world has moved on. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness that there would be little benefit to publication in its outdated form.

The Government have already set out, in the local government finance policy statement on 12 December, that we would not be implementing the relative review of needs and resources in this spending review period. Instead, that policy statement sets out details of the funding policy that will be maintained for a second year into 2024-25. In making this decision, the Government were clear that now is the time for stability for the sector, not reform, given the turbulence of the Covid-19 pandemic and the more recent economic issues relating to high inflation.

I emphasise that the Government remain committed to improving the local government finance landscape in the next Parliament and beyond. The department is keen to work closely with local partners and to take stock of the challenges and opportunities that they face to build on the work of the review of relative needs and resources and to ensure that plans for reform are contemporary, robust and informed by local insight. Again, this is set out in the local government finance policy statement, published in December. This is an important issue and one that we should certainly discuss in the coming months.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will understand the Government’s reasoning on this, and that she will not feel the need to press this amendment when it is reached.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the responses from the Minister. As was said earlier in the debate, we know that he always listens to the points being put forward, and I thank him for that.

On Amendment 87, which proposes that the CCA can request the publication of fair funding for new functions, I think that it is fair to say that local authorities cannot be expected to undertake bureaucratic burdens such as those. However, we want to see the records of reporting on CCAs, in particular around the cost-benefit analysis of what is being achieved by a CCA.

In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I say that there is a significant difference between the funding we see for initiatives and the funding for core services. There has been a great deal of the former and not so much of the latter in recent years. What happens, as we constantly see in local government, is that core services are undermined, and it hollows out the ability of local authorities to deliver the initiatives. I agree with the noble Lord that, whenever we raise these issues, we always get told that there will be new-burdens funding for things. In effect, while we occasionally see some money coming forward, we get things such as the new homes bonus. That is a good example, because the bonus was simply top-sliced from the rest of local government funding, so, in effect, they did not give us any new money at all; they just gave us our own money back. There are also things such as the Government setting rent policy for local authorities, telling us how much rent we can charge our tenants and placing additional burdens on housing authorities, and then saying, “No, you can’t have any new-burdens funding, because you should have been doing all that in the first place”. So there are problems around the whole issue of the new-burdens regime, and we need a genuine increase in funds in local government.

The points from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on how local government is financed, by whom, and how the resources are allocated and so on, were very well made. I would like to see the Government be brave enough to get on with this fair funding review. From the Minister’s response, I feel that it has been pushed into the long grass again. It was set up in 2018; we all understand that the pandemic had an impact on it, and perhaps during the pandemic was not the time to go into a full review of local government funding. It was delayed again in October 2022. Hearing that it has now been moved to the next Parliament is a concern, because this is urgent now. In 2023, we really cannot go much further forward with the system we have, which does not respond to local economic needs or local data, is very slow to respond, and, in many cases, is using data that is between 10 and 20 years old—that is not helping at all with the levelling-up agenda.

I spoke earlier about the difference between initiatives funding and core funding. It is all very well putting money into areas for local initiatives—often that is capital, and we have heard that the Secretary of State has now been stopped from signing off any further capital initiatives, so even that might not happen at the moment—but, if you do not keep the core funding going as well, and make sure that it is rising by inflation at the same time, it will be much more difficult to deliver any levelling-up initiatives whatever. So the amendments are important in making the point that we need to ensure that local government finances are duly and properly taken into consideration in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is disappointing that it is not there in a stronger way and we will look at the government amendments on the reporting on CCA funding to satisfy ourselves that they are right.

In the meantime, I am happy not to press the amendments. However, I hope that the Government are taking the point that we take very seriously this issue of local government finance and its rightful place in the levelling-up agenda; we may come back to it later in the debate.

Amendment 87 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did not say that the councils do not have any concerns or interest in the role of the PCC. Of course, they do, as we have heard, with community safety committees et cetera. What I said was that the councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC. That is the job of the local police. Therefore, there is no crossover in that way.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not know where that information has come from about councils not delivering community safety-related services. It is just not the case. We look at anti-social behaviour; we look at domestic abuse. In my own local authority, we have a very big and effective domestic abuse service, and we work with our colleagues in the police. We have issues related to local area policing. We set our priorities with our local policing teams and deliver services jointly to address those priorities. I could go on—I know the noble Baroness will know some of this from her own experience in local government. It is just not the case that local government does not deliver community safety services in the same way that we deliver health prevention services and so on.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think we are going to disagree on this, and there is a fine line. I also want to answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that I did not answer at Second Reading, for which I apologise—I am conscious of that—but because the amount of information I have is not sufficient to answer them today, I will write to him and talk to Home Office colleagues as well, because I think it is important we get their views. I will also write more about the responsibilities of the PCC and the local authorities, because it is important that we get this right and that noble Lords understand the reasons why we are doing this.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have a question on the issue of buses. We have seen millions of bus miles removed from the system altogether. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has very carefully and thoroughly articulated why they are so essential. It is really important that we get this bus strategy as quickly as possible so that we can start to get a sense of how local authorities can play a part in restoring some of the bus services that we have lost. Can the Minister give us any idea of how quickly that will come about? It would seem that the Bill is an ideal opportunity to put that into place. Otherwise, we will have to go through the same discussions again in a few months, a year or two years’ time to give local authorities that power. Why not use the Bill as the ideal opportunity to reinstate what we used to have back in the day? I remember a very good bus service in my own area before the powers were taken away from councils.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is the responsibility of the Department for Transport. I will be in touch with the relevant Minister to explain the Committee’s deep concern about the issue of bus services and say that an early solution to this would be considered appropriate by the Committee. I will also find out how long it will be before we get this strategy in place. I will write that at the end of the letter, which will go to all noble Lords in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.