Council Tax

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to local government, the Chancellor is giving with one hand and taking away with another. The increase of employer national insurance contribution will hit local government hard, particularly through its contracted services. Can the Minister explain how the Government expect councils to cover their increased costs without raising council tax, or are His Majesty’s Government happy to see yet another tax increase on working people as a result of their Budget?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance costs. This applies to those directly employed by the public sector, including local government. We will set out further details of how this support will be delivered in due course.

Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses who have made excellent and important contributions to this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her correction to my southern pronunciation of Oughtibridge. I am very grateful. I will not get that wrong again, will I? Thank you very much for that.

A number of points were made, which I will respond to. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the process for review. I have to say that the measure probably was slightly held up by the election, but it has still taken quite a long time. I will take that back, because all of us who have been councillors—I think that everybody taking part in this debate has been—will know that such anomalies often occur. If the process needs to be made more straightforward, we should look at that, because all the reasons given for this SI would apply similarly to other areas where there are revisions to boundaries.

As for councillor qualification, I understand that that is set out in Article 7 of the order, which allows for a change of councillor. I am not aware that there is an issue there in this case, but I understand the residency qualification issue. Of course, councillors can qualify if they have a business or for other reasons but, if it is a residency qualification, that would need to be taken into account. However, as both participants were supportive of this proposal, it is probably the case that there was no issue, but we will bear that in mind if any future SIs like this come forward. We have to be very clear about what is happening in relation to councillor representation, because if a residency qualification is at issue, there may be implications, but that is all set out in Article 7.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England recommendation meets the statutory obligation to secure effective and convenient local government while reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. That sits right at the heart of this SI. In short, the order makes a small boundary change, supported by both local councils and recommended by the Local Government Boundary Commission, and I beg to move.

Spending Commitments to Local Councils

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Council tax increases, of course, are ultimately decided by local authorities, but the Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people and households as low as possible. We will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before making any decisions on taxes. Decisions on referendum principles will be part of the next spending review process and of course we will seek the views of local government before we take any decisions on those.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, since the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, tabled her Question, I understand that a number of local councils have had spending commitments suspended, including Harlow in Essex, which is now set to lose out on £20 million towards the rebuilding of its town centre. Can the Minister tell me how many councils have had these disappointing letters, and what the Government plan to do to support councils such as Harlow which were relying on these commitments to deliver growth and regeneration that I am sure His Majesty’s Government would want to support?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there has to be a short pause while we seek clarity on existing funding commitments, as I said earlier. The Government are fully considering those funding arrangements and I know that a great deal of work has been put in. Many of those projects are aligned with the growth that we want, and we hope to be able to give all local authorities the answers in very short order.

Internal Drainage Boards: Levies

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increases in internal drainage board levies on local authorities.

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

The Government are aware of the pressures that certain councils have experienced due to the increasing internal drainage board levies. In 2023-24, we assessed the impact of the levies on local authorities and provided £3 million in additional grant funding to the 15 that are most severely affected. Having listened to local authorities, the Government have announced a further £3 million of support in 2024-25. We are currently assessing the impact of this year’s increase in levies on local authorities and will announce the distribution of funding in due course.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the £3 million does not touch the sides. Councils are charged this levy to manage water levels in their area. Since 2016 they have been expected to fund it through council tax. The financial impact shows that it has increased by almost £11 million in two years, beyond the council tax capping limit of 30 authorities involved, such as Boston, where the levy consumes 58% of the council tax, and Great Yarmouth, which saw 91% of its council tax increase consumed. Councils have been told repeatedly that the Government are looking for a long-term solution, so where is that solution, when is it coming, and will the Government meet the representatives to determine a solution before the end of the financial year?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I am very happy to meet those people with the noble Baroness. If she gets in touch with my office, we will arrange that.

Leaseholders: Management Companies

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware of this strategy on the part of freeholders, but I will look into it and come back to the noble Viscount.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, every day we see horror stories in the press of crippling increases in ground rents. After the Recess we go on to Report of the Leasehold and Reform Bill, but so far with no update from the Government on the ground rent consultation undertaken by them some time ago. Can the Minister tell us just what the proposals will be on ground rent?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not expect the noble Baroness to expect me to tell her that at an Oral Question, but the Government have been consistent that they have concerns about existing ground rents, and the adverse impact that ground rents have on leaseholders. We have consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents in existing leases. That consultation closed on 17 January and the Government will respond to it shortly.

Traveller Site Fund

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question to which I do not have the answer, but it is probably very complex and there will be numerous reasons for it. Interestingly, last year the number of caravans on unauthorised encampments decreased by 21%, which gives me the feeling that those people who take this nomadic lifestyle are using authorised camps to live in.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act was the ideal opportunity to help to address the inequalities faced by the Traveller community. Since the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, the then Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, announced a cross-departmental strategy for tackling these inequalities in 2019, no plan has been announced. When can the Traveller community expect to hear what the Government’s strategy is for improving outcomes for Travellers?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne for all his work when he was a Minister in my position. I do not have an update on the Bourne review, but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness and the House with an update on it.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute on the sad and sudden passing of Lord Stunell. We worked very closely with him on the levelling-up Bill, and he was such a great asset during the passage of that Bill. Looking at his record over the years, his was a life dedicated to public service, to both national and local government. I hope the noble Baroness will take our condolences back to the Liberal Democrat group, and we will pass them on to his family as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to call this issue a sorry tale of shame. It is clear from the number of building safety amendments in this group and this Bill, and previously in the levelling-up Bill, that there appears from our debates to be a cross-party consensus from most of us, except the Government Front Bench, of such deep dissatisfaction with building safety in general and the glacial progress on remediation in particular. It was carefully calculated in the recent Times article by Martina Lees, referred to earlier, to show that only 8% of buildings in need have been remedied, not the 21% that the Government claim, and which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.

As important is the huge number of non-qualifying leaseholders whose dreams of property ownership have turned to nightmares, as the horror of their uncertain financial position, the escalating costs of remediation and the impossibility of selling homes—I have seen evidence of this, as valuers are currently placing values at zero or negative—snatch away their aspirations and leave behind only extreme anxiety. Numbers vary, but the Times estimates the number of affected homes to be up to 1.5 million and, as other noble Lords have said, upwards of 4 million people are affected.

An excellent briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association points out that data remains lacking and estimates that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders in buildings less than 11 metres in height and 400,000 leaseholders, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying because of other eligibility criteria. Many leaseholders are unaware of their non-qualifying status or are alerted to it only when they receive an invoice for remediation works or attempt to sell their property. It is important to remember that many leaseholders are understandably reluctant to speak out on this issue for fear of further devaluing what they thought was going to be a very valuable property asset.

The scale of this problem is eye-watering. I agree with comments made previously by Members of your Lordships’ House that, unless this is addressed urgently, as more and more leaseholders discover their liability, another enormous injustice scandal will unravel, which will scar whole generations of home owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the fact that this will escalate over time to the detriment of freeholders and leaseholders, but with the balance of personal financial risk sitting with leaseholders.

The system the Government put in place, which was subject to an update in your Lordships’ House at the end of March, may have made some progress, but as a spokesperson for Grenfell United said:

“Government’s shockingly slow progress towards remediation shows a complete lack of political will to keep people safe in their own homes”.


Giles Grover, of the excellent group End Our Cladding Scandal said:

“The majority of unsafe buildings across the country still don’t have plans in place to fix all issues”.


The 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the Government have estimated to be unsafe are missing from any plan for remediation as they are deemed non-qualifying, and the unbearable pressure of remediation is falling on the ordinary people who make these flats their homes. While the Government have brought forward legislation and statutory instruments to deal with this situation, progress has been slow because issues are being dealt with piecemeal as they arise. Even when legislation has been considered, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, which should have been a comprehensive solution, too often amendments were rejected with serious impacts and consequences for leaseholders only now becoming more apparent.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, proposes a comprehensive and detailed framework to encompass the whole situation around building safety remediation that would give more structure to the current piecemeal approach. While I understand that the level of detail that he proposes in this scheme will almost certainly not be greeted by the Minister with the wholehearted approval that it probably deserves, I hope the principle of having such a framework in place and the thorough approach set out by the noble Earl will at least be a matter for reflection and future consideration as the Bill progresses.

Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, his Amendments 99 and 100, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 105E and 105F, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are aimed at ending the iniquitous distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. We cannot simply allow the nightmare that many non-qualifying leaseholders are enduring to continue.

We totally support the aim of Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in terms of holding the Government to account for the building safety remediation programme. The reporting mechanisms so far do not appear to have accelerated progress on remediation, although it has to be said that the bringing to justice of some of the worst developer offenders, such as those involved with Vista Tower in Stevenage, is welcome. I hope the Government will accept this amendment and bring regular updates before your Lordships’ House, but it would be even better if there could be target dates for outstanding work to be completed. The fact that remediation has dragged on for so many years is a cause of great frustration, anxiety and financial hardship to those affected. Do the Government have a view about a projected end date for these works to be completed? A deadline, even if it is not met by everyone involved, is great for concentrating the minds of those involved in remediation.

In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is not just developers who are responsible for this issue. But a big problem here has been the deregulation of the building control function, taking it away from local authorities and allowing developers to pick and choose who their building control inspectors will be. That has been greatly responsible for some of these issues.

Our Amendment 105 is simple and straightforward in its aim. It would bring the beleaguered non-qualified leaseholders, who are in desperate need of remedies for their building defects, within the remit of the Building Safety Act 2022. Surely, if we are concerned about ensuring that people feel safe and are safe in their homes, we can all support that. It remains our position that it should not be the responsibility of leaseholders to suffer the financial consequences of defective building. Amendment 105C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has a similar aim.

I support my noble friend Lord Rooker in his campaign to highlight the danger of—I was going to call them electricity surges, but I had better not now because I will get into trouble with him—neutral current diversion. I want to come back to the case that Martina Lees quoted of Viv Sharma and his Ukrainian wife Julia, who had to leave their nine-storey block when the fire service deemed it unsafe. It had more than 17 defects, caused by the original developers, which should never have been approved by building control. They have been offered less for their property than they bought it for 15 years ago, and they have had to pay for temporary accommodation. Julia has said:

“I’m now 50. How am I supposed to rebuild my life?”


That situation—which is morally wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said—remains in place. Such situations should have been remedied by the Building Safety Act but were not. We now have another opportunity to put things right, so I hope the Government will do so by accepting the amendments before us today.

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

My Lords, I first add my tribute to Andrew, Lord Stunell. I have sat opposite him for many hours in this Chamber and in Committee, being challenged by him in a detailed but always good-humoured way. I am going to miss him. I did not know where he was this week to begin with, and I asked questions. He will be sorely missed, particularly on the issues that we talk about as a group of Peers. I send his family, friends and colleagues our best wishes. May he rest in peace.

I thank noble Lords for the amendments on building safety and for this thoughtful debate. It is an important issue. I will take all the amendments in turn and put the Government’s view. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 93B and 107. Their aims were debated extensively during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I thank the noble Earl for his years of important campaigning on building safety, and for tabling these amendments again and speaking to them in such a detailed way. We continue to consider his arguments and are always willing to listen carefully to the ways in which we could improve the current regime. That is why the Government tabled several clauses in the other place to clarify and extend the protections in some particular areas of this Act.

However, I reiterate that implementing a new building safety remediation scheme would reverse what has been achieved by the regulatory regime set out in the Building Safety Act. Creating a system which mirrored the existing regime would delay essential remediation already being carried out. It would also create uncertainty for leaseholders across the country. The responsible actors scheme, the developer remediation contract, remediation orders and remediation contribution orders are already delivering many of the noble Earl’s objectives, requiring developers to fix problems that they have caused.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 103, and comment on others in this group. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his careful and thoughtful consideration of how we might use the Bill to rectify some of the glaring building safety omissions that are an unfortunate legacy of the Building Safety Act. His proposals on building trustees warrant close consideration, especially as he has carefully set out how they might be funded. Taken together with proposals in later amendments for a property regulator, this could deal with a number of the loopholes that have caused an overall descent into property chaos, which has been the subject of much debate in this House, by matching independent local oversight with a national property regulator.

The noble Earl set out in his customary forensic way his justification for the amendments. I respect his professional expertise in this area, and I do not think I need to say any more than to welcome the issues he has covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, those could have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny—but sadly, they were not. As was said earlier today, it is a mark of how your Lordships’ House can contribute to legislation that we have them before us today. It is a shame they could not have been incorporated at an earlier stage, because it is late now to debate such detailed proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope she will, as she always does, take the amendments seriously and tell us what the Government are going to do when they consider them.

Noble Lords would have received the excellent briefing, as I did this morning, from the National Residential Landlords Association. It says that “it is more critical than ever, in the context of the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill” that the building safety remediation scheme “is implemented without further delay to resolve the failings of the Building Safety Act’s leaseholder protections”. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he is not particular precious about this structure but, if we do not have it, what will the Government put in its place to do that?

We are now seven years on from the dreadful tragedy at Grenfell. It is shameful that so many leaseholders are still living with the fear of fire risks and the unbelievable pressure from the uncertainty around the financial commitments that they will face for their building remediation. It is the most terrible indictment of this Government’s failure to recognise the unconscionable impact on the lives of those affected, let alone the issues raised so many times in this Chamber of those who live in non-qualifying buildings but, nevertheless, have the leasehold sword of Damocles hanging over them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, already mentioned the excoriating article in the Times this weekend. Martina Lees gives an incredibly thorough and well-researched account of the impact of the cladding scandal. Her investigation points out that

“15,000 residents have been forced to leave homes due to fire or fire safety defects”,

and that escalated last year with the evacuation of at least 21 buildings. She also says:

“Despite £9.1 billion of government grants being set aside to help fix homes, only £2.1 billion has been spent. The building safety crisis has trapped 700,000 people in dangerous homes and left almost three million owners with flats they cannot sell. Almost all are properties built or refurbished since 2000, with defects such as flammable cladding systems, combustible balconies and faulty fire barriers”.


I am familiar with faulty fire barriers from Vista Tower in Stevenage. She also points to government manipulation of figures, in that they

“cite a total of 4,329 buildings or 248,000 flats over 11 metres high with unsafe cladding. Of these, 23 per cent have been fixed”.

However, as Ms Lees points out,

“previous government data added up to 375,000 flats over 11m, making the number fixed just 8 per cent. The new total excludes more than 1,000 buildings where the developer must pay for repairs but does not know whether work is needed. It also precludes hundreds of blocks that did not get taxpayer help because they had the wrong type of fire risks … or were deemed below 18m … It leaves out up to 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the government had previously estimated to be unsafe”.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that she does not respond to press stories in the Chamber, but the headline issues raised here are that affected leaseholders continue to endure this misery, with some having to pay rent for properties that they have been evacuated to, on top of the thousands of pounds of service charges that they face. Amendments in this group would at least provide some longer-term solutions to these issues.

My Amendment 103 seeks to recognise that financial pressure and ensure that there is at least a cap on the charges that leaseholders are expected to bear. Our preference going forward would be that developers are held ultimately accountable for any fire or other safety defect remediation in the buildings. In future, we hope that even greater consideration is given to how that might be achieved.

We also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster; it is surprising only in that it is not already the case that buildings with electrical defects cannot be sold. If that is the case, surely this should be urgently rectified through the building regulations regime. I hope that we do not have to wait another two years to implement that.

Amendment 101 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, although he did not speak to it. It seeks to impose a deadline of June 2027 for remediation of fire safety defects. That is not an unreasonable target, as it would mean that an entire decade had passed since the Grenfell tragedy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very powerful case for the unintended consequence of the removal of the Section 24 manager. Her amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, seek to improve accountability. As this is one of the stated aims of the Bill, we look forward to the Minister’s response to their proposals.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their various amendments on building safety and for the debate. I will respond to the amendments in turn.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his amendments relating to a building trustee. Amendment 82C requires some buildings to have a building trustee, while Amendments 82D to 82M cover the process of appointment, duties, rights to information and how these trustees will be funded. The building safety trustee will either replace or complement the functions carried out by the landlord or a managing agent. I fully agree with the view that landlords and managing agents must manage and maintain buildings for which they are responsible and provide a good-quality service to tenants. However, I believe that this proposal would create additional complexity with little relative gain. The proposed mechanisms for funding these trustees increase the risk of pushing more landlords into escheat and it is hard to see how the levy proposals can be delivered. Secondly, we consider that there are better ways to deliver the desired outcome. As I have previously mentioned, we are bringing measures forward in the Bill that will drive up the accountability of landlords and their agents, so we do not agree with the noble Earl’s amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment, which seeks to improve electrical safety standards in buildings by identifying whether there is an electrical defect prior to sale, and for his continued interest in this very important issue for housing safety. This amendment would require a specified person to acquire an electrical installation condition report or electrical installation certificate prior to marketing the property, unless it is being sold for demolition or a full electrical rewire has been completed in the last five years. This is an important issue; we know that improving electrical safety is paramount to helping prevent fires and making sure that occupants feel safe in their homes.

As the noble Lord said, the Government have already taken firm action in the private rented sector by requiring PRS landlords to acquire an EICR at least every five years and to organise remediation works where necessary. We have also consulted on equivalent electrical safety standards in the social housing sector through our 2022 consultation and call for evidence. Here, we examined proposals to require social landlords to obtain an EICR for their rental tenants at least every five years and then to carry out remedial works within a set timescale. Our call for evidence also explored extending the proposed requirements to owner-occupier leaseholders within social housing blocks, so that the whole block is subject to these increased standards. We are aware of the noble Lord’s concerns about the sector that we have not yet hit—the owner-occupied sector. The Government are still considering responses to the consultation and the call for evidence, and we will update this House in due course.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for their Amendments 104 and 105B—I will also speak to Amendment 98, although my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is not here—relating to changes of the definition of accountable persons under Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and other changes protecting the position of managers appointed under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

I trust that noble Lords will understand that the Government cannot accept the proposed amendments. First, defining a Section 24 manager as an accountable person would move financial and criminal liabilities away from the existing accountable person to the Section 24 manager. It was the intent of the Building Safety Act that financial and criminal responsibilities for certain aspects of maintaining the building should always remain with the accountable person, and the accountable persons cannot delegate this responsibility to a third party. As drafted, the amendments could also mean that Section 24 managers would not be able to recover funds from the accountable person for the incidents of remediation works. I assure noble Lords that the Government are looking closely at this issue and at options to ensure that Section 24 managers can take forward building safety duties and get funding, where needed, from the accountable persons.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister understands that this has dragged on and on, and we are now at a very late stage of a Bill that has already gone all the way through the Commons. Quite frankly, the degree of uncertainty and instability that is being caused to leaseholders—and to freeholders, to be fair to them—is unacceptable. Yet again in this Chamber, we hear the phrase, “in due course”. I do not know what that means; it can mean anything from tomorrow to in three years’ time when we get round to sorting it out. That is not acceptable either.

We had a very detailed report from the Competition and Markets Authority, which roundly condemned the use of ground rents as a mechanism. We have heard in this Chamber over and again that this is money for nothing and that it has resulted in the most dreadful exploitation. The example I gave in Committee on Monday of an elderly couple virtually being held to ransom by the freeholder is absolutely shocking. That will be going on in millions of homes across the country. This is just not acceptable any longer. I hope that the Secretary of State will very rapidly make up his mind as to what he is going to do about this, stop being bulldozed by freeholder interests in his own party, make a decision and get rid of ground rents, once and for all. This would let people sleep easy in their beds, which they have not been able to do while this debate has been going on.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think there was a question there, and my response is that we went out, quite rightly, to consult, and the consultation did not finish until towards the end of January. This is a complex issue. If we do it badly or wrong then we will make mistakes and these people will potentially be in a more difficult situation. From the end of January to April is not a long time. We are doing it as fast as we can, and we will come back to the House with further details.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for their amendments.

Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of the commencement of the Act, into the legislative options for mandating that new-build flats be sold to leaseholders with a proportionate share of the freehold. We appreciate the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, which is why we are making it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders of flats to enfranchise collectively and, therefore, achieve share-of-freehold arrangements. However, the commonhold framework has already been designed as the optimal legal vehicle for the collective ownership of flats. As such, the Government want to see the widespread take-up of commonhold, and for it to be the future preferred tenure for owners of flats, rather than share of freehold.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why the legal framework was so complex. We need to determine precisely what property the mandate is applied to, exemptions, the processes for phased developments, the enforcement of developer liabilities for remedial works and so on. We would also need to prescribe the constitution for resident management companies—since they are presently unregulated—and to consider how the management functions are to be exercised by such companies, resident participation in decision-making, and the procedures and jurisdictions for dispute resolution. It is a complex issue, but one that we are working on—the Law Commission has worked on it for us for a number of years—and we feel that it is important that we continue with moving to commonhold rather than mandate share of freehold.

We understand the desire to offer leaseholders a share of freehold in the interim between leasehold and commonhold while the Government consider the Law Commission report and work on commonhold. However, we do not believe that mandating share-of-freehold sales would be a simple and quick undertaking. We also have concerns about using share of freehold across the whole housing market. It is not an optimum product for managing all types of shared properties, such as large and complex buildings—as we have heard—or buildings with extensive shared spaces. That is why the Government are committed to commonhold instead. We would prefer to work on one widespread take-up of a new tenure, and for that new tenure to be commonhold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will ask for some clarification, then. The policy was originally announced in 2017. The Law Commission did a great deal of work on what needed to be done to enact commonhold, and yet it is not in this Bill. The Minister has just reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to move to commonhold, so can she say how much longer it will take to get us to a situation where we have it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I reiterate that the Government remain absolutely committed to widespread take-up of commonhold for flats. We have reviewed the Law Commissioners’ recommendations to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, and I can assure noble Lords that we will set out next steps in due course.

Amendment 15B from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington would require mandatory share-of-freehold arrangements to be made for block of flats in instances where flats are subject to long leases or collective enfranchisement. I thank him for this amendment and for his interest in this specific instance. We are aware of the interest in this and appreciate the desire to ensure that more leaseholders can obtain control or ownership of their building. Although we understand the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements can have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, we are also conscious that mandating share-of-freehold sales on new builds would require a complex legal framework to be constructed and to accommodate the mandate. As I have said, we do not believe that mandating share of freehold would be a quick or easy fix for leaseholders. The Government consider that the best option, as I have also said before, is to continue to work towards the widespread use of commonhold in future, rather than mandating share of freehold.

My noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington was particularly keen on service charges. The Government will bring forward, through this Bill, a number of measures to require landlords to provide further information to leaseholders on a very proactive basis and to increase the transparency of their service charges and administration charges, as well as providing more information to leaseholders on a reactive basis. Those measures include the introduction of a standardised service charge demand form to standardise the information that freeholders are required to provide to leaseholders. We will mandate the provision of an annual report that sets out key information of importance to leaseholders. We will compel landlords to provide more relevant information to leaseholders on request. We will ensure that service charge accounts are provided within six months of the end of the previous accounting period that they cover, regardless of the lease terms, and this will be subject to a number of exemptions. We will require freeholders to proactively disclose—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

All I can say to my noble friend is that that is exactly what the Government are working on and that further details will come forward in due course.

A number of things in this Bill will affect the transparency and accountability of freeholders to leaseholders, particularly on service charges, which is the one thing that my noble friend brought up. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I found it a bit of a frustrating debate in many ways. As I said, this policy was announced in 2017; we have had a very detailed Law Commission review and endless discussions in this House about how we move to commonhold. In a sense, my amendment was set out to probe whether we could have some route map towards commonhold, and this might be a first step towards that, to provide leaseholders with at least a share of freehold with a view to moving towards commonhold in the future. It seems that the Government want neither to set out what their route map to commonhold is or what the steps on it might be, nor to give us a timescale for that route map towards commonhold. Now we are faced with an indefinite timescale to get there and a Bill which could have enacted it but has not. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait. The seven years we have already waited is quite long enough.

It has been frustrating to unlock that but worth probing the Government’s intentions. I am grateful for the reassurance that commonhold is still the aim, but I would like to know how long it will take. However, in view of the discussions here today, I will for the moment withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to be clear, the Bill already removes the automatic 12-month bar on leaseholders that stops them making another enfranchisement claim, should an earlier claim have been withdrawn. My Amendment 16 supplements this by removing the right for a voluntary 12-month agreement to be made between parties to restrict further enfranchisement claims for a leasehold house. Removing the ability for a voluntary 12-month restriction makes sure leaseholders are not put under undue pressure to withhold their claims. This is an important protection for leaseholders and makes it clear that they can make fresh claims as needed.

I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as to how they think that our enfranchisement reforms can be further improved. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our Amendment 17 would enable the Secretary of State—or, in Wales, Welsh Ministers—to change the description of premises that are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for all his time in discussing the Bill with me, and I acknowledge his expertise in this area.

Clause 28, which our amendment targets, makes changes to the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims. At present, Section 4(1) of the 1993 Act excludes from the right to enfranchise buildings in which 25 % or more of the internal floor area, excluding the common parts, can be occupied or are intended to be occupied for non-residential use. The clause increases that non-residential use percentage to 50%. We welcome the change, which enacts recommendation 38 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement and was supported by the National Leasehold Campaign, among others.

Of course, if the purpose of the non-residential limit is to confine enfranchisement to predominantly residential blocks, the Law Commission determined that the existing 25% limit does not achieve that purpose. There is a significant amount of evidence that, instead, it regularly prevents leaseholders from undertaking collective freehold acquisitions because a sizeable proportion of buildings fall slightly above it and that 25% is a significant bar to the ability of leaseholders to undertake a collective freehold acquisition. The Law Commission further argued that

“the arbitrary nature of the limit makes the bar to enfranchisement a source of considerable frustration for many leaseholders”.

We accept that there is no easy or non-arbitrary way in which to determine where that bar should be. However, it is the stated intention of the Bill to bring as many leaseholders as possible into enfranchisement, and it is therefore questionable as to whether limits under 50% would feel inherently fair. We would hope that a 50% non-residential limit would mean that the number of genuine cases excluded would be small and would remove the opportunity for developers to play the system, because only a genuine split between commercial and residential would apply.

Our main concern on this clause is that there is no flexibility built into it, and we are keen to probe whether a review after a period of time to determine whether the non-residential policy as set out is working in practice could be undertaken, or another mechanism used, so that changes for the limit in respect of collective enfranchisement rights do not require primary legislation but can be enacted through regulations. Enacting small but necessary changes that may occur in relation to the Government’s proposed limit—for example, whether that relates to individual cases that fall just above the limit, or a change in the criteria on using internal floor area to determine the rights, or changing altogether the criteria on which the limit is based—may need alternative mechanisms to resorting to future primary legislation. That is the purpose of our amendment.

I will comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. We understand the reasons for the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Thurlow, and look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister on those amendments. In relation to the Question on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, to be put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we understand the Church position as a landholder, but we feel it would go against the spirit of increasing the enfranchisement through the Bill to retain the 25% limit.

Local Government Finances

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward this important debate on the current state of local government finances and the impact on local communities. I also thank all noble Lords for their considered and insightful contributions today.

The Government are clear in their support for councils—there is no decline in that support—and the vital work they do to support local residents in all corners of the country. It is important to start by recognising some of the things that are happening. In Bolton, Stoke and Wandsworth, the councils have all recently renovated or opened new library spaces to the public. In Warwick and North Yorkshire, we have seen the opening of new leisure centres in Kenilworth and Knaresborough, and in Sandwell, Knowsley and Rushmoor, levelling-up funding will deliver improved leisure centres and facilities for local residents.

The Government are committed to delivering for our towns. In October of last year, we announced the investment of £1.1 billion into 55 towns across the country, with each town receiving a £20 million endowment-style fund to invest over the next decade. This will allow our towns to develop long-term visions and to deliver change for their residents, such as the regeneration of Ashburner Street, in Bolton. Finally, in Blackpool, the central regeneration scheme is scheduled to get under way, following planning approval, with an estimated 1,000 jobs set to be created as a result.

That is only a very small sample of the achievements and developments that councils across this country have made in recent months and years, all of which have made a positive impact on their local communities. All local authorities across the country should know that we place the utmost importance on the partnership between central and local government, and recognise the crucial work they do in delivering day in and day out for our local communities.

However, as has been mentioned, the Government recognise the pressures that some places face in delivering this work. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we are letting it get worse. We are not letting it get worse, and I will mention more about what we have done this year to help local authorities. Many of the problems that these places face, and that we all face as a country, are driven by global economic factors and the resulting higher inflation. That is why the Prime Minister has prioritised and successfully delivered on his commitment to halving inflation. However, we are all aware that demand for key services that councils provide, and the costs of those services, continue to rise steeply as well, not least because of an ever-aging population that, quite rightly, requires increasing social care support.

In February, the Government announced the local government finance settlement for 2024-25. This settlement makes up to £64.7 billion available to local authorities next year, an increase in core spending power of £4.5 billion on last year, equivalent to 7.5% in cash terms. This above-inflation increase demonstrates that the Government are standing behind councils up and down the country and are listening to them.

We have additionally taken action to provide further support to local government to enable continued delivery while wider system reforms for social care are implemented. At the final local government finance settlement, the Secretary of State announced that we are providing £1.5 billion in additional grant for social care through the settlement for 2024-25 compared to 2023-24. Having listened to the views of local government, this includes an additional £500 million for the social care grant.

While being mindful of the level of adult care provision, where possible councils should use this uplift to invest in areas that help also place children’s social care services on a financially sustainable footing. This includes investment in expanding family help and targeting early intervention, expanding kinship care and boosting the number of foster places.

Further to this, in the Budget earlier this month the Chancellor announced £165 million to support councils to improve the quality of, and increase capacity in, residential children’s homes, so that children with the most complex needs can be cared for in a provision that meets those needs. This funding will boost local authority-run provision and, in doing so, respond to concerns that excessive profiteering—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—and often poor quality is threatening the sustainability and outcomes of local government children’s services.

Nevertheless, we recognise that, sometimes, private placement costs are too high, and that council tax payers are stuck footing the bill. The Government’s position is that this is an issue with profiteering rather than profit. Through reforms to children’s social care, they will continue to explore what action is needed to best support councils. The Government will be developing proposals on what more can be done to combat profiteering, bring down costs and create a more sustainable market for residential placements, which they will publish later this year.

The Government recognise the significance of special educational needs pressures on councils. This is why the Spring Statement committed £105 million towards a wave of 15 new special free schools, to create over 2,000 additional places for children with special educational needs and disabilities across England. On top of this specific funding for social care and SEND, the Government have committed to a 4% funding guarantee that will ensure that all councils receive at least a 4% increase in their core spending power before any local choices on council tax, efficiencies or reserves. We have listened to the many councils and the many things they told us. They would otherwise have experienced cash losses in funding next year, and we have stepped in to prevent that.

We are committed to supporting councils wherever they are in the country. This is in answer to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, about Luton. The most relatively deprived areas of England will be receiving 18% more per dwelling in available resource through the 2024-25 settlement than the least deprived areas; those councils, such as Luton and others, will be getting more. We understand that those councils have faced historic challenges in tackling deprivation. It is also why we have increased the value of the rural services delivery grant—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—by over 15% to £110 million, to support rural authorities dealing with the unique challenges of serving very dispersed populations. That is a second successive year of above-inflation increases for this grant.

The action we have taken to support local government in this financial settlement and beyond demonstrates our commitment to the sector. We recognise and thank those in the sector for the important contribution they make in delivering local services for their communities, up and down the country. We have worked in partnership with representatives, sector leaders and local councils, to ensure that this settlement helps to meet the needs of local government. This engagement has been a vital part of the decision-making for this settlement. When local councils speak to us, we listen, and this includes those councils that face the most significant challenges.

The Government also work closely with councils to understand the specific pressures that local government is facing. They are looking at a range of data on demand for services and the costs faced by councils. As a result of the local government finance settlement, the vast majority of local authorities will be able to set balanced budgets in 2024-25. We have published details of exceptional financial support agreed with a small number of councils, but the vast majority of this support relates to six councils where there has been severe local failure. The Government have had to step in there and take the most serious action through statutory intervention.

A small number of other councils requested financial support on an exceptional basis, due to specific local pressures that they were unable to manage themselves. We stand ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances or faces pressures it has not planned for. Our door is always open to them.

Before I conclude, I will answer as many of noble Lords’ questions as I can. If I do not get through all of them, obviously I will write. First, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull, brought up local government funding reform. We remain committed to updating the system in the next Parliament, and will work closely with local partners to take stock of the challenges and opportunities that they face. Of course we will consult with them before any potential funding reforms, but we talked to councils last year about any of the reforms we could make and they did not want any disruption or uncertainty at that time.

The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Hussain, brought up council tax reform. The Government continue to protect local tax payers from excessive increases. We believe that our approach strikes a fair balance and is an additional local democratic check and balance on local authorities. We are not allowing council tax to increase in place of increased funding; it is provision for a balanced package that includes a substantial increase for this coming year, as I said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, brought up audit issues and the backlog. Local audit is vital in supporting democratic accountability and providing assurance for local people and their elected representatives. At the time of its abolition, we believed that the Audit Commission was too centralised and that it encouraged local bodies to focus more on the views of the commissioner than on local people. The Government are working with the Financial Reporting Council to tackle a significant backlog of local audits and put the system on a sustainable footing for the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Does the Minister think it acceptable that 99% of local authorities did not clear their audits in time last year?

North East Mayoral Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 18th March 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, with the agreement of the Committee and its Chairman, I would like to say a few words in tribute to Paul Rowsell, who was head of the governance reform and democracy unit within DLUHC. He died suddenly on Thursday on his way to work at the age of 71. Paul had worked as the head of that unit since it was formed in 2011. Before that, he had dealt with all things to do with local authority governance since the 1990s.

Paul and I worked together on a weekly basis in the early 2000s on the Wiltshire unitary bid; he became a good friend of mine, and I hope I became a good friend of his. I will miss him terribly—including his not sitting behind me today. Paul was a wonderful public servant and he will be very sorely missed, not just by his colleagues in DLUHC but by the many people in local government whom he met and supported over the years. May Paul rest in peace.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

With permission, I would like to respond to that tribute. I have been in local government for nearly 30 years now, and I knew Mr Rowsell for most of that time. He was a formidable public servant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said. He was one of the great experts on local government finance—there are not many of those. Paul probably knew more about local government finance than anybody else in the country. I remember the trepidation that you would feel—I was a deputy leader of the LGA for many years—when you went into a meeting with him because you knew, however good your arguments were and however well you had been briefed by the LGA, he would pick it apart in five minutes and decimate your argument.

In spite of his tough approach to those of us who came up against him in meetings, he was very much a trusted member of the team in DLUHC and its predecessor departments—it has had many names over the years. I first encountered him way back when we were working on some of the “best value” initiatives. He was trusted, effective, incredibly knowledgeable and a consummate professional. His public service to this country in the local government department—that is what I will call it—was exemplary. I hope that he will rest in peace and that, for those who knew him personally, his memory will be a blessing. I thank him from our side of the Committee for his wonderful service to local government.

Housing: Young People

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for bringing forward this important debate, and also for the continued passion and knowledge that he gives to this House about the sector. I appreciate his challenge, as I am sure many others in the Chamber do. This is an important debate about the needs of young people within the overall housing market and I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken today for their considered and insightful contributions.

Throughout the debate, we have heard about the challenges the younger generation of this country face in achieving home ownership, and in accessing affordable housing to rent. Securing affordable, decent and stable homes is critical to ensuring young people can meet major life milestones, move for career opportunities, and start a family. The Government are committed to delivering the warm, safe, decent and affordable housing needed to support them through their life journeys.

Young people are part of a housing market significantly different from the one experienced by previous generations. Children of home owners are over twice as likely to be home owners than children of renters—an issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Thornhill. The dependence on the bank of mum and dad, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Attlee, to afford a home shows the difficulties in accessing the housing ladder. This is reflected in how the historic home ownership rate for those aged 25 to 34 has fallen from 51% in 1989 to 28% in 2019.

The Government have worked hard to reverse these historic trends with our long-term housing strategy. We have made huge strides since 2010 to increase home ownership, provide stability and security for those renting, and improve the quality of houses young adults own and rent. This will ultimately improve their life outcomes and quality of life. The hundreds of thousands of new homes we are delivering will create the homes young people need now and in the future. I am proud of the progress this Government have made to deliver on these priorities, but we cannot stop. We will therefore continue to press ahead in meeting these challenges.

First, almost all noble Lords brought up the planning system. We have built more homes in places young people want to live, and at prices that they can afford. Since 2010, over 2.5 million additional homes have been delivered, and the four highest rates of additional housing supply in over 30 years have all come since 2018. Increasing housing supply is at the heart of solving our housing challenges; crucial to that is reforming our planning system. Not only must we have enough homes in the right places, we must also have homes suitable for those with a range of needs, including those with disabilities and special care needs, and the vulnerable.

My noble friends Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Attlee raised important questions about how we are unblocking the planning system to deliver the houses that we need in the places where we need them. Building on our work since 2010, in December 2023 the Government revised the National Planning Policy Framework in response to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. The framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how we expect them to be applied. While the Government’s standard method for assessing local housing need is used to assess the total number of homes needed in a local area, the framework makes it clear that local authorities should assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups, including young people, young people with disabilities, care leavers and students.

Government housing targets have not changed. We remain committed to our ambition to deliver 300,000 homes a year. The Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement of 6 December 2022 confirmed that the standard method for assessing local housing need will be retained. The Government have made it clear that every local authority is expected to progress their local plans. If sufficient progress is not made, the Secretary of State will consider using his powers of intervention to ensure that plans are put in place. We also recently consulted on proposals to implement reforms to plan-making processes to ensure that plans are prepared in 30 months. The reason for that is that we know that local authorities that have up-to-date local plans deliver more houses.

The Government have in place a strong programme of support to upskill the capacity and capability of local planning authorities, as raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This includes a £13.5 million “planning super-squad” of leading planners and other experts that will deploy teams of specialists into planning authorities to accelerate development and a £29 million planning skills development delivery fund to help planning authorities deal with the backlog of planning applications ahead of the forthcoming changes to the planning system through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. To ensure that local authorities are doing everything they can to build the homes that are needed, in February this year the Secretary of State set out clear expectations for every council in England to prioritise building on brownfield developments —a key point raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson.

However, it is not enough just to build more houses. The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system creates more beautiful and sustainable buildings and places everywhere, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The duty introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for all local councils to produce a design code at the spatial scale of their authority area will give design codes significant weight when planning applications are determined, and the establishment of the Office for Place will support the creation of healthy, beautiful places. This Government will not compromise on quality and beauty.

Turning to housing supply, an area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, with regard to the 300,000 target, I recognise the significant challenges faced by the housebuilding sector in the current economic climate. The Government continue to prioritise support to the industry and local areas as part of our commitment to deliver 1 million new homes over the lifetime of this Parliament, which we are on track to deliver. This is critical in ensuring that housing across that the market is affordable—a crucial topic raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. We are investing billions to support housebuilding and achieve that commitment, including through our £1 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, and to manage different drivers of demand, such as migration—an important area raised by my noble friend Lord Lilley. Our £1.2 billion local authority housing fund is providing capital funding directly to councils. It will provide capital funding to local authorities to obtain better-quality temporary accommodation for those owed homelessness duty and to provide safe and suitable homes for those on the Afghan resettlement schemes—an extremely important point noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine.

As my noble friend Lord Jackson mentioned, ensuring that we are facilitating institutional investment in housebuilding in this country is of paramount importance. The £1.5 billion Levelling Up Home Building Fund leverages institutional investment from both private capital and pensions to achieve our ambitions.

My noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the recent Competition and Markets Authority report on housebuilding. I welcome the report. The Government will carefully consider the findings and the recommendation to formally respond to it within 90 days of publication.

I want to note where we have made substantial progress through our delivery of affordable homes, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular. Since 2010 we have delivered almost 700,000 new affordable homes, making it easier for young people to access the housing ladder. We have scaled up the delivery of affordable housing by investing £11.5 billion through the affordable homes programme, working ambitiously towards meeting our target of a quarter of a million new affordable homes.

At the same time, we have taken steps to reduce demand competition. Although the expansion of the short-term lets market has brought a range of benefits, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, we want to ensure that housing continues to be affordable. That is why the Government have announced a mandatory national short-term lets registration scheme to provide valuable information to local authorities in supporting the application and enforcement of planning changes. The Government also introduced higher rates of stamp duty land tax in April 2016 for those purchasing additional properties.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of the Church of England’s report Coming Home, which argued that an ambitious approach is needed to solve the housing challenges facing this country. As he said, it was debated in detail on 24 February, when the Government set out the comprehensive long-term housing strategy in responding to those challenges.

Turning to home ownership, the Government have a robust programme of interventions. My noble friend Lord Young, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the important question of how we are making it easier for young people to buy their own home. One key programme to note, shared ownership, is a unique scheme targeted at first-time buyers. It allows young people to purchase a share of a home through a mortgage while paying rent at below-market value on the rest of the home. Over time, young people can buy more shares, until they have bought the home in its entirety. I have seen many schemes like this and how pleased young people, particularly young families, are when they feel they are getting towards owning that home of their own.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Many young people who have gone into those schemes are now having incredibly high service charges imposed on them, and we need to come back to that issue when we look at the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. In a case I saw today, the charge had gone up from £94 a month to over £600, and as a result that young couple cannot sell the property or afford to live in it. The colloquial term for this is “fleecehold”. We need to think very carefully about those schemes.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right, and I have heard similar stories. That is why we have the leaseholder Bill coming through, which we will be debating in just a few weeks’ time.

In 2022-23, of those reported to my department, an estimated 77% of shared ownership purchases were made by first-time buyers and 33% of those purchases were made by buyers under the age of 30—a testament to the effectiveness of the action of this Government. Furthermore, our First Homes scheme offers first-time buyers under the age of 40 a minimum 30% discount on the price of an eligible new home, helping the younger generation get a foothold on the property ladder. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked for further detail on what the programme has delivered. I have only the top line, which is that there were 1,250 completions through the First Homes early delivery programme to the end of September 2023. If the noble Baroness wants more detail, she is welcome to come and ask me.

Through our lifetime ISA scheme, we have helped more than 56,000 account holders to become first-time buyers. More recently, we have recognised and responded to the challenging market conditions for lenders and buyers alike through the introduction of the mortgage guarantee scheme. This supports participating lenders to continue providing 5% deposit mortgages. We have extended this until June 2025 so that we can continue providing this vital support.

My noble friend Lord Young raised the question of stamp duty, land tax and cutting capital gains tax when landlords sell to sitting tenants. The Government have already taken action by cutting stamp duty during the pandemic, up to March 2025. This is reducing the financial burden on first-time buyers across the country, but particularly in and around London and the south-east, where these pressures are felt most acutely. On cutting capital gains tax for landlords’ sales to sitting tenants, this is not a policy the Government are currently considering. Taxation is a matter for the Chancellor and any decisions he takes on tax are considered, obviously, in the context of the wider public finances.

On the work of government on preventing homelessness and rough sleeping, as raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Valentine, I want to set out the measures we have prioritised to prevent vulnerable people—young people particularly—such as care leavers ending up homeless. In 2022 we published our cross-government strategy Ending Rough Sleeping for Good, which recognised that young people face particular challenges accessing and maintaining accommodation.

For young people with disabilities, my department, alongside the Department for Health and Social Care and the NHS, provides capital grant funding to subsidise the delivery of a new supply of supported housing, including for disabled people. Young people with disabilities who satisfy needs-assessment eligibility criteria and a means test benefit from a wider statutory duty to provide home adaptions. There are powers to provide adaptions for those who do not qualify under that duty. Under this Government, the disabled facilities grant has risen from £220 million in 2015-16 to £625 million in 2024-25—a more than doubling of the grant. This has been well received by disabled people.

When young people do find themselves homeless or at risk of homelessness, within the next 56 days they are owed a homelessness duty by their local authority. Our single homelessness accommodation programme will deliver over 650 homes and support services for young people in this situation. This is in addition to other support, including the £109 million top-up to the homelessness prevention grant for councils and an initial £6 million for rough sleeping winter pressures.

Many of our young people want to be free to move to places where they can connect their talents with economic opportunities before choosing to settle down. This is where the private sector steps in. Increasing security and quality in the private rented sector requires ambitious reforms and the Government have stepped up to deliver. We have introduced the Renters (Reform) Bill, which will support tenants with a raft of measures, including applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time and abolishing Section 21 evictions. The Bill is awaiting Report in the other place, which is subject to parliamentary scheduling, and it will be announced in the usual course of business management. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that the proportion of private rented sector households has remained relatively stable for nearly a decade, and the number of renters has doubled since 2004.

For those in the social rented sector, we have enshrined in law, through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, a rebalancing of the relationship between landlord and tenant. We are ensuring that landlords are held to account for their performance—an important step in improving the quality of houses across the market, which was an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. We are creating a housing market fit for the future.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will reform the outdated leasehold system in this country. From 2025, the future homes standard will future-proof our homes, ensuring that new homes produce at least 75% less CO emissions than those built to previous standards. We know that making long-term changes takes time to deliver, and the Government are doing all they can against a challenging economic background to ensure that the younger generation can access affordable, safe and high-quality housing.

Following the £188 million allocation to the housing projects in Sheffield, Blackpool and Liverpool at the Convention of the North on 1 March, last week’s Spring Budget allocated over £240 million to housing projects in London, an area where affordability is challenging, particularly for young people, as we have heard today.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others brought up intergenerational housing. I totally agree with them that we need better older people’s housing and more choice for older people because, if we give them better housing and more choice, we can start to move the housing stock around. Some local authorities are doing that really well, but more can be done. The Government’s independent older people’s housing task force is looking at housing for older people, and it will make its final recommendations to Ministers this summer.

I hope I have answered as much as I can—

Domestic Violence Refuges: Charities and Local Government

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in the last couple of months we have given £600 million extra to local authorities because we understand the pressures they are under. We are keeping an eye on those pressures, and we encourage all local authorities which have difficulties with their budgets to talk to us early on, so that we can work with them. Local authority budgets have been increased by 7.5% this year, and as my noble friend said, local authorities prioritise domestic abuse victims in their budgeting.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a founder and patron of Survivors Against Domestic Abuse. Last Thursday, my honourable friend Jess Phillips read out in the other place—as she does every year—the names of 98 women killed as a result of violence over the last year: a heartbreaking tribute to lives broken and lost to violence. After every case of domestic homicide, we are told that lessons will be learned. Does the Minister agree that providing safe spaces to live for women who flee violence—a project we started in Stevenage, and which now provides 35 homes across Hertfordshire—is vital? However, it is in serious danger of being stopped because such local authority spending is discretionary. Will she meet with me to hear more about this work?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I would be more than happy to meet the noble Baroness to learn about that, and I thank her for everything she is doing in her county. As recently as this weekend, we heard so much about violence against women. The Home Office is taking this issue extremely seriously and a large amount of money is going into extra police training, particularly on tackling domestic abuse. Some £3.3 million has been committed over the next three years to support delivery of Domestic Abuse Matters training to police officers. Let us hope that this changes things.

Housebuilding

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said previously, SMEs play a critical role in housebuilding and in the housing market in this country. Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we have made changes to the planning system that will support SMEs to build more homes by making the planning process easier to navigate, faster and more predictable. The Government have recently announced policies that will support SME housebuilders, including an expansion of the ENABLE Build guarantee scheme, Homes England’s pilots of SME-only land sales and updating the community infrastructure levy guidance. So we are in the same place as my noble friend and we will be working with this sector very closely in the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a specific recommendation in the excellent CMA report regarding targets:

“More objective and effective use of targets to ensure housing need is met”


are needed. With the Government caving in to pressure from Back-Benchers in the other place and scrapping housing targets, and the developers putting profit before people’s homes, will the Government now reinstate those housing targets and make a long-term plan to deliver the homes we need, preferably in the new “new towns” that the Labour Party is promoting?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, let me make it clear that we have delivered 2.5 million extra homes in the last 14 years. Since 2018, we have also delivered the four highest annual building numbers for 30 years, and we are on target for 1 million more homes in this Parliament. We are delivering, but we have been through an economic crisis. We are coming out of it, and we will start to build more homes in the future.

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a serving councillor on Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council. I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument and I am very grateful for her explanation of the relaying of it, which was informative.

I suppose that this instrument is necessarily complex and technical in content, but, if we look through it, we see that in many ways it demonstrates exactly how far business rates—or non-domestic rates, as we have to call them—have got from their objectives. They are intended to ensure that businesses make a contribution to the communities that allow them to thrive, to link them with the people and public services of their local area. They should recognise the differentiation between small, start-up and local businesses and the multinational corporates, when in fact non-domestic rates sometimes penalise them in inverse proportion to their ability to pay. They should also ensure that areas wishing to improve, increase or regenerate economic activity are able to vary the business rates to incentivise according to local circumstances.

Looking through the pages of mathematical formulae and complex calculations in this SI, I say that it would not be surprising if any average business doing so felt that we had somewhat lost the plot. The complexities of the system do not really benefit most councils, either, although we appreciate the funding that comes from them. For example, my borough raises over £61 million in non-domestic rates but, after all these calculations and the turning of the Government’s sausage machine, we get around £4 million of that—in spite of having three of the most deprived wards in the country.

So we need to refocus business rates back on to what they were intended to do. That is why they are part of Labour’s plan to support the vast majority of businesses in this country that are SMEs. They employ 16.7 million people and boost our economy by £2.4 trillion; they breathe life into our high streets; they deliver services that make our life easier: and they provide the goods we need to thrive. While SMEs welcomed the support they got during Covid, many of them now feel neglected as they struggle to survive the cost of living crisis, the recession and the complexities of this business rates system, which can seem utterly overwhelming, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out.

Labour’s plan for small businesses will be an important milestone in recognising their value to the economy and the essential role that they have in ensuring the economic growth that we need. We will undertake a fundamental reform of business rates, which will reshape this antiquated system and refocus it on business not bureaucrats’ objectives. We want to make sure that bricks-and-mortar businesses do not continue to pay disproportionately more than their online competitors. We want to take the burden from high streets and the businesses that sit at the heart of our communities, such as the local café that makes our morning coffee, the mortgage broker on our high street who went above and beyond to help you get your first home, the plumbers who come out of hours when you have water pouring through the ceiling. We want a new system that incentivises businesses to invest, rather than discourages them doing so. Our plan for business rates sits within a comprehensive plan for small business, which tackles all the issues that our many conversations with those businesses have told us are key to their future.

We had the chance to speak on the wasted opportunity to revise non-domestic rates during last year’s debates on the Bill, as the Minister said. We recognise that, for now, this technical paper is necessary to put in place the mechanism for the current system, so we will not be putting forward any formal objections, but I have some questions for the Minister. Can she comment any further on the Government’s plans to shift the current disproportionate burden of non-domestic rates taxation from small local businesses to online corporates or, potentially, on alternative forms of income for local government, including an e-commerce levy, with the funding retained by local government?

The retailers that we know and love on our high street, such as M&S, Boots, WHSmith and small, local businesses, seem to have a dramatic penalty in the business rates system over big online retailers such as Amazon. The current top-up and tariffs system is now outdated and, in view of the extraordinary cuts to which local government has been subjected, it often penalises areas of deprivation just because areas around them may be more economically vibrant. Can the Minister comment on what recent assessment has been carried out on the validity of the tariffs and top-up system?

What progress has been made on the Government’s promised consultation on business rates avoidance and evasion? The LGA, for example, has called for a review of exemptions, such as where businesses happen to be located on farms, and further clamp-downs on business rates avoidance, along the lines of those introduced in Wales and Scotland, to ensure that the rules on reliefs, such as empty property and charitable relief, are applied fairly.

The Minister knows that the LGA is also in favour of giving councils more flexibility on business rates reliefs, such as charitable and empty property relief, and the ability to set their own business rates multipliers or, at the very least, to set a multiplier above and below the nationally set multiplier. Have the Government given any further consideration to those proposals? Lastly, could she comment on the glacial speed of the appeals process, which distorts council finances and reserves, as councils often have to hold funds for not just months but years while they wait for the outcome of business rate appeals?

As I said, we understand that this instrument is necessary to move forward non-domestic rates for this year, but we hope that there is an understanding that sticking plasters, even complicated and technical ones such as this, are the problem and not the solution.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses seated opposite for their contributions. A number of questions came up. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and, I think, also the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked about complexity. We accept that the administration of the system has become necessarily complex over time in response to all the changes to policy and tax that have happened. This will be an ongoing thing. Whatever the system is, as changes happen, it becomes more complex. While every mechanism cannot be made accurate pound to pound, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would like, we minimise the risks to the system from any major changes that would affect a local authority’s budget as much as possible. Of course, we are always happy to talk to local authorities if they feel that they have a problem with their business rates.

Local Authorities: Financial Difficulties

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. We made changes to local government financing in January, and we listened to local government and its priorities: £500 million of the £600 million extra that was given is going into social care.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this weekend, the Local Government Association Labour Group published its latest version of 101 Achievements of Labour in Power, featuring a huge range of initiatives: street support partnerships tackling homelessness in Leeds, Food On Our Doorstep clubs in Mansfield, delivering over 83,000 square feet of lab space to support life sciences in Stevenage, new models of fostering in South Tyneside, and Plymouth City Council launching the first ever national marine park to support conservation of our seas. Remarkably, all this innovation has taken place against the backdrop of a reduction in core spending power of 11% compared with 2010-11. Is it not time the Government recognised the huge value that people place on local services and worked with the sector to deliver a sustainable funding model to support them?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government do appreciate what local government can do, and it is not just Labour local government that is delivering this innovation and great services for local people. At this point, I should thank local government for everything it does. As I said earlier, we listen to local authorities all the time, which is why we put in £600 million more in January.

Leasehold Reform

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I shall certainly do that—I thought that my noble friend Lady Penn had agreed to that letter, but I shall look into it and sort out a letter. But I think that my offer of meeting noble Lords, as we move into the Bill, is the correct way forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, millions of leaseholders across the country, such as those in Vista Tower in Stevenage, have suffered extreme financial distress, bankruptcies and inability to sell their properties, because the issue of fire remediation has fallen directly on them. When will those leaseholders have the Government’s reassurance that this is going to be dealt with once and for all?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are dealing with it—it is a big piece of work, but we are dealing with it. It is happening all the time. What I have said to the noble Baroness and others many times at the Dispatch Box is that, if there are individuals who have complex issues and want to discuss them, we have a team of people in the department who will do that. I am happy to talk to her further about that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the powers introduced by this section amend and clarify powers and procedures for using compulsory purchase and have been extensively consulted on—unlike some other parts of the Bill. The LGA’s view is that the introduction of measures that would genuinely make the CPO process more efficient for councils is an encouraging step, as it has previously lobbied on the need to reduce the time taken to use the CPO, and it also believes that these changes will make the valuation of change in this context closer to a normal market transaction.

In fact, the LGA view is that the Bill could have gone further. It would also like to see the ability to tackle sites which have had planning permission for a long time but which have not been built out through stronger compulsory purchase powers, and the removal of the requirement for permission from the Secretary of State to proceed with a CPO, which would expedite the process for local authorities. Of course, the Secretary of State could always retain the right to call in in circumstances where it would be necessary to do so.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I am sympathetic to the specific issues they raised, particularly the issue about prompt payment for purchases of land. Perhaps I have had an unusual experience of the CPO process but the conditions are already stringent, both in setting out the process for a site qualifying for a CPO and in the requirement for valuation of that site. Therefore, while I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment, it seems that there is already guidance in place—indeed, the amendment refers to it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would place a requirement on the Government to publish by regulations a new duty of care for all acquiring authorities undertaking compulsory purchase. The proposed duty of care would involve obligations on acquiring authorities to acquire only land necessary for their schemes and to mitigate the impacts of their schemes, as well as to pay compensation to landowners at the date of entry or date of vesting and ensure that all communication with claimants is conducted in accordance with government guidance. I reassure noble Lords that the Government understand the concerns behind this amendment. However, the Government consider the proposed duty of care to be unnecessary for the following reasons.

First, whatever the underlying scheme, a guiding principle of compulsory purchase is that acquiring authorities should include within the boundary of a CPO only land which is required to facilitate the scheme. It is for acquiring authorities to demonstrate that there is justification and a compelling case to support the inclusion of land within a CPO boundary. Where they cannot, a CPO is likely to fail.

Secondly, another principle is that the use of a CPO is lawful only providing that acquiring authorities compensate landowners for the loss of their interests, whether the land is acquired following notice to treat or is vested in the acquiring authority. Where an acquiring authority takes possession of land before compensation has been agreed, it is obliged to make an advance payment of compensation to the landowner if requested.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for moving the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The Government also appreciate the importance of the interaction between the infrastructure levy and development which is granted planning permission by so-called permitted development. This means, of course, development of a class for which planning permission is granted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015—SI 2015/596.

As noble Lords are aware, most permitted development rights do not fall within the scope of the existing system of developer contributions. The infrastructure levy aims to capture more value than the existing system, and the Bill has been designed to help achieve this aim. This includes having the ability to capture land value uplift associated with permitted development, subject to provision that is made in the infrastructure levy regulations.

Our recent technical consultation sought views on how the levy could be charged on permitted development to expand the scope of developments for which levy contributions may be sought and allow local authorities to capture more value for infrastructure and affordable housing where currently little or no contributions are collected. It will take time to analyse the technical consultation responses, to undertake further review and consultation, and to develop policy as a result of that, before drafting regulations. However, I accept that this is a matter of considerable importance to the House.

We do not propose to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which would require a review to be published within 120 days of the Bill being passed. We can instead commit that the Government will publish a report on how the levy will work in relation to permitted development at an appropriate point when the policy is developed. This will set out the interrelationship between the levy and permitted development. The Government will commit to doing this on or prior to the day that the infrastructure levy regulations are laid, so that the interaction between the levy and permitted development can be clearly understood. I hope that, with these clear reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Before I move on, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seemed pretty concerned about permitted development rights. He ought to be aware that nationally permitted development rights make an important contribution to national housing delivery. In the seven years to March 2022, they delivered more than 94,000 houses, which represents 6% of the overall housing supply in that delivery period.

We want to make sure that the existing conditions and limitations that apply to permitted development rights and allow for the change of use to residential property are fit for purpose. So far, we have done this and we continue to. As I said, there is an ongoing consultation, which closes on 25 September. Any changes subject to its outcome will be brought forward via secondary legislation.

I move on to Amendment 243. I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for putting this forward on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northbrook. The amendment seeks to restrict the flexibility of premises within Class E—the commercial, business and service use class—to be used as cafés or restaurants. As a Government, we believe that restaurants and cafés are important parts of our high streets, town centres and other parts of our country, such as towns and villages, and we do not want them to be limited. In addition, the general permitted development order cannot be used to place limits on the operation of a use class. Therefore, once again, we cannot support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances and therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment 228.

New Homes

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in her response to the debate on housing targets during the Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Minister stated:

“To get enough homes built in places where people and communities need them, a crucial first step is to plan for the right number of homes”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 426.]


The National House Building Council’s statistics show a dramatic decline in registrations in quarter 2 across most regions, compared with the same quarter last year; it was down 67% in the north-west, for example. It is going in the wrong direction. What is the Government’s plan to ensure that local targets meet that 300,000 homes target?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I said to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, we are in an economic situation that is not as favourable for housebuilding as it was, and therefore we have to work with Homes England, developers and local planning authorities to ensure that we give all the support we can, reinvigorate the housing market and get these houses built.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 244 in this group and I will then make brief comments on the other amendments. Amendment 244 is designed to cover an issue that arises almost at the intersection of planning and procurement. It can be the case that, where local authorities undertake major development, the nature of the planning system is such that the subsequent tender process will be enacted only for the totality of the development. Of course, the major contractors can subcontract works out, but this process does not always accrue maximum benefit to the local economy. Our amendment aims to ensure that whatever can be done at the stage of granting planning permission is done, to enable SME participation in, and engagement with, those contracts being achieved.

Amendment 217, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, applies a provision for “drop-in permissions”. We note that this is an acknowledged problem that may or may not require an amendment to planning law. I absolutely take the good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the provision of infrastructure where there is a drop-in permission, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on whether the existing wording is sufficient to enable the necessary change to unblock buildouts on large sites.

In relation to Amendment 219, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we would of course support refusing permissions to those who have not made buildout applications previously; that is a welcome change. We greatly sympathise with the noble Lord’s point that doing this to someone with an undefined connection with the previous applicant is way too unspecific in terms of planning law, and who that undefined connection would be. We agree that this needs to be either tightened up or taken out altogether, because it could have unintended consequences if it is left in the Bill as it is.

Amendment 221, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, recommends splitting planning applications into two stages for the purpose of encouraging rural economic development. We fully support the notion that anything that can be done within the planning system to encourage rural economic development should be done. But it is difficult to see how, in practical terms, a two-stage permission would work. There is already very strong provision and encouragement in the planning system for outline permissions to be submitted and then followed by detailed permissions for major developments. This is common practice, and I am sure rural areas are not excluded. I wonder whether that would be the type of process, or if there are things I am missing in the noble Lord’s amendment.

We were delighted to see Amendment 221A, proposed by noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, relating to the provision of swift bricks. We very much enjoyed his enthusiastic and passionate advocacy in his introduction, and all speeches made by noble Lords in favour of this. The noble Lord’s amendment follows extensive public interest in introducing this step, which led to the public petition debate to which the noble Lord referred, and to very strong cross-party support. We note also that the Wildlife and Countryside Link is in favour of this measure, as are many recognised experts.

We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits. They add to the biodiversity of urban areas, and I am particularly keen that we support that. I grew up as a townie and the swifts and house martins were a real feature of my childhood growing up in a town. Their decline has been very visible and sad to see. If there is anything we can do to either halt that decline or hopefully turn it around, we should certainly do so. There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population, and that it will not be necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to divide the House—but I hope he knows he has our full support in this amendment.

Amendment 282, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Bellingham, may relate to issues the Minister referred to in Committee. We comment only that, while we accept that notices published on local authority websites would usually be appropriate, of course there are other ways of drawing the public’s and stakeholders’ attention. We have some concerns about stating that anything must remain permanently on a website, but we understand his point.

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

My Lords, Amendment 217, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would allow regulations to permit variations to an existing permission, without rendering that permission void. We recognise that there is concern in the sector about the impact of recent case law, particularly for large-scale phased development. This is an issue which we have looked at very carefully.

Clause 104 already introduces a new, more flexible route to vary permissions: Section 73B, where the substantial difference test can cover notable material changes. To assist the understanding of the new provision, we propose to amend the headings in the clause to make this clearer and avoid misapprehension. Existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would allow us to deal with this issue through secondary legislation, so we do not consider that a further power would be required. Instead, we propose to engage and consult the sector as part of the implementation of Section 73B and, if further action were needed, we would consider the use of our existing powers if warranted. I hope my noble friend is sufficiently reassured not to press his amendment on this.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, remember the days of the regional spatial strategies, and long debates in EELGA over housing numbers particularly. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I did not celebrate when they got the kibosh, because I thought that there was a lot of good in them—particularly in meeting the housing needs in the east of England but also on the economic development side, which was as important. A great deal of very good work was done in pulling together data and information for the whole region, in order to look at where and how best to develop particular clusters and where they would work well. So there was a lot of merit in that very strategic-level thinking.

It has moved on a bit since the days of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in Hertfordshire, with the Hertfordshire Growth Board looking at issues outside the remit of the straightforward local planning authority. For example, there is the mass rapid transit system that south and south-west Hertfordshire was looking at, which covers a number of different local authorities. Then, there is working with the local enterprise partnerships, as we did on the Hertfordshire Growth Board. There was a clear drive towards the consideration of travel-to-work areas, which was why I spoke so strongly in favour when we discussed this issue before.

I am convinced that we need to work jointly, with joint authorities, involving them in particular in the early stages, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. It is no good waiting until a draft strategy has been produced and, if there is a major game-changer in there, expecting local authorities to pick it apart and change it. It is much better for them to be engaged and involved from the very start.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned government Amendment 201B, which we will debate on Wednesday, which will allow combined authorities to take on planning powers. I am not going to start the whole discussion now, but we were very concerned about this. We will have a debate about it, but it seems like a very slippery slope indeed. It is far better to include local authorities and all the component parts that make up the combined authority and their neighbours in the discussion from the early days of the joint spatial development strategy.

I absolutely support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on the inclusion of districts and councils in a very real way in the decision-making on JSDSs. I think it emphasises the points we made in earlier debates, in Committee and on Report, about the importance of the full membership of combined authorities—for both tiers in two-tier areas. Those organisations are then involved right from the start, and they have a democratic mandate to be so involved.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made the important point that there are elements that will be included in joint spatial development strategies that do not stop at boundaries, and so it is very important that we work across those boundaries on such things as climate change, healthy homes, sustainable transport and biodiversity. All those things do not come to an end when you get to the end of your local plan area, so we all need to work together on how we tackle those key issues.

We are very supportive of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I am interested to hear the Minister’s answer as to whether the part of the schedule that covers this would stretch to make sure that this very important early-stage consultation could be included as a requirement within the Bill.

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

My Lords, let me first say that the aim of Amendment 192 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley is sensible and I understand its intention. Other authorities, such as county councils, will be essential for a successful plan, given that they are responsible for delivering a range of critical services such as highways and transport, flood risk management and waste management. Of course, county councils will also have the role of a statutory consultee for the joint spatial development strategies.

We expect engagement with other authorities to be typical good practice for any group of local planning authorities preparing a joint spatial development strategy—an SDS. Indeed, it would appear unlikely that any joint SDS that did not engage appropriately with other local government bodies could be found sound at examination. Let me make it clear that county councils are going to play an important role in the plan-making process. We envisage them not just as consultees but as being closely involved with the day-to-day production of any joint SDS. The Government have set out our intention to introduce an alignment policy via the National Planning Policy Framework to address cross-boundary and strategic issues such as travel to work areas, and this policy will be consulted on in due course.

Both my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, brought up the government amendments in the next group. Just to make it clear, Schedule 4 amendments will mean that combined county authorities will be in the same position that the Mayor of London and county councils and combined authorities are in currently in relation to the ability of the Secretary of State to invite those bodies to take over plan-making, but where a constituent planning authority is failing in its plan-making activities. It is not that they can just walk in and take over, but if the local plan is not being delivered by the planning authority then they have the right to ask the Secretary of State if they can take it over. I just wanted to make that clear, but I am sure we will have the discussion again on Wednesday.

My noble friend brought up the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the role of county councils. I do not know that, legally. I will make sure that I find out tomorrow and I will write to my noble friend and send a copy to those in the Chamber tonight.

I am not convinced that this amendment is needed to make local planning authorities work with other authorities, notably county councils, on joint SDSs. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lansley feels he is able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

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

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, while we do not object to this regulation’s contents in principle, we too regret that it has been necessary for the Government to bring this instrument forward. After all, the regulations consist mostly of technical amendments to regulations previously made under the Building Safety Act after it came into force. Surely the need for such basic definitions could have been anticipated in the drafting of the previous regulations. We appreciate fully that these are not simple matters, but instruments coming forward to correct what are largely obvious deficiencies and admissions in the drafting of previously approved regulations do not exactly inspire confidence in the Government’s approach to leaseholder protection and to the building safety crisis more generally.

At the heart of this issue are the millions of leaseholders who are losing sleep and their hard-earned cash over the remediation costs issue. During the passage of the Building Safety Bill, Members of both Houses warned about the consequences of rapidly overhauling what was already a complex and technical piece of legislation in order to reflect the Government’s belated change of approach. Indeed, my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook MP said at the time that

“this is no way to make good law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/22; col. 191.]

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to a previous regret Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, regarding judicial reviews and attempts at redrafting.

All this could have been avoided if the Government had just grasped the nettle and brought forward a comprehensive Bill to abolish the outdated and anachronistic system that leasehold tenure is. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark’s work—he has brought this matter before the House so many times—but we still seem to be no further forward. The Secretary of State described leasehold as an outdated feudal system in January this year and promised to bring forward a Bill to scrap it, saying that

“the fundamental thing is that leasehold is just an unfair form of property ownership. In crude terms, if you buy a flat, that should be yours. You shouldn’t be on the hook for charges which managing agents and other people can land you with”.

That should apply to remediation costs, too.

The Law Commission, asked to review leasehold by the Government, produced a report proposing an overhaul of the right-to-manage process and suggested that landlords’ legal costs should not be passed to leaseholders. Yet here we are, seven months later, with no sign of a Bill so far and increasingly complex instruments coming before us to try to sort out the mess that the Government have made in previous regulations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said in its report on 29 June, which has already been highlighted by the Minister:

“We are disappointed that this is a further example of a wider concern we have highlighted in recent reports, whereby we have had to ask basic questions about the rationale of changes made in an instrument and report the answers in our weekly reports, when such information should have been in the EM accompanying the instrument”.


What assurances can the Minister give that, in rectifying the deficiencies and omissions in previously approved regulations, the same errors will not recur in respect of the many other building safety instruments we still need to consider? What is the Minister doing to ensure that the overall quality of statutory instruments that come before this House is improved so that they are not the subject of amending instruments and judicial review?

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, set out in great detail the technical issues in relation to this regulation. Our concern is that, while we understand that the Government’s intention is to ensure that landlords cannot avoid their responsibility to leaseholders in relation to building safety through complex corporate structures, if the instruments are not properly drafted, they will provide loopholes that enable that avoidance. What reassurance can the Minister give us today that this new instrument is sufficiently tight in its drafting to ensure that landlords will have to meet their obligations? The introduction given to us by the Minister, which referred to potential further redrafts and potentially even further primary legislation, does nothing to reassure us.

We note that Regulation 4 adds Homes England to the list of interested persons who may seek remediation orders and remediation contribution orders. Leaving aside the obvious question of why it was not included from the outset, particularly given that it administers the Building Safety Fund outside London, the Minister in the other place, Rachel Maclean, clarified that it is not the Government’s intention that Homes England takes over these responsibilities from government. However, the regulation does give it new responsibilities, so will Homes England be provided with further funding to fulfil these new responsibilities?

While we understand and share some of the concerns that sit behind the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the instrument contains a series of perfectly sensible refinements to previous regulations, the effect of which, we hope, will be to streamline the landlord certificate and leaseholder deed of certificate process. We take no issue with those measures, but we regret that, although the instrument makes the necessary changes, it is a missed opportunity to resolve other glaring deficiencies in the Building Safety Act that the Government should have resolved by now, such as the gap relating to leaseholders extending or varying their lease on or after 14 February 2022, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to, which the Government promised in this House on 2 May that they would legislate to resolve as soon as parliamentary time allowed, and the fact that service charges to cover remedial acts were sent out to leaseholders quickly before the Act came into force, because those charges could not be applied retrospectively. That has left leaseholders at the expense of litigation to resolve the matter. We, too, are interested in the cost to the Treasury of claims that exceed the cap referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. Why are the Government not using this instrument to address the shortcomings I have mentioned?

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for moving his amendment to give us the opportunity to have this debate, and I thank noble Lords who have contributed. I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords for their contributions today. I will try to answer as many points as I can, but I imagine that on many points, particularly those from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I will have to write. I reiterate my invitation to him to meet us to talk about some of his concerns.

The noble Earl asked about the complexity and clarity of existing regulations and what they do to address the concerns of the SLSC and the JCSI. As I said, this is what these regulations are for. They are there to address those concerns. The department will be publishing further guidance on GOV.UK to accompany the regulations. This will be published shortly after the regulations come into force.

The noble Earl also asked why the regulations do not address his concerns in relation to some leaseholders being liable in some circumstances. I am aware that I responded previously to the noble Earl when he brought forward his “polluter pays” amendments recently, which I now understand are being called building safety remediations. He seeks to return us to a subject that your Lordships debated extensively in the spring of last year, in what was then the Building Safety Bill. I say once more to the noble Earl, with the greatest of respect, that this House and the other place considered his arguments very carefully last year and rejected them. I still do not think that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is an appropriate place to try and reopen these issues.

In any event, the noble Earl presents his amendments—I thought it was “polluter pays”, but it is now building safety remediation—as though that is not what the Act and the various government schemes do. His scheme seeks to use the planning system to force compliance, as does the Government’s responsible actors’ scheme. We are told that the proposed scheme would avoid expensive litigation, yet it would replace the expanded jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal, which is now dealing with a significant number of cases, with that of the High Court, where costs and delays are far higher. The noble Earl’s scheme would not make a significant difference to leaseholders, other than to set back the progress of remediation by over a year as the industry and leaseholders work to understand yet another new system, just as they get to grips with the Building Safety Act.

The noble Earl also asked whether liability should fall on L for unavoidable errors in certificates. Under the leaseholder protection regulations, as he will know, L is the person with managing and repairing obligations. It is the current landlord who must provide the landlord certificate, not L. Where the current landlord produces a certificate that does not meet the prescribed requirements, liability for the relevant defect falls to them. L, the person responsible for the maintenance and repairs, may pursue them for amounts owed via a remediation contribution order.

The noble Earl also asked about consultations with practitioners and leaseholders, including those who have been prevented from selling. I set out in my opening speech that the department has engaged with numerous practitioners, including landlords, named managers, conveyancers and lenders. I can confirm that this was done through written correspondence to the department and stakeholder round tables. I reiterate that the department is not required to consult on these regulations.

The noble Earl also asked about the ability of leaseholders or professionals, in particular, to check facts in landlord certificates. There is no expectation on any party to verify the information set out in the landlord certificates, and these regulations do not change that. Regulation 11 of SI 2022/711 provides that those leaseholders may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order, where they have a reason to believe that the information in a landlord certificate is incorrect. He also asked about the volume of information required to be sourced and collected. I have said before that regulations reduce the evidence requirement or burden on landlords where they accept liability for a relevant defect.

The noble Earl asked about the disparity between ascertainable facts, as at 14 February 2022, and subsequent facts coming to light at a later stage. The tests apply on 14 February 2022 to ensure that landlords cannot circumvent the rules, particularly in relation to their net worth. Subsequent facts are not considered for the purpose of the tests. Where the landlord has since sold their assets then their liability, determined on 14 February 2022, falls to the person who bought the landlord’s asset, but the original landlord may still be pursued by a remediation contribution order. The Building Safety Act 2022 provides for insolvency orders to recover remediation amounts from a company that is in the process of winding up, and associated companies of that insolvent company may be held liable.

The noble Earl then asked about the need for the landlord to gather information from L. We are aware of the issues concerning the landlord being unable to legally enforce the provision of information in relation to relevant defects in the building. It is of course in the leaseholders’ interest for the person responsible for repairs and maintenance, often resident led, to provide that information to reduce a qualifying leaseholders cap. We are looking to bring forward primary legislation to resolve this issue as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, those who have heard me speak in this Chamber will know that I am a great fan of development corporations, having grown up in a town that, apart from our historic old town, was created and, for the most part, built by Stevenage Development Corporation. At that time, the innovation of development corporations took a great deal of debate in Parliament to initiate, and we have hopefully moved on a bit towards devolution since the middle of the last century.

If there is to be parliamentary scrutiny of the establishment of development corporations, it is absolutely right that it should be done by the affirmative procedure, so we welcome the movement on that in Amendments 146 and 147, to ensure that the establishment of locally led urban and new town development corporations is drawn to the attention of both Houses, in the same way as those that are not locally led.

We hope that it will be the intention of government to scrutinise only the technical aspects of governance, for example, as it would be entirely against the principles of devolution that the Bill sets out to promote for any Government to effectively have a veto on whether proposals for a development corporation go ahead. During the passage of the Bill, we have talked about a new relationship of mutual trust between local and central government, and we hope that such parliamentary scrutiny will not be used to undermine that.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the importance of determining the nature of parliamentary involvement in different types of development corporation. Of course, we would have concern about Parliament intending to have a veto on the locally led ones. The other amendments in this group are consequential on the Minister’s previous amendment on page 195. We look forward to her comments about the points raised.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that, yes, locally led development corporations will come from local authorities—they will put them forward.

My noble friend Lord Lansley brought up the different forms of development corporations. Rather than standing here and taking time, I would prefer to write to him and copy everybody in. I suggest that we might have a small group meeting about this when we come back in September so that any questions can be asked. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her support for these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group brings up to date the provisions in the Bill so that they are appropriately applied to Wales. It also updates the list of types of compulsory purchase that can be made, subject to common data standards—we accept that this is important. We have had much discussion about the issues of hope value during the passage of the Bill, and it is therefore absolutely right that the Minister responded to Senedd Cymru’s request to make that apply in Wales as well.

I associate this side of the House with the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It would be helpful if these types of provisions could be consulted on with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations before they come before this House. But I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the Welsh Senedd’s request, and we are pleased to see these amendments coming forward today.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their input. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we understand the devolved authorities’ rights and responsibilities, but, as always, there is negotiation on any legislation that we put through which may affect them. The Government and the Welsh Government did not reach a settled position on the CPO powers until after the Lords Committee stage had concluded. As these things are complex, our devolved authorities also need time to discuss and make decisions. I can assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with them all the time.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hoped we were hearing the voice of future generations up in the Gallery when the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was speaking. Perhaps they were reminding us to think about affordable housing. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that affordable housing was at the heart of some of this debate, and that is certainly the view of our Benches.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out the issues relating to the infrastructure levy that are causing such great concern across the sector. As she mentioned, this has resulted in an unprecedented step in my time in local government, with over 30 key organisations writing jointly to the Secretary of State to set out their concerns. They are united in saying that the introduction of the infrastructure levy could

“make it harder, not easier, for local leaders and communities to secure the benefits of new development”.

They point to the developer contributions that are being generated by the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 systems, which generated £7 billion in 2018-19 to support housing, infrastructure and services. I share their concerns that this new levy has the potential to reduce this amount.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the discussions that we have already had in Committee, but these views have been expressed by powerful bodies in our sector. His points about the design of the system are well made, but that should have been considered before the Bill came to the House. Points from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about trying to operate this discussion on a key part of the Bill in a vacuum are also well made.

The main concern of the organisations that wrote to the Secretary of State is the potential for this reform to

“leave communities with fewer new social and affordable homes, mixed and balanced developments and less of the infrastructure they need”.

They fear that the “upheaval” of introducing a new system would build delays and uncertainty into the planning system at a time when there is an urgent need to deliver affordable housing quickly, and that CIL and Section 106 would

“not be improved by these reforms”

and would need to be managed alongside the new levy. They welcome the principle of allowing authorities to borrow against developer contributions, but point out that the financial risk of doing so, when the final assessed amounts are “uncertain”, would probably be too great for local government finance officers.

In addition to the risks flagged by these key representatives of the sector, it is not yet clear what impact the infrastructure levy will have on permitted development. At present, developers engaging in permitted development make little, if any, contribution to infra- structure, in particular to affordable housing. This anomaly also needs to be resolved in any new infrastructure levy system.

I am grateful to many of the organisations that signed that letter which have also been kind enough to send us briefing material, and to the office of the Mayor of London, which has provided us with very strong evidence about the potential detrimental impact this would have on building more affordable housing in London. Its figures suggest that, had the levy been in place over the last five years, it would have resulted in between 4,500 and 10,000 fewer affordable homes, and could have made up to 30,000 homes of all tenures unviable.

We completely understand the need to ensure that developments provide the infrastructure to support them, but this proposed new levy adds layers of complexity, because it is being grafted on to an already complex system. The money that developers will have to pay to support transport, schools, health centres, open and play space, and, critically, affordable housing will be calculated once a project is complete instead of at the planning stage, as it is currently. This has resulted in concerns that the funding will be delayed or, potentially, lost altogether. The charging system will be complex and labour-intensive, putting further pressures on the local authority planning departments that we know are already at breaking point.

The reply to the organisations that wrote to the Secretary of State from the Minister responsible, Rachel Maclean, said that she would be looking at the issues they raised in detail and would be organising a round table very shortly. I believe that round table may have taken place in very recent days. However, as the sector has been raising these concerns since the infrastructure levy was first mooted, it is a shame the round table did not take place many months ago.

We accept that the Government have made some concessions on the infrastructure levy clauses, but they do not meet the basic challenge of explaining to the sector just how this new proposal will deliver more resources more effectively than the current system. For that reason, if the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, wishes to test the opinion of the House on her amendment, she will have our support. We understand that Amendment 90 is consequential to Amendment 68.

Turning to other amendments in this group, we hope the Government recognise the importance of the infrastructure levy supporting the delivery of the levelling- up missions. Our concern all through the passage of the Bill has been what mechanisms there are to link the missions to planning, funding and the infrastructure levy. My Amendment 69 to Schedule 12 is intended to address this, as well as ensuring that there is a commitment to the infrastructure levy being shared between tiers of local government in non-unitary areas.

My Amendment 70A wound enshrine in the Bill that the application of the infrastructure levy is optional. I am very grateful, as others have said, to the Minister for the many discussions we have had in relation to the Bill, in particular this part of it. I believe, and hope she will confirm, that it is the Government’s intention that infrastructure levies should be optional, and that government Amendment 82 enshrines this in the Bill.

Amendment 71, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, and my Amendment 71A have similar intentions of ensuring that the level of affordable housing funded by developers in the local authority area will meet the needs of that area as set out in the local development plan. I referred to the critical links that need to be built between planning and the infrastructure levy earlier on. When it comes to affordable housing, this is absolutely essential. We recognise the very significant concessions the Government have made on affordable housing, so, rather than pushing Amendment 71A to a vote, perhaps we can have further discussions before the planning and housing sections of the Bill to build that link between the provision of affordable housing through the infrastructure levy and the local plan.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, gave clear evidence of the principle behind the current definition of affordable housing. We agree that the current definition is wholly deficient, as much of the housing included in it is absolutely not affordable to many of those in desperate need of housing. We feel that the Government should take an inclusive approach to developing a new definition by working with the sector and housing charities to reach an agreed, appropriate definition of affordable housing. We would support the proposal in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that a link with the median income in the relevant local planning area would be a good starting point for this definition.

As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we are very grateful to the Minister for tightening up the wording she introduces in Amendments 72, 73 and 75 to ensure that developers must now “seek to ensure” the affordable housing funding level is maintained. We are also grateful for her clarification in Amendment 74 that funding of affordable housing is to be provided in the charging authority’s area and, in Amendment 79, that charging authorities can require on-site provision of affordable housing through the infrastructure levy. We believe this change will encourage the development of mixed housing and hopefully mixed tenure communities, which have proved over time to be far more sustainable and successful.

We are also pleased to see government Amendment 80, which requires a report to be laid before Parliament on the impact that the infrastructure levy is having on the provision of affordable housing. It perhaps does not go as far as our Amendment 81, which would have made provision for a new levy to be introduced where IL was shown not to be successful, but we recognise that the Minister has listened to our concerns and we hope that placing a report before Parliament on the success, or otherwise, of IL will encourage further thinking if it is shown not to be delivering.

We have some concerns, which we have shared with the Minister, in relation to Amendment 76 on the thorny issue of viability. Our concern is that this clause, which allows the infrastructure levy to be disapplied where the charging authority considers the application of the levy, including its provision for affordable housing, would make the development unviable. The process of negotiation on infrastructure contributions between local planning authorities and developers can be very long and complex, especially when major developments are involved. We would not want to see any further pressure being put on local authorities in that negotiation process by having this clause dangled in front of them as an incentive for developers to proceed. It has been hard enough in the existing system to resist the weight of financial and legal expertise that the developers have put into these discussions, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young. We do not want to give them another weapon in their armoury—we do not think that is necessary.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for setting out the potentially devastating impact the viability get-out clause can have on affordable housing. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the inclusion of contingencies in that viability calculation. When you start to pick apart that contingency—I have done it—it is very interesting to see what sits underneath it, which is often some very wild assumptions in my experience. I am sure that that is not always the case, but it can be.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to flag up in his Amendment 77 the question of the relationship between Section 106 contributions, which have been most effective in securing affordable housing through planning contributions, and the infrastructure levy. Lastly, we welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would require a response to the technical consultation on the infrastructure levy before it comes into force.

In summary, we feel that an opportunity has been missed by introducing IL to be grafted on to an already complex system instead of using this Bill for a new, simplified and comprehensive approach to the provision of infrastructure developed with and for the sector, and with an implementation plan to smooth the transition so that it would not disrupt local authorities from the urgent work of solving the housing crisis. However, I once again thank the Minister for the amount of her time she has given to meet noble Lords on this subject and for the amendments that have subsequently come forward. It is the best of this House that the expertise we have here is used to improve legislation, and I am sure today’s debates are a good example of that.

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

My Lords, Amendments 68 and 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to remove the provisions in the Bill which provide the imposition of the new infrastructure levy in England. I regret that these amendments have been proposed, but I recognise the need for serious and open debate on this subject.

We covered the shortcomings of the existing system of developer contributions at length in Committee. There is a clear case for reform. Since 2010, average new-build house prices have risen by more than £250,000, and land prices have also risen substantially. This increase in value must be captured within the levy system, allowing for more local benefit, but we recognise the need to get these significant reforms right. That is why I can commit to the House today that the Government will undertake a further consultation on fundamental design choices before developing infrastructure levy regulations. Through further consultation and engagement, and the test-and-learn approach, which we discussed in detail in Committee, we will seek to ensure that the levy achieves its aims and that it is implemented carefully. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 68 and will not press Amendment 90.

My noble friend Lord Lansley has tabled Amendments 311 and 312, which seek to prevent the introduction of the infrastructure levy until the Government have published proposals for its implementation. I know that my noble friend has formally responded to the recently concluded technical consultation, which we are carefully reviewing. I can confirm that we will not commence the levy provisions in Part 4 until we have responded to that further round of consultation. The regulations themselves will be consulted on in future as well. I hope my noble friend Lord Lansley is therefore content not to press his Amendments 311 and 312. I assure him that he is correct: there is scope in the Bill for us to vary the approach set out in the technical consultation, and I reiterate that, if we do that, we will be consulting further.

Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, estate agents are regulated through the Estate Agents Act 1979. As I said, that is currently enforced through the National Trading Standards estate and letting agency team, which makes it very clear that estate agents are expected to exercise due diligence and check whether the information on anything they are selling is correct. The Government expect all property agents to ensure that customers are aware of anything to do with the property that they are negotiating on and to work within those trading standards rules and regulations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we keep getting vague promises about action being taken on leaseholder reform. For all leaseholders, the prospect of hikes in their service charges hangs over them like a sword of Damocles. It is about time that this was sorted out. The present provisions are too opaque and leave leaseholders at the mercy of unscrupulous managing agents. If we are to have transparency of service charges, when will this reform come forward? Please can we have a bit more clarity about when the Government will tackle it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: leaseholders need that transparency to better understand what they are paying for and for it to be harder for landlords to hide any unreasonable charges. As I said, we are looking at it. We will bring forward legislation later in this Parliament.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for bringing both these amendments forward. It enabled a lot of thoughtful discussion in Committee and again now on Report.

It is disappointing that there has not been adequate consultation on the particular BID and the programme that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke about. I did some work in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea after the Grenfell disaster. The Grenfell disaster was literally the worst example of a council not listening to its residents. It had been told for many years of the concerns that residents had and had not listened to them. Of course, that has changed the way that many councils now listen to their residents—for example, through resident programmes. I had hoped that was the case there, but perhaps it is just this example where it is not. Let us be hopeful and optimistic that that is the case.

On these Benches we absolutely support the principle that residents should be engaged in key changes to their local areas, including business improvement districts. It is just as important that residents in an area are engaged as it is for the businesses participating in the zone concerned. We are in the process of a £1 billion town centre redevelopment in my area. Every step of the way, we have taken the trouble to consult extensively with residents. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how there may be some more specific consultation for BIDs and how the Government might further consider that.

In relation to the other amendment the noble Lord spoke to, in principle we fully support the full engagement of residents in decision-making, although we have some concerns about the financial implications of the proposals to compel the use of outside agencies. I think the noble Lord used the term third parties—that might be a different independent third party, and sometimes could be interpreted as outside agencies and consultants, which are notoriously expensive when they do this work on behalf of councils.

I draw attention to the report pulled together by the RSA and the Inclusive Growth Network called Transitions to Participatory Democracy: How to Grow Public Participation in Local Governance. It makes a number of recommendations on growing the engagement of local people so that you have a more sustained participation journey, rather than these out-of-the-blue consultations on planning and other things happening at decision-making points, in which people come to the table with a negative view right from the start. It is much better if people feel that they have more permanent engagement with their local authority.

The report recommends that these routes should be developed over time, strongly based on meeting people and local organisations where they are and not expecting them to engage on council territory. We need consultation to take place earlier in the process—so that people are engaged in the design of schemes or projects and they are not produced like a rabbit out of the hat for people to comment on—and never when decisions have already been taken. If you have already taken the decision, do not tell people that you are consulting on it because they will see through that straight away. That is really important.

This has been a very useful prompt to think these issues through. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

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

My Lords, Amendment 64 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook concerns a review of business improvement districts. I have listened very carefully to this debate and the debate in Committee. We want BIDs to work with and alongside residents and members of the local community. It is important that the projects and activities that a BID delivers benefit the local area and encourage more people to visit, live and work there. Residents and members of the community are not prohibited in legislation, as I said in Committee, from being consulted on a new BID proposal. I know many BIDs that include many stakeholders, including the communities they serve. There is nothing to stop a local authority doing that.

It is clear that we need to explore how BIDs can work better with residents and communities, but I do not believe that legislating for a review in this Bill is the right approach. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment, but with my reassurance that I will take this away and consider the proposition of a government review of the BID arrangements. I would welcome further conversations with interested noble Lords to take this forward.

On Amendment 65, there is a statutory framework, and clear rules for consultation already exist in some areas, such as planning. There is also a statutory publicity code which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. There is support and guidance for local authorities on how they should do this. As I said, councils also carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans.

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, that this should not be a one-off; it works much better when local authorities have a good ongoing relationship and conversation with their communities. It is then much easier to deal with issues such as those my noble friend Lord Northbrook raised in Kensington and Chelsea, because it is a continuation of an ongoing conversation. I encourage all local authorities to look at how they can do that better. Greater involvement for local people can be only a good thing. We do not think it is for the Government to tell councils how to do it. Most councils know how to do it; they know what works best in their area and get on with it.

I agree with the noble Baronesses opposite that the concern over the requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties is that it would impose additional costs on local authorities and may encourage less consultation and engagement rather than more because they just cannot afford it. I therefore hope my noble friend will agree not to press his amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, most of these amendments are technical and non-controversial, so I would love to have repeated the famous 10-word speech given by my noble friend Lady Hayman on Tuesday and simply agreed with them. However, we share with others on these Benches some concerns with government Amendment 34. The Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the conduct of mayoral elections, such as regulations relating to the registration of electors and election expenses. While we do not oppose this power and see it as an inevitable part of the process for mayoral elections, the Government should absolutely involve the Electoral Commission as part of this.

We therefore welcome that sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) state that before making these regulations

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”.

It was widely assumed that such consultations would take place following Royal Assent, but Amendment 34 means that the consultation can begin prior to commencement. Can the Minister explain why this is necessary and confirm that it will not reduce the Electoral Commission’s vital role in this process, as rightly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock?

It would also be helpful if the Minister could make clear exactly how the Secretary of State intends to exercise these powers. I hope she will understand the concerns that the expedited process is being introduced to facilitate a certain mayoral election—I am not referring to the east Midlands. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their input on these government amendments. These amendments, particularly Amendments 34 and 306, will ensure that those tasks we are planning for in running the May 2024 election for the east Midlands combined county authority mayor have real early clarity as to the rules for the conduct of the election.

The Government are absolutely clear about the role of the Electoral Commission. It has an important role in scrutinising all draft electoral legislation. It is therefore essential that it has sufficient time to undertake this role without causing unnecessary delay to the legislation itself. I will make it very clear: consultation with the Electoral Commission will still take place in full, and will still bind the regulation making. This amendment is just changing the timings for that.

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

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about Stringfellows. I understand—only from posters on the Underground, believe me—that it is known for its Magic Mike performances. The idea of these being subject to pavement licences is a bit mind-blowing, but you never know what will happen in London.

This SI is the third extension to the regulations permitting the rapid application process for businesses to obtain pavement licences. We understand that this is a temporary provision pending the introduction of permanent changes in the levelling-up Bill. The introduction of this power during Covid undoubtedly had a very positive effect for the small businesses it was intended to support—in fact, it probably saved quite a lot of them from extinction. It has also created a vibrant outdoor eating and drinking culture in many of our high streets—including where I live—which has enlivened and invigorated them very positively. We therefore will not be objecting to this SI.

However, I have a few questions for the Minister, which I shall put to her as briefly as possible. First, during the debates on the pavement licence section of the levelling-up Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly raised the issue of ensuring that our pavements are accessible to all. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, both commented on this. The noble Lord said:

“I simply wish to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement. It is not a place for excessive A-boards, advertisements, marketing materials or sprawling seating. It is a place to connect people. It is a place where we can meet on our streets. Yet, all too often, we experience inaccessibility, obstacles and problems when we are simply trying to go about our daily business. This is bad enough for anybody, but for those of us who use guide dogs or wheelchairs it can often be an impossibility”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 646.]


He also raised the issue of e-scooters being littered across pavements.

I understand from previous answers from the Minister that local authorities will be encouraged to take the needs of all users into account when considering licence applications. I hope that she will be sympathetic to amendments to the levelling-up Bill in this regard. It might really help if we could approach an organisation such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People to get some guidance about what would help people with visual impairments to cope with this kind of street trading.

Secondly, the issue of cost was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. While I appreciate that the Government and all of us want to give small businesses every chance to recover from Covid without imposing any further costs on them, it does not seem fair that local authorities, which are also recovering from the financial burdens of Covid, should take these costs on themselves. The Minister will be very aware that the Local Government Association has long held the view that councils should be able determine such costs relating to the full cost recovery of issuing licences. I can see that in the short term we would not want to impose any further financial burdens on small businesses, but will the Government give further consideration to this when the measures become permanent as part of the Bill?

I would like to ask the Minister about the seven-day application process. Most applications will be by a delegated authority for licensing officers to consider. Should there be a contested application, for example, local authorities have to by law give seven days’ notice of a meeting. That is a bit tricky if the licence has to be considered within seven days. I wonder how that is going to be dealt with.

Finally, when debating this issue in the other place my honourable friend Sarah Owen, the MP for Luton North, rightly raised the support that could be provided to small businesses through the non-domestic rating system. As we are currently in the process of that Bill going through your Lordships’ House, is the Minister able to give the same small businesses being supported by pavement licences any reassurance about how the Government intend to support them further by provisions in that Bill?

We have no hesitation in supporting this SI. We all want those small businesses which have been helped by it to continue to thrive.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the non-domestic rates issue, we have raised the point during the course of the Bill, which my noble friend Lady Hayman has been dealing with, about the fact that there is disparity in treatment between online businesses and the kind of small businesses that we are talking about that operate on our high streets. As we go through the process of further consideration of the Bill, we need to think about that because it would be a way of giving more support to those small businesses and perhaps getting online businesses to pay a bit more of their fair share towards the tax cost in this country.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I know that will be an issue as the Bill comes back on Report.

I shall conclude. We believe that extending the temporary pavement licence provisions through these regulations is necessary to support food and drink hospitality businesses. That is particularly important when we consider how badly affected they were by the pandemic. These temporary pavement licence measures have already been very successful in supporting that sector in its economic recovery and getting it out of the pandemic. They will enable that success to continue and provide much-needed certainty to businesses in their planning for the coming years. I thank noble Lords for taking part, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, as I am still a serving councillor in both Stevenage and Hertfordshire.

It is always a huge privilege to follow Members of your Lordships’ House with such great expertise and passion for their subjects as my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Benjamin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I shall speak to their amendments in a moment.

First, I have tabled Amendment 5 to highlight a number of missed opportunities in the Bill. Some of the many issues we have raised relate to the deficiency of the Bill in clearly setting out a definition of what levelling up actually means to the Government and, as importantly, how it will reach every area—we have a later set of amendments on regional disparities—how it will be funded, how it will measure outcomes rather than outputs, and how in key areas it will start to turn the agenda from acute interventions, which are expensive and complex, to preventive work, which will be more effective and save costs in the long run. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for setting out so clearly our concerns around funding; I will not comment any further on that subject.

It seems to us that the levelling-up missions are nowhere near ambitious enough to take this country forward in the wake of Brexit, the pandemic and climate change, and with economic changes that need a clear strategic approach to ensure that the United Kingdom keeps pace with scientific development, tackles productivity challenges and is a place where everyone has the opportunity and encouragement to play their part in growing the economy.

What we see in the levelling-up Bill is, too often, the sticking-plaster politics of the last few years, which will do little to tackle the long-term challenges. Our missions indicate our ambition and determination that our country will face those long-term challenges that really matter to citizens and society; keep focused on them in spite of day-to-day pressures; ensure that everyone—business and trade unions, private and public sector, and government departments—works together; and, key to the consideration of this Bill, make sure that local and national government work together in partnership to ensure that action happens at the right level and combines national strategy with local knowledge and expertise. Strong missions must be focused on tackling the long-term and complex problems that need long-term thinking and recognise that there is no silver bullet to solve them, only key partnerships worked at and sustained over time.

We must be more ambitious, like our mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, which is aimed at tackling the consistent underperformance in our economy that sees Britain still trailing behind our partners rather than powering ahead. ONS statistics show that the UK’s GDP growth between the final quarters of 2019 and 2022 was the lowest in the G7, which means that the UK is the only G7 country in which the economy remains smaller than it was before the pandemic. Being as ambitious for our economy as the people in our country are for their families must surely be the launch pad of levelling up.

There can be no levelling up while people and communities still feel unsafe in the places they live, work or spend their leisure time. There can be no levelling up while we treat the challenge of producing clean energy with a lack of ambition. We need a mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, creating jobs, cutting bills and dealing with the crisis in energy security.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, clearly set out the reasons why tackling health inequalities, which have beleaguered the UK for generations, must be part of the mission to level up our country in order to break the cycle. My local area is home to some of the most exciting cell and gene therapy developments in the world, so it is ironic that if you live in parts of my borough, you will live 10 years less than if you live in St Albans, 12 miles away.

In the United Kingdom we have 7 million people languishing on NHS waiting lists, waiting for surgery or procedures that could be life changing, never mind life saving. We must include in the missions for this country a stated aim to harness the life sciences to reduce preventable illness, speed up access to treatments and cut health inequalities. For that reason, if the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, chooses to test the opinion of the House on this subject, she will have our support.

Lastly, I come to the powerful words of my noble friend Lady Lister, who has been such a strong advocate for children, particularly disadvantaged children, in your Lordships’ House. It is a shameful indictment of this Government that the situation relating to child poverty has gone backwards since 2010. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, it should be central to levelling up. The Child Poverty Action Group figure of 4.2 million children living in poverty, which has been widely cited in the debate, is a shameful indictment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, the situation is far worse for black and ethnic-minority children, and working is not the answer for everyone, with 71% of children in poverty living in a home where at least one person works. The figure cited that between 1998 and 2003 the number of children living in poverty fell by 600,000 shows that it can be done, but the figures are now climbing rapidly again.

The combination of low pay, poor housing and steep rises in the costs of food and energy is taking a terrible toll on the life chances of too many children and young people across our country. We heard recently from the National Housing Federation that too many children are in poor accommodation where they still have to share beds with their parents well into their teenage years. The generational change needed here requires breaking down the barriers to opportunity at every stage, for every child. That needs reform of the childcare and education systems to raise standards and prepare young people for work and life.

None of this can happen unless we all—across the political spectrum and society—make it our ambition to drive out the child poverty that blights lives, drains self-confidence, squashes opportunity and ambition, and continues the cycle that sees so many of our young people unable to make their full contribution to our country. It is unthinkable that we will see any long-term levelling up in our country without tackling child poverty. Indeed, the in-depth study on child poverty carried out by the University of Newcastle put at the top of its list of priority actions

“putting tackling child poverty at the heart of future devolution deals”.

That is a clear example of why it is entirely appropriate to have a statement of intent at national level—a mission—to drive bespoke action at local level. If my noble friend Lady Lister decides to test the opinion of the House on whether this must be included as a mission, she will have our strong support.

We would, of course, like to see Labour’s missions at the heart of the Bill, but even an optimist like me realises that this might be a little premature. However, the amendments on health inequalities and child poverty deal with aims that surely we all share and issues without close attention to which levelling up just cannot happen or be successful. I reiterate our support for them and urge all noble Lords to support those amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, would require the Government to set out a levelling-up mission to reduce child poverty. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would compel the Government to relate their missions to the Labour Party’s five priorities. What I am interested in is why child poverty is not in her amendment. Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would require the Government to set out a mission on health disparities and healthy life expectancy. Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require the Government to include the missions and headline metrics from the levelling up White Paper in their first statement of levelling-up missions.

I have made our approach to levelling-up missions extremely clear in this House. They are subject to debate in Parliament, but the specifics of the missions are not written into law. Missions may need to evolve over time—including to make them more stretching as goals are met and to adapt to policy relevant to the day. We will not put any missions in the Bill. Missions are intended to anchor government policy and decision-making necessary to level up the United Kingdom. Missions should not, however, be set in stone. As the economy adapts, so will the missions reflect the changing environment and lessons learned from past interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her answers. Once again, she gave the figures for the support the Government are offering. I am sure that people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis were grateful for that, but of course, they have had another massive hit recently with the rapidly increasing mortgage rate. As people come to the end of their fixed-term mortgages, they are suddenly getting the awful shock of seeing their mortgages go up. Along with a drop in the support the Government are giving on such things as energy costs, that will be an awful combination to really hit people’s budgets once again.

I welcome the Government’s assurance that there will be a great deal of scrutiny of the levelling up data; that is welcome and we look forward to seeing how it works out over time. I particularly welcome the focus on granularity of data. There is a tendency to focus always on what is sometimes described as the north/south divide, but of course, it is never as straightforward as that. There are areas right across this country with serious poverty and deprivation, and we need to make sure that we look at those and provide appropriate support. I am very pleased to hear about the local area neighbourhood analysis now coming forward from the unit, and I am therefore happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Homelessness: Vagrancy Act 1824

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government are clear that the Vagrancy Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose and that people should not be criminalised for simply having nowhere to live. When we committed to repeal the Act, we said that we would do so once suitable replacement legislation was brought forward. We set out our plans in the Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan to ensure that local authorities and the police have appropriate tools to keep people safe, and that vulnerable people can access health and services. LURB is a large Bill already. Vagrancy is a complex policy that requires careful consideration and scrutiny, and we will table legislation at the right opportunity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in March 2022, the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who I am pleased to see in his place, committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act within 18 months. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley noted in May this year that this Act, which refers to the homeless as “idle and disorderly Persons” deemed to be

“Rogues and Vagabonds … committed to the House of Correction”

is still being used to criminalise 1,000 homeless people a year. A quick check on the College of Policing website shows over 15 pieces of legislation which give police and councils the powers they need to tackle anti-social behaviour and aggressive begging. Why will the Government not use the levelling-up Bill to confine the Vagrancy Act to history, where it belongs, before its 200th birthday?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Vagrancy Act, as I have said, is an outdated piece of legislation; I agree with the noble Baroness that it needs repealing. However, the House rules on admissibility of amendments are set out in the Companion; amendments we have consulted on that were related to repealing the vagrancy offences have not been considered admissible to the levelling-up Bill. We would not normally discuss the clerks’ advice in the Chamber, but I am sure that they will be very happy to discuss it in the usual way with her.

Homelessness: Homewards Initiative

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I welcome the Prince of Wales’s initiative. Maybe other larger landowners across this country could also look at those initiatives, as well as government. We have been working to release public land for new houses through the Public Land for Housing programme which ran from 2011 to 2020. By March 2020 over 60,000 homes had been brought on to the market on surplus government land. In October 2022 the Cabinet Office published the Government Property Strategy, which intends to drive efficiency in departments’ estates to look at surplus land that can be used for housing, particularly affordable housing.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is great that the Prince of Wales has turned the spotlight on this very important issue. Pilots are all well and good but is it not a damning indictment of this Government’s failure to tackle the housing crisis that between July and October last year, 1,210 homeless families spent longer than the six-week legal limit in hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation—the highest figure in six years? How will the Government respond to this growing crisis across the country and the impact it is having on children’s development?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are responding by offering support through initiatives such as spending £500 million on rough sleeping initiatives between now and 2025. Under the ending rough sleeping for good initiatives, £2 billion is going to local authorities over three years to look at their issues. Your Lordships need to understand that the increasing numbers are only in 5% of local authorities in this country. We need to target and help those local authorities, both with support and with money, which is what we are doing.

Building Safety Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the proposals in these regulations. Although it could be considered a minor amendment dealing with just consequential matters, in view of the overall context of building safety and the fact that this is one of a number of steps we are seeing to ensure that the very serious issues that have arisen from the Grenfell Tower disaster and others are taken seriously and acted upon, we need to treat all these regulations with a degree of seriousness.

We were very pleased to learn that proposals for new building regulations were consulted on last year and that new regulations will come forward before the Summer Recess for enactment in the autumn. We look forward to hearing about the new process. As we are not able to amend these through the regulation process, I ask the Minister whether we will have the opportunity to see them in draft form before they come through to us.

Two aspects relating to building safety and building control that have emerged in recent years are, first, that the transfer to the private sector—the deregulation —of building control did not anticipate that there would be an impact on the quality or availability of the building control function. Neither did it anticipate the dilution of the independence of the building control function from the development industry.

Secondly, we hope that, as new regulations are developed, attention will be paid to the capacity, resources, recruitment and retention of the building control inspectors to ensure that they are sufficient to deal with what we hope will be tighter regulation for building safety in future.

We note the transfer of the appeals procedure to the First-tier Tribunal. Can we be reassured that the First-tier Tribunal will have sufficient resources to enable it to deal with those new duties? In view of the glacial pace of progress on building safety matters that leaseholders have had to endure, it would be unfortunate in the extreme if the level of appeals resulted in unacceptable backlogs and were not dealt with promptly. It will also be essential that matters such as stop notices are able to be progressed without delay. I hope the resources are there to deal with that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for that and for their brevity; I think that was right, considering that these are quite technical matters. It is important that many of the things brought up by both noble Lords will be discussed further when we bring the building control SIs to the Committee later in the year. In particular, the question of whether building control remains as professional and regulated as currently is an important issue. That has to happen, and we will have that debate.

I was also interested in the capacity of tribunals; that is always important. We know that the magistrates’ courts are probably where a lot of things are being held up. I quite agree that the First-tier Tribunals must have the capacity to be able to deal with things in a timely manner.

As far as the building safety regulator and the LURB are concerned, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will work to ensure that all these parts of building safety work together and that there is no black hole between one and the other. That will take some timings; I am sure that we will discuss that further before it happens. If the LURB goes through, there will be SIs to change the regulator and to ensure that everything works in a timely manner and nothing is lost in the meantime. I can assure noble Lords that we will work towards that end. To conclude—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before the Minister moves on, it would be really helpful to understand the entire role of the building safety regulator. There has been a lot of heavy lifting as we have gone through the process of the LURB and the Building Safety Act, and it would be really helpful if the entire scope of the building safety regulator could be set out somewhere.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am more than happy to write to the noble Baroness, and copy in the Library, about what we foresee that to be, although that concerns the LURB and not this instrument. I am happy to have a meeting on that, if necessary, before we go into that part of the LURB on Report.

As I said, these regulations will ensure that the Highways Act, the Clean Air Act and the 13 local Acts will continue to function as intended when the new system of applications for building control approval is brought into force. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations.

Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is unfortunate that we are only now starting to make some progress on the essential remediation works that will allow leaseholders to sleep easily in their beds and begin to get their financial plans and aspirations back on track. I appreciate that some well-intentioned developers have done work in the meantime, but the regulatory framework supporting it is only now coming into play.

I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning groups, both those directly associated with Grenfell and others such as the Cladiators group in my area, driven by Sophie Bichener. I know the Minister is very familiar with Sophie’s case so I will not reiterate all the details, but the firebreaks referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are a good example of non-cladding-related building fire safety jeopardy. Without these campaigns, we would almost certainly be no nearer having this leaseholder limbo resolved.

The fact that 48 developers have now signed up to the remediation contract is a significant step forward; there is no doubt about that. However, signing up is one thing and action is another. We hope that things will start to move much more quickly now. What steps is the department taking to ensure that developers move as quickly as possible on the remediation steps, and how will it monitor, challenge and enforce where appropriate?

We hope that the reports of full risk assessments by major developers to determine which defects need resolution and which do not are not simply a further device to delay essential works. Can the Minister tell us whether any deadlines are being set for all such risk assessments to be completed?

We would also like some reassurance about how leaseholders will be kept informed and updated on progress. Does this responsibility fall on the developers? If so, how will the department ensure that it has been carried out?

In his Statement on 14 March 2023, the Secretary of State rightly said:

“Those who are responsible must pay”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/23; col. 727.]


While we welcome the fact that 48 builders have already signed up, it is extremely disappointing that some have still refused to do so. We are aware that the Secretary of State has rightly been very robust in his language in trying to bring builders that have not yet signed the contracts into line with those that have. We absolutely support this robust approach and hope that it is successful. If not, as the Secretary of State has clearly stated, such developers will be prohibited from further development. We have heard more about that this afternoon.

It would be helpful to know how such a ban will be enforced. The Minister has set out some further information relating to the enforcement process but it would be helpful to know how it will work. Is it to be done by the department or will it be a new burden on local government—as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—and will that new burden be fully funded?

We welcome any action to address the building safety crisis, but the remediation contract and responsible actors scheme are still only a partial fix to the problem—in part, owing to the more limited scope of the definition of a relevant defect used in the remediation contract—compared to the Building Safety Act. Signing the contract will not obligate developers to fix all life-critical fire safety defects as defined by the Building Safety Act 2022. The Government acknowledge this in the Explanatory Memorandum, where they state:

“The developer self-remediation approach, and the RAS, is to be expanded over time to cover other developers who developed or refurbished defective 11m+ residential buildings and should pay to fix them”.


Is it intended to extend the contract in future to cover all life-critical fire safety defects? We also have a particular concern regarding the number of buildings covered by the contract. The department itself estimates that only 1,500 buildings will be remediated as a result of the contract, whereas credible estimates put the total number in need of remediation at around 10,000.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee comments that

“between 6,220 and 8,890 mid-rise (11 to 18 metres) residential buildings required work to alleviate life-critical fire safety risks due to external wall systems”.

How does the Minister envisage this being resolved and what is the timescale? How many of the outstanding buildings beyond the 1,500 are the responsibility of those developers that have refused to sign the contract?

Meanwhile, ACM cladding remains on faulty high-rise buildings, with remediation not having even started on 22 of them. The building safety fund for remediation of non-ACM cladding and other fire safety defects on high-rise buildings is proceeding at a glacial pace, with just 37 buildings having completed remediation out of the 1,225 applications for funding. The building safety fund for non-ACM high-rise remediation was rated as red in the Infrastructure and Projects Authority annual report for 2022, falling from amber the year before, meaning, to quote the report:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.


Many leaseholders in unsafe buildings waited patiently for years for building safety fund applications to be processed by the department, only to see them terminated. What guarantees are there that any building covered by the contract will not face additional delays to remediation work? Although we welcome the further action proposed in the regulations, some questions remain outstanding. How will leaseholders in buildings with defects outside the scope of the contract get them remediated?

With reference to developer obligations to identify, assess and remediate unsafe buildings, the contract stipulates that they must be carried out “as soon as reasonably practicable”. What assurances can be given to affected leaseholders of their ability to enforce this to ensure that developers are acting within a reasonable timeframe? What is the point of contact in the department and what powers will be used to support them? Why are buildings that are part of national infrastructure exempt? Surely, people working in or living close to such buildings should expect at least as great a level of protection, if not more.

I note the Minister’s comments about prohibited persons, but it is difficult to see how the use of new entities will not avoid those prohibitions and, without sanctions on that, where is the incentive not to do so? Can the Minister explain how new developers will be brought into the regulatory framework?

The Minister raised the critical issue of construction products. Will we receive further regulations on this? It seems they may be necessary. There was a Question today in your Lordships’ House on the manufacturers of construction products used in schools. Surely the manufacturers of construction products must be responsible for adequate safety testing of materials they produce.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about work for remediation of buildings under 11 metres. What assessment has been done by the department of the extent of those issues in lower-rise buildings?

To reiterate, we welcome the additional regulations and encourage the Minister and the Secretary of State to be as robust as is necessary to bring these long-drawn-out issues to a stage of remediation and resolution. We hope that the department will use every power it has to deal with those who are not looking to do the right thing and live up to their responsibilities. The leaseholders in these buildings have been faced with a living nightmare. We owe it to them to get these issues resolved without any further delay.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords who have contributed today. I open my remarks and answers to the questions asked by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is absolutely right: six years ago, 72 people died; that is what we are talking about today and why this is such an important statutory instrument. To the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I say that this is secondary legislation to the Building Safety Act 2022; that is how it comes in today.

I move on to answering questions. A number were asked by all three noble Lords, so excuse me if I do not mention each name but I will try to remember them. First, the Government believe that it is fair and reasonable that developers that meet the prescribed eligibility criteria for the responsible actors scheme, including a profit threshold, should be asked to assess whether they have developed relevant buildings that require remediation, and remediate those buildings.

We believe it is appropriate that the Government create a level playing field with consequences for eligible developers that opt not to make these important commitments. The obligations under the scheme and contracts for developers with no buildings to remediate are very modest once they have done the necessary work to check and confirm that they have developed no buildings requiring remediation work. As I said in my speech, an eligible developer that substantially satisfies its obligations under the regulations and the self-remediation terms may be released from the scheme. I think that answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We are engaging with a number of developers about the developer remediation contract, and I hope they will respond positively to that engagement.

I move on to the issue of construction product manufacturers. I know that this is a concern of noble Lords and it is an important one. I reiterate that the Secretary of State made clear in a recent letter to the major institutional shareholders in the three companies most involved—Kingspan, Arconic and Saint-Gobain—that, if an appropriate financial package is not agreed, the focus of the department will be trained on them, and the consequences for the relevant construction product manufacturers are likely to be severe. We can do this only one stage at a time, but they are next in line. The Secretary of State made it clear that reputational, legal, commercial or further new tools could all be considered if these firms do not do the right thing.

My noble friend Lord Naseby asked: who says that these buildings are unsafe? The Government believe that it is fair and reasonable that the developers that meet the prescribed eligibility criteria for the RAS, including a profits threshold, should be asked to assess whether they have developed relevant buildings that require remediation. I do not think that is unreasonable.

My noble friend also asked why we were focused on profits. We have used the £10 million average operating profits threshold to make sure that the initial phase of the scheme captures larger, more profitable businesses and those that have developed the majority of the affected buildings.

My noble friend also asked about the application of prohibitions to group companies. An eligible non-member of the scheme will be prohibited along with the entities that they control, so it is not all group companies and an exception is available for entities controlled by an eligible non-member that is not in the building industry. Developers can have quite complex business relationships both here and abroad, and we need to capture those as well.

Housing: Modular Construction

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said, it is across all sectors. We need to support the MMC sector to increase the amount of housing across the board, whether that be private, affordable or social rented.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in recent discussions in your Lordships’ House and in Grand Committee, noble Lords have expressed huge concern about the Government’s plans to lower the standards of licensing for houses in multiple occupation, specifically those to be used for asylum seekers. Local councils are now using modular construction to provide high-quality, low-cost, self-contained accommodation for the homeless. Has the Minister considered this method of housing asylum seekers?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware that we have looked at this for asylum seekers particularly, but if there is a requirement for high-quality housing to be delivered quickly then we will of course work across government, as I said we are doing, to ensure that all departments look at MMC as a method of delivering quickly and safely.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to address the important issue of no-fault evictions in response to Amendment 492 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The Government strongly feel that the threat of eviction means that renters cannot feel secure in their homes and that many do not have the confidence to challenge their landlords on poor standards.

For this reason, the Government have introduced the Renters (Reform) Bill, which will abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions. This was introduced in the other place on Wednesday 17 May. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, that Bill has only just started and it has not begun substantive debate in the other place. Subject to that—and we anticipate that the Bill will proceed at the normal pace—it will be before your Lordships’ House in the next Session after the King’s Speech.

The Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee recently published a report on the private rented sector. The Government are grateful for this and look forward to responding shortly. In the light of our upcoming response and legislation, we do not think that the review proposed in the amendment would add any further detail to the debate. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s commitment to abolish no-fault evictions is unwavering and that there will be ample opportunity for scrutiny of this legislation.

In response to Amendment 504GJF, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, spoke to, I assure her that the Government are clear that no one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live. We have committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act, which is outdated and not fit for purpose. However, we have been clear that we will repeal the Act once suitable replacement legislation has been brought forward. This is so we can ensure that the police, local authorities and other agencies have the tools they need to respond effectively to begging and rough sleeping, so that they can keep their communities safe, restore pride in place and direct vulnerable individuals to the support they need.

Last year, we consulted on options for replacement legislation. We have considered these responses alongside other feedback from stakeholders and continue to give these complex issues careful consideration. Provisions relating to the Vagrancy Act have therefore been removed from this Bill and replacement powers will be the matter of separate legislation.

In the meantime, the Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament. We remain steadfastly committed to that goal. In September, we published a bold, new rough sleeping strategy, backed by £2 billion, which sets out how we will end rough sleeping for good. The Government’s Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, published on 27 March, reconfirms this commitment. It also sets out our intention to bring forward new powers to tackle begging and rough sleeping, with the detail to be brought forward in future legislation, which will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope this provides reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and that she will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to say that I am grateful for the reply on this occasion because it was really disappointing. We have here a mechanism that we can use to do two things that there is broad consensus about in your Lordships’ House, one of which has already been passed through legislation, which is to repeal the Vagrancy Act, and the other of which is subject to new government legislation but could be done much more quickly by using this Bill. On the Vagrancy Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I mentioned, 1,000 people were arrested under it during the course of last year, and on no-fault evictions, families are living in misery now. Anyone who has been a councillor—I know the Minister has been—will have heard the terribly distressing stories from families when they get evicted and end up finding it very difficult to find somewhere else to live.

When we went through the Covid crisis, I was very pleased to see the Government taking immediate action with their “Everyone In” programme, getting people sleeping rough into accommodation as quickly as possible. We have the opportunity to build on that, but rough sleeping is already starting to go up again. Why not take the opportunity of this Bill to do something about it now? Can the Minister tell us how many people are sleeping rough tonight, or any night in the coming week? If you can do something about this, why would you not?

The noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly mentioned that a number of powers have been introduced in recent Acts, particularly the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that already allow the police to address anti-social begging, and there are powers for councils to set aside areas where they do not allow people to hang around. There are lots of powers already. We do not need any more powers; we need the Government to get on and scrap this 200 year-old Act that criminalises those who are sleeping rough. The postponement of this repeal for over a year is already far too long. I shall withdraw my amendment for today, but I am sure that we will come back to this on Report.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to place an obligation on a Minister of the Crown to publish draft legislation for a devolution Bill within 120 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. We support the principle behind this amendment—that combined county authorities can request further powers which would enable activity to help drive economic growth and support levelling up.

In fact, we have already gone further than this in the devolution offer set out in the levelling up White Paper. This sets out a clear menu of options for places in England that wish to unlock the benefits of devolution, whether that is moving towards a London-style transport system to connect people to opportunity, improving local skills provision or being able to act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need. Any area, including those considering a combined county authority, is welcome to come forward and ask government to confer local authority and public authority functions as part of devolution deal negotiations. The levelling up White Paper has confirmed that the devolution framework is not a minimum offer. These asks are typically made as part of devolution deal negotiations.

We recognise that our existing mayors are already playing a powerful role in driving local economic growth and levelling up. That is why the Government plan to deepen the devolution settlements of the most mature institutions. The White Paper committed to trailblaze deeper devolution deals with the Greater Manchester and West Midlands combined authorities. These agreements were announced on 15 March 2023 and include many areas which will support these regions to drive growth and prosperity, including on skills, transport, housing and net zero, alongside single funding settlements and stronger accountability focused on outcomes.

These deals will act a blueprint for other areas with mature institutions to follow. This will include combined county authorities, once established. Ultimately, our aim is to achieve the local leadership levelling-up mission: that, by 2030, all parts of England that want one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.

I say to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that, actually, devolution is what we want to deliver the local leadership that is required to level up this country. Devolution is part of the levelling up in the Bill, along with many other things to enable the levelling up of the United Kingdom. As such, I hope the noble Baroness agrees that this amendment is unnecessary and feels she can withdraw it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in the debate and to the Minister for her response. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was absolutely spot-on to point to the tension between devolution and levelling up. All the way through our discussions on the Bill, we have felt that tension; we kept coming back to it, because there is an essential tension there. He mentioned the number of funding streams—planning fees, bidding fees, pothole action funds, the towns fund—which are all funds that local areas have to bid for, and they are not a buoyant source of local revenue. They are not renewable: if you want more, you have to go back to government and ask for more. What we actually need are those local revenue-generating sources that would enable that economic regeneration in our own areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, suggested that this might need some sort of a commission to run to in order to demonstrate what you need to do to shift this.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for initiating this clause stand part debate, because in the way we do business in your Lordships’ House, amending existing Bills, it is always worth taking a step back and asking whether we need to do this at all. He has generated a very interesting debate, and in the other groups on the infrastructure levy, it has always been worth holding in our minds whether this is the right way to do it, or whether we should go back to what we have already. That is always worth doing.

The local government community would welcome some clarity on the whole issue of developer contributions. The LGA has been quite supportive of the infrastructure levy, with some qualifications, but wants clarity on what quantum we are expecting to get from it, as well as what is expected to be achieved by it, because we are in danger of making it into the motherhood and apple pie of local government funding, and it certainly will not achieve that.

This is even further complicated in two-tier areas—I have the scars on my back to prove it—where the district council is the housing authority and is looking for substantial contributions to housing, but the upper-tier authority has a duty to press for funding for education, highways, flooding and all the other things that upper-tier authorities look after. It is important we understand the weighting of those various voices in the infrastructure levy process, because otherwise all the pressure on infrastructure will raise viability questions once again. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, who is not in his place today, previously raised issues about emergency services and whether they warrant consideration for infrastructure levy. These are questions we are rightly looking at as we go through the Bill.

Our provision in the first group was for pilots, and we would have preferred that they were carried out before the Bill came to the House, which would have enabled some testing of the efficacy of the infrastructure levy before we went down this route, but that is shutting the stable door. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s responses on how long the transition period will be and what will be done to test this out as we go through the process.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked why, if what the Government are trying to achieve is a minimum contribution levy, they do not just do that. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that question. It is a really good point that, if we must assess this at planning, post-commencement and at final adjustment, what happens if there is significant inflationary pressure, a market crash or whatever between those stages? If it works one way and the final adjustment ended up being a further contribution in cash from developers to make up the difference, that is one thing; if it goes the other way, however, and the viability at the planning stage is greater than what is achieved at the final adjustment, what happens then to the difference? There is quite a lot still to be thought through on this.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for raising the question, but the local government community is quite keen now to have the issue of developer contributions resolved. If the infrastructure levy is going to do that, that would be a good thing, but there are many more questions to answer before that happens.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for tabling these amendments.

As we have discussed, infrastructure delivery strategies will help local authorities to plan for the vital infrastructure that is needed to support sustainable development in their area. The infrastructure levy is designed to be a more effective and streamlined system than CIL and planning obligations. Unlike CIL, the new levy will be a mandatory charge which all relevant authorities will be required to adopt. This is an important step in reducing the complexities of the existing system and ensuring uniformity. Also, it ensures that all local authorities benefit from the levy receipts for their local area over time. The levy will be designed to be responsive to market conditions, meaning that local authorities get a fairer share of the uplift in land value that often occurs between the grant of planning permission and site completion to fund local infrastructure.

My noble friend Lord Lansley asked what happened if there was a 10% reduction in GDV which resulted in a 40% reduction in developer profit. As the final liability is based on the gross development value, if the sales value falls, the levy liability will also reduce—that happens similarly at the moment anyway.

The infrastructure levy will be able to fund the provision of affordable housing, largely replacing the operation of the Section 106 agreement. At the moment, the Section 106 agreement is what delivers most of the affordable housing and is often hard fought by local authorities. This will be a much more stable way of delivering affordable housing. The new right to require will mean that local authorities can stipulate the affordable housing that they require to be delivered in kind as part of that levy liability.

My noble friend Lord Lansley also asked about regional inequalities. We can only capture the land value uplift that is there. We expect to capture more in high-value greenfield areas, obviously, and this is what happens in the existing system—you cannot do that any other way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also brought in the point about the infrastructure delivery strategy and existing local plans, which is an important issue. We must accept that we are making a big change here. An assessment of infrastructure need will be undertaken alongside the local plan. In the long term, we expect these two parts of the delivery strategy will be brought together, but during transition they may have to be undertaken separately. We are talking about long-term here, and we expect those two plans to be together eventually and as soon as possible.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The issue about regional inequalities is really important. This is supposed to be a levelling-up Bill. If there will be more inequalities in the infrastructure levy in different parts of the country, then it is hard to see how it will help the Bill to do its job in terms of levelling up. It will exacerbate inequalities, not help to level them up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not sure that is right. To take affordable housing, in an area with lower housing-cost needs and where housing is of lower value, you cannot expect the same infrastructure levy for houses and land of £150,000 to £350,000, so you must get that balance right. However, with levelling up, we would expect the values to come up and level as we go through the levelling-up procedure.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; the Mayor of Tees Valley has written to the Secretary of State, giving his full support for an independent review. The department will reply to him shortly. As a Government, we will continue, as we have right the way through this scheme, to monitor the spend and delivery on-site. We will do that for two years after public spending on the site. The Tees Valley Combined Authority has also judged that the joint venture presented value for money. Independent auditors of the STDC’s accounts have not raised any concerns around that judgment or the management of that organisation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is vital that the public, particularly the public of Teesside, get answers to the very serious questions about the transfer of this key public asset into private ownership, with the potential losses that may have been incurred to the public purse. That is why my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State has written to the National Audit Office to call for a full inquiry. Ministers and civil servants seem to have had little or no knowledge about what was going on in Teesside, and the whole process was entirely opaque.

It was originally intended that public funding would be used to clean up the land, but also that it would remain in public ownership. However, a decision taken in private in 2021 changed that model. The taxpayer appears to have invested more than £260 million and provided a public loan worth £100 million. It seems that developers have secured £45 million in dividends, despite failing to invest any of their own money in the project. When were the Government aware of the transfer of 90% of the shares in Teesworks to private developers? What scrutiny and oversight did they have of decisions made by Tees Valley Mayoral Development Corporation to establish the joint venture that became Teesworks without a public procurement process? Lastly, what action will the Government take to provide reassurance that the public interest is protected, now and in the future?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will just explain the investment of this site to the noble Baroness. It was always going to be a public/private investment. She is right that £246 million of public money has been invested in this site, and this has already secured £2 billion in private sector investment, with the prospect of 2,725 long-term jobs created as a result. To make the site investor-ready cost £482.6 million, already leaving a funding gap of £200 million; that has had to come from the private sector. It has always been the plan to kick-start the land remediation and then divest the site and risk to the private sector, which we are doing. As a result, the JV partnership—the demolition programme—which was due to take up to five years, concluded in less than three years. It is now up to the private developers to develop that site for these jobs, and for this area of our country.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate today. Much of what has been discussed is obviously for the Home Office; in my responsibility as a Government Minister, I shall attempt to answer everything I can, but there will be things that I will have to come back to. I hope that I can persuade noble Lords to join me in supporting these regulations, which are a necessary step to accelerate moving asylum seekers from what is not suitable—we have had this debate many times in this House, and hotel accommodation is not suitable—into more suitable accommodation for them.

This is not dehumanising; this is actually giving them a better place to live, and trying to get people out of hotels as quickly as possible. Both the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why we are doing this. We are doing it because the asylum accommodation service people are telling us that they have identified that the whole process of licensing requirements is really a challenge to swiftly bring on board the properties that we need in order to get people out of the hotel system.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think either the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, or the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I cannot remember which, asked whether any thought was given to improving the resources for local government to take this on, rather than setting up a whole new system. Is the Minister able to comment on that?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will go through the support we are providing to local authorities, but I do not think the local authorities could have moved as fast as was necessary to do this: it takes training, et cetera. It is about getting people out of hotels and into better accommodation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, brought up the Home Office contracts. I have listed all the requirements under the licensing. I am sorry I have not got an answer to everything. Gas and safety requirements are there in the contracts for the Home Office, as well as compliance with wider private rented sector minimum standards, but I will go through each and every requirement in the licensing and we will send a letter explaining what is there and what is in the contract so that we are absolutely transparent about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I asked for an answer on that, but I do not think it has come forward. I am really sorry; I will get these answers to noble Lords as quickly as I possibly can. I am conscious of what they are asking me to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know it is not the tradition of the Committee to not vote for SIs, or to vote against them, and I understand that—I will not do anything like that—but had this come before my council, with the lack of information that we have about why it is being done, not just what is being done, I could not have supported it. Whether local government could do this job equally well was never assessed. If the Home Office can recruit more inspectors, local government can do so too. If the Home Office are going to look at the same things that local government looks at, why is local government not looking at it? Can we have some clarity about what will be looked at? I am happy to have that in writing.

Before I sit down, I profusely apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I called by the wrong name. I had written the wrong name on my papers, which is completely my fault, and I apologise profusely. I will not get it wrong next time.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot let it go that we are not making it clear why we are doing this. I want to make it very clear that we are doing it to speed up the movement of these people from what the House has clearly said many times is unsuitable hotel accommodation, which is not right over a long period of time, into better accommodation. That is why we are doing it. We want to do it as quickly as possible, and we fell that, in the short term of two years, the licensing regime was slowing that movement down.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Amendment 312, in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook, seeks to prevent the movement of premises being used as shops, banks, gyms, offices et cetera within (a) and (c) to (g) of class E to be used instead as cafés or restaurants in (b).

I take this opportunity to make clear to noble Lords that vibrant and diverse high streets and town centres are vital to communities, as places where local people shop, use services and spend their leisure time.

The Government introduced the commercial business and service use class in 2020 to support our high streets and town centres, enabling them to respond quickly to changes in consumer demands. This use class includes a wide range of uses commonly found on our high streets, such as shops, banks and offices, as well as services such as creches and health centres. Movement between uses within the class does not constitute development and therefore does not require planning permission. Thus, this class provides flexibility to move between such uses and allows for a mix of such uses to reflect changing retail and business models, and to avoid premises being left empty.

We believe that restaurants and cafés are an important part of our high streets and town centres. Such uses support high street vitality, attracting people to the high street to shop and spend their leisure time, and we would not want to limit them. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to restrict the flexibility of premises within the commercial, business and service use class to be used as cafés or restaurants. However, a permitted development right cannot be used in this way to limit movement within this use class. The legislative approach of this amendment is therefore flawed and we are unable to support it.

I turn next to Amendment 312F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a review, within 12 months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent, of all permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission that allow certain developments, including building works and changes of use, to be carried out without an application for planning permission having to be made. Permitted development rights have been a well-established part of the planning system for many years, supporting homeowners and businesses. In recent years, new permitted development rights have been used to support housing delivery. The rights are helping deliver much-needed additional new homes, including more than 94,000 homes in the seven years to March 2022.

In response to comments about the quality of some of the homes delivered, we commissioned research into the operation of the rights, published in July 2020. We subsequently legislated to ensure that all new homes delivered under permitted development must, as a minimum, meet the nationally described space standards and have access to adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. In addition, the current consultation on the infrastructure levy seeks views on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to apply the infrastructure levy to permitted development.

We continue to keep permitted development rights under review, so this amendment is not necessary. It would also be impractical, as it would require a disproportionate review of 155 separate permitted development rights, all within the 12 months proposed. On these grounds, we will not be able to give this amendment our support.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for the response, but it seemed a bit equivocal around permitted development rights and the infrastructure levy. Can the Minister give us some more clarity? Is it under consultation still? One of the important problems with permitted development is that is has not attracted any infrastructure support whatever or any percentage of affordable housing. For example, if an office building is converted into luxury flats, there is no infrastructure provided and no requirement to provide affordable housing that sits alongside it. This is a very important message for the infrastructure levy that it should incorporate permitted development.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is in the current consultation. I assure the noble Baroness that we will be taking account of the consultation responses on this.

I turn next to Amendment 312J, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seeks to require the Secretary of State, within 60 days of the Bill achieving Royal Assent, to make a statement on the use of Article 4 directions by local authorities, and to explain the reasoning behind occasions when they may be modified by the Secretary of State and their resulting consistency.

It may be helpful if I briefly explain Article 4 directions. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission. These allow certain building works and changes of use to be carried out without having to make an application for planning permission. Where it can be clearly evidenced that a permitted development right will cause unacceptable harm to a particular area, local authorities can make an Article 4 direction. This stops development proceeding under the permitted development right and requires that a planning application is submitted.

While Article 4 directions are consulted on and made locally, the Secretary of State has the power to modify or cancel an Article 4 direction. He will intervene where he considers that there are clear reasons for doing so, most particularly where he considers that they do not comply with national policy, as set out in paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This policy requires that all Article 4 directions should cover the smallest geographic area possible. Where they relate to a change from non-residential to residential use, they should be made only to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts. All other Article 4 directions should be necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of an area. Local authorities must notify the Secretary of State when they make an Article 4 direction.

When it is considered that an Article 4 direction as made by a local authority does not comply with national policy, officials have worked with the local authority to agree a revised Article 4 direction. Between 1 July 2021, when there was a change in national policy, and 3 May 2023, modifications have been made to Article 4 directions from 10 local authorities to ensure that they comply with national policy. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that there is consistency in Article 4 directions that is ensured by the statutory process, policy and guidance. The Secretary of State exercises his power to intervene where there are clear reasons to do so, and in a consistent and measured way. With these reassurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree that Amendment 312J is not necessary.

To conclude, I hope that I have said enough to enable my noble friend Lord Northbrook to withdraw his Amendment 312 and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved when reached.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I apologise for the length of time that I am going to take, but it has been a very diverse debate about a number of things and some important issues, so please bear with me.

When new development is built, it creates a demand for public services and local infrastructure. The granting of planning permission also increases the value of land. It is important that local authorities can secure contributions from developers to share in the land value uplift that comes from granting planning permission and use this to deliver local infrastructure and affordable housing for communities.

The current system of developer contributions is uncertain and fragmented. The negotiation of Section 106 agreements frequently results in delays in granting planning permission and these agreements can be renegotiated as the development progresses, as we have heard. Local authorities cannot be expected to negotiate as effectively as big developers. The developers can always build elsewhere, which weakens a local authority’s leverage in negotiations. Developers can devote more financial resources to negotiation, out-gunning local authorities. This can generate uncertainty for local communities over how much affordable housing will be available and what infrastructure will be delivered.

Local authorities can also charge the community infrastructure levy, which is a non-negotiable—but optional —charge. Only half of local planning authorities currently charge the levy. Of those that do not, over one-third believe that introducing it would increase their ability to capture land value. The community infrastructure levy is also unresponsive to change in development value as it is charged at a fixed rate per square metre of new development and does not go up in line with house prices. That is why we are introducing the new infrastructure levy; to largely replace the existing system of developer contributions.

The new levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current developer contributions regime by charging rates based on the final value of developments. This should ensure that a fairer price is initially paid for the land by the developer, and then that the developer pays a fairer contribution to the infrastructure and affordable housing. As it is a non-negotiable charge, it should help to reduce delays associated with Section 106 agreements, while maintaining the viability of developments. It will also end the inequality of arms, where local planning authorities must negotiate for affordable housing with developers. The levy will be charged on the majority of types of development, providing opportunities to secure funding for affordable housing and infrastructure from developments that currently contribute very little. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, that the important issue for developer contributions is housing.

The Government recognise that the new infrastructure levy is a significant change and a major undertaking. For this reason, we are taking a “test and learn” approach to its implementation. This will be vital to monitor and test the design of the levy as it works on the ground. This means that, once levy regulations have been developed following Royal Assent, only a small number of local authorities will adopt the levy initially. This “test and learn” approach will allow the Government to continue to work with local authorities, developers and local stakeholders to achieve a system that is optimally designed. We have published a detailed technical consultation, which closes on 9 June, to inform the design of the new levy regulations. We have approached this consultation in a very open manner with the sector, and we really want to listen to, and take on board, the feedback.

I turn to Amendments 290, 324, 335 and 343, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Hayman. The amendments relate to the definition of “infrastructure”. I will highlight first the point that the priority for receipts from the new levy will be the provision of infrastructure: affordable housing, schools, GP surgeries, green spaces and transport. This infrastructure is vital to support the local community and mitigate the impact of any new development.

Although I understand the desire for future levy receipts to be spent on a wider range of other important priorities, I must be clear that this will not be an unlimited pot of money and that any other spending will come at the expense of affordable housing and local infrastructure that is needed to directly mitigate the impact of new development. Although we have the ability to allow for some spending on non-infrastructure priorities through the Bill, we recognise that there are important trade-offs here. Through the consultation, we are testing the extent to which we should require local authorities to prioritise affordable housing and infrastructure before unlocking such flexibilities.

Secondly, I will address childcare, which I think everybody in the Committee agrees is exceptionally important—I know that this is a priority for all of us in the House and the other place. It is also a priority for the Government, and I am happy to say that, since Amendment 290 was tabled, the Chancellor has announced transformative reforms to the funding and delivery of childcare, as part of the Spring Budget. By 2027-28, this Government expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education, helping working families with their childcare costs. This represents the single biggest investment in childcare in England ever, and it means that eligible working parents of children from nine months old to their start in primary school will all have 30 hours of free childcare per week. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Chancellor’s announcement means that it is no longer necessary to try to bolt together the planning system and funding for childcare through the Bill.

I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that guidance for applications for free schools already includes explicit assumptions that any new free schools will include proposals for nurseries. Therefore, education investment in a possible new development will include a nursery, unless there are very strong reasons why this would be inappropriate. So the Government are dealing with the issue of ongoing support for childcare and, at the same time, there is already in guidance the necessity for more nursery places where houses are built.

I turn to infrastructure spending more broadly. New Section 204N(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of kinds of infrastructure, which assists with broadly understanding what the levy might be spent on. But spending is not restricted to any of the listed items: the levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area. This means funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, provided that this in accordance with the overall aim of the levy, as set out in new Section 204A. To strengthen infrastructure delivery, new Section 204Q requires local authorities to prepare “infrastructure delivery strategies”, which will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure and spending levy proceeds.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Where do the infrastructure delivery strategies sit in terms of the local plan process? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. What role will they play in relation to NDMPs? It is not clear from the legislation exactly how they fit in with the rest of the planning process, and it is important that either the Bill sets that out or we have guidance elsewhere—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that makes it crystal clear where those strategies sit.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand that, and I will write to the noble Baroness to explain this completely. I know that this is confusing because the NPPF has not been agreed, so I understand where she is coming from and I will make sure that we send her a letter.

Turning to Amendment 324, I agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh that the emergency and rescue services should be among the infrastructure providers that are able to receive levy funds from local planning authorities. For this reason, they are already included in the illustrative list of infrastructure in new Section 204N(3), which makes it explicit that levy funds can be applied towards

“facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services”.

We do not provide detailed definitions across all kinds of infrastructure, as this is not necessary. The words used must be given their natural and common-sense meaning—so “infrastructure” too must be given its ordinary meaning. I have stated that it can encompass matters not listed in new Section 204N(3).

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What we have said is that this will deliver no fewer affordable homes. Of course, the number and type of affordable homes that are built will be a local decision. If local authorities want more homes—I suggest that we need more homes in this country—we should be able to deliver more homes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the Minister from our side for the very detailed response she gave to all the contributions that have been made. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we have a further group on this, so I am sure we will debate it further in the course of that group. The combination of the lack of clarity around what the new infrastructure levy is going to deliver in affordable housing and the removal of housing targets looks like a terrible contribution. I know the Minister said that this would not mean fewer affordable homes, but the number that have been built in the last few years is woeful. We want that to improve; we want to get more affordable housing out of this. I know we will discuss this again in a subsequent group, but it is really important. I hope we can get some clarification in that group about how this new infrastructure levy system is going to help us deliver the affordable homes that we all know we need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is about not just the new infrastructure levy but the whole Bill. We know that where local authorities have local plans, they build more houses. The Bill is there to enable and encourage local authorities to have local plans. It is the combination of all these things within the Bill that should deliver more houses.

Voter ID

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government implemented this rushed programme for voter ID against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Local Government Association, which all said that it needed more time. Does the Minister now agree that they were right, given that around 1.5 million people eligible to vote do not have the accepted ID or certificate? Tomorrow’s election will be the greatest restriction of the franchise in our democratic history, taking the vote from seven times as many people as were given the vote in the Great Reform Act. What will it take tomorrow for the Government to rescind this policy? How many people will the Government allow to be turned away before admitting that this experiment has failed?

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

No, I do not agree that we have done it in haste, because I have spoken personally to the LGA and many leaders across the country who are having polls. I have also spoken to the Electoral Commission. The processes that were put in place worked well; the IT worked well, and we will know after tomorrow what the outcome is. As I said yesterday in this House, the number of people who have not registered for a voter authority card will come out in the data. Whether or not we need to look at any changes, this Government and the people of this country want voter ID. Two out of three people asked said they would feel more confident in our democratic process if it was in place.

Housing: Overcrowding

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have no plans to do so at the moment but I will keep the noble Baroness and the House aware of any that we might have in the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for its excellent report highlighting this crucial issue, and to my noble friend Lady Warwick for her tireless work on housing. The level of overcrowding highlighted by the NHF is one of the strongest indicators of the woeful state of housing in this country and the shameful record of this Government, with only 6,000 social homes built last year and 2 million families on waiting lists. The recent decision to abandon housing targets has exacerbated the housing crisis and will worsen the issue of overcrowded properties. Given that planning applications in England are now at a record low, will the Minister bring forward amendments to the levelling-up Bill to put the targets back into law?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. We have had this debate on a number of occasions throughout the LUR Bill, and I am sure we will have this discussion again. We are clear that we are looking at the NPPF into the future, but it is up to local planning authorities to decide on the types of housing that they are going to put into their local plans and how many. We feel that, with the new changes in the LURB, local plans will be easier to produce and there will be more of them, delivering more housing for this country.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot give that assurance because we have not yet published them, but from everything I know of where the Bill is going with planning, we are encouraging local authorities to make those local decisions within the national framework, and I do not expect any further constraints on local authorities in that regard.

This is probably the right time to also bring up the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, raised about transparency and viability. We agree with many of the criticisms of the misuse of viability assessments. That is why we are introducing the infrastructure levy, which removes the need for viability assessments as part of the planning permission process. If we take it out of the process, I hope we will not have this argument in the beginning. I have had many arguments over viability in the past. If we take it out of the system, I hope that will stop in future.

Moving to Amendment 438, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I understand why he has put forward his amendments. While I appreciate totally the sentiment behind them, we do not believe this would be the correct legislative vehicle for this policy. The Government have provided public assurances that they will not require local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher value council homes in the social housing Green Paper and stand by that commitment. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill does not address the topic of social housing, and the Government do not wish further to complicate such a complex set of legislative measures. However, the Government remain committed to legislating on this issue at an appropriate time in the future. I can provide assurances at the Dispatch Box to the noble Lord that the provisions laid out in Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect and this Government have no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, and therefore there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the Government remain committed to the decisions set out in the social housing Green Paper and that provisions will be made in future for this revocation to be issued. I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting debate on a crucial topic central to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. As a result of the discussions we have had, the National Housing Federation’s figure for people in need of social housing is now 3.8 million—that is 1.6 million households. That is around 500,000 more households than the 1.16 million that are on official waiting lists. We all know the reasons for that: not everybody who is in need of housing will necessarily want to spend the next 20 years on a housing waiting list. In so many areas it is impossible to see people ever being housed as a result of those housing lists.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his important comments, particularly about us needing to understand what genuinely affordable housing means. It certainly does not mean the definition that is used in planning at the moment. I agree with his comment that we are under an illusion that housing built under the “affordable homes” category will resolve the housing crisis—it will not. I totally support his comments about unfreezing local housing allowance levels, which would be an important step. Over many decades, we have seen sticking-plaster approaches to tackling the housing situation in this country, which consequently continues to deteriorate.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rightly said that all of the amendments in this group are aimed at the same destination. Neither in renting nor in homes for sale does “affordability” mean what it says on the tin. We are all trying to make sure that we do what we can in the Bill to change that to some extent.

It is misleading to say that the Help to Buy schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned, will tackle the issue for those most in need of housing. Taking a little risk, I will mention a conversation I had with a former Conservative Minister, who said, “I don’t know why you keep banging on about social housing, Sharon. Everyone can afford to buy a house under our Help to Buy scheme”. That is clearly not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, quoted his noble friend who said that, in Southwold, the affordability ratio is 17:1, and 13:1 after a 20% discount. That is the case in quite a lot of the country, although not everywhere.

More than 50% of social homes have been transferred into the private rented sector, which is a great grievance to those of us who deal with the impact of that. Where that rent is paid by universal credit or other benefits, instead of DWP paying—I shall use the figures I quoted earlier—£110 a week rent for those properties, the public purse now pays £235 a week for them. That does not make any sense at all, so we need to do all we can to address this situation.

As ever, I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about his amendment. I thank him for reminding us about the Affordable Housing Commission report, which is very good and we all need to take account of it. I am afraid I found the Minister’s comments on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, a bit disappointing. None of us, including the Government, want this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Best, called it an “obnoxious” and “offensive” legislative provision, which it is. He pointed out that it has hung over local government since 2016. We could use this legislation to get rid of it. Why do we not do that? Under that legislation, local authorities were expected to raise the rent to market levels where tenants improved their financial situation. When that happened, it greatly concerned me that this would not benefit local communities or our housing stock but would tip into the bottomless bucket in the Treasury. It is time that that provision was scrapped. I absolutely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about local decisions being taken on right-to-buy discounts. That measure is way past time, and we should absolutely have it.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about unfreezing local housing allowance, which I agree with. He also mentioned discretionary housing payments. In many local authorities, the allocated amount of discretionary housing payment runs out in Quarter 1, and then various bodies, including government advisory bodies and Citizens Advice, often send tenants to their councils to request discretionary housing payment, when in fact it has run out in the first three months of the year. That is simply because of the cost of living crisis and the level of rents that are putting so much pressure on those discretionary housing payments.

Supported Housing

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[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

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

[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

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response so far. Can she pick up the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and I made about the piecemeal nature of how this works and the legislation that informs planning? The Minister herself set out some of the many pieces of legislation that come together to drive forward the statutory framework instilling this in planning, but at the moment that makes for a fairly piecemeal approach that requires drawing together. These amendments were tabled to enshrine in legislation the overarching purpose of building sustainability into the planning system.

I think everybody who has spoken has made the point that the National Planning Policy Framework is not statutory; it is guidance. Different planning inspectors will interpret the local authority’s interpretation of that guidance differently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others outlined, sometimes the most ambitious authorities find themselves coming into conflict with their planning inspectors in this respect, because they do not accept the ambition that has been put into their local plan. Can the Minister pick up those points?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

A number of pieces of legislation from a number of different areas of government and beyond have an effect on net zero, sustainability and climate change. That is going to happen. I know that this was brought up in our meetings with noble Lords prior to the Bill, and it is a complex area. I will once again try to show your Lordships how this all fits together to ensure that we are all working in the same direction and delivering what we know we want for climate change, net zero and sustainability.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will be very happy to provide that information.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the debate on the levelling-up fund. It is a key issue to discuss as we go into the Bill because, clearly, none of the levelling-up project will happen without proper funding, and most of us in local government certainly feel that the levelling-up fund has not been the way to do it.

I want to start with the issue of categories 1, 2 and 3. Those categories deterred some authorities from applying because people felt that, if they were in a higher-banded category, they would not have any chance of getting any funding. It was very disappointing when they did not bid because they thought they were not going to get any and then found that others in the same category, and some in higher categories, were allocated funding. So I support the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for some explanation of how that banding works.

My second point is about how the Treasury is feeling about round 3. I am not clear on what the Treasury has done in terms of the levelling-up fund: whether it has stopped round 3 for the time being, whether it has delayed it or what it is doing with it. It would be interesting to know how that is going to happen going forward.

The Minister mentioned match funding, and I am sure that she is as aware as I am that the various places that it used to come from are scarce and in very short supply these days. So match funding can also deter people from bidding for things. I know that it is not compulsory to have it, but, if you think you will not achieve your bid without it, it may deter people from bidding in the first place. It seems almost certain that the areas that need match funding the most are the least likely to have access to it, so it goes against the principles of levelling up.

I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the recognition of the need to address the complexities in the funding landscape, which is vital. Moving forward, as the delivery of the missions gets more complex, we absolutely need to be clear about a straightforward mechanism for funding.

I was pleased to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, which was helpful. I am grateful for the work that Business in the Community does across the country in helping to move the levelling-up agenda forward. I was impressed and pleased that she mentioned the issue around capital funding and having revenue funding to support it. Too often, funding pots are allocated and things are built and delivered—because that is what ticks the box for the department concerned—but the ongoing revenue for that project is not considered and ends up being a local burden that can, in some instances, result in the original project never being delivered properly, because there is not the revenue to deliver it. So I hope that future funding pots will take that into consideration.

I was shocked about the Blackpool project being funded but then going into a period in which it is not. You cannot stand these projects up and down at very short notice: they take a lot of planning, and the disappointment for young people engaged in something when the tap is turned off and that project stops is almost worse than doing nothing at all, because it adds to their feelings of having things taken away from them.

On the short timescales and short delivery times, if levelling up is going to work properly, it must work with a great spirit of co-operation and collaboration between those tasked with delivering it—there may be more than one public agency doing that. Having these very short bidding times and delivery times in some instances is not at all helpful, and I hope that that can be taken into consideration.

We heard information about the town deals and the towns fund. I have been quite close to one of them, and, although there is an equal lack of transparency in allocation, there was very serious scrutiny of what the outcomes would be before the bidding and allocation. That is something that we should look to for the future.

I was pleased to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the serious lack of credibility in the scheme. I talk to my colleagues in local government all the time, and there is no doubt in my mind that there has been a great loss of credibility in the scheme. The Minister referred to a feedback process; it may be that that has got going fairly recently, because the second-round funding has only recently been announced. But those who were involved at the time certainly felt that they had not had an adequate opportunity to receive any feedback. Of course, they want to learn because, if there will be multiple rounds of this, people want to know what they did wrong and, equally, the ones who got it right want to know what they did right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the reason we have been pressing so hard on these definitions of geography, missions and metrics, and how they will be used: because of how they will be used to determine funding. Even if funding for levelling up were to be considered for a completely different model—such as one much more like the sort of model I would like to see, which is local government being given the funding and being allowed to get on with it—surely we must have a method which determines how funding follows need, rather than just whoever puts in the shiniest bid at the time.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as a serving councillor on Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council, and as a vice-president of the District Councils’ Network.

At Second Reading, I said that to some extent the Bill fails to meet the aspirations of the White Paper, but even the White Paper has significant omissions in that some of the key challenges which impact on opportunity and aspiration in this country are missing. This cannot be a levelling-up Bill without them, and this group of amendments seeks to address that.

In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that the missions were not in the Conservative manifesto, so we cannot absolve the Government from parliamentary scrutiny of those missions. However, neither can that proscribe Parliament from consideration of missions that were not there at all, or prevent those missions being added.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her fantastic speech and amendment on child poverty, along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for delivering another powerful speech on that issue. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Stroud, for supporting the amendment.

My noble friend Lady Lister referred to an issue raised at Second Reading—that it was the Government’s stated intent that the Bill address child poverty, and yet it is not explicit in the missions. The powerful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, addressed, among other things, the contribution that social housing can make to tackling poverty. I completely agree, having grown up in a council house myself and seen how good-quality social housing benefited the people around me. That is very powerful. There is also no excuse for not including child poverty in the missions.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester spoke about the difficulties in education when you are facing poverty. When I was growing up, providing things as straightforward as school uniform, ingredients for cooking lessons and sports equipment were all great worries for children growing up in poverty.

The statistics are startling, and my noble friend Lady Lister quoted some of them. Some 27% of children—that is, eight in every classroom of 30—live in poverty, and of course the figure is far worse in some areas. In part of the county council division I represent in Hertfordshire—one of the wealthier areas of the UK, let us remember—one in three children lives in poverty. I have seen at first hand the impact on those children’s life opportunities in terms of educational attainment, health, mental health, economic capacity and every aspect of well-being: cultural, physical, social and academic. To imagine that levelling up can happen at all without a real focus on child poverty dooms the whole endeavour to failure.

For those of us who witnessed the huge impact of Sure Start and the comprehensive strategy of investment in children between 1998 and 2010, as a result of which, the number of children living in poverty fell by 600,000, it was dreadfully disappointing to see that project abandoned and the figures start to rise again. This situation has been exacerbated by the further inequalities that Covid inflicted on deprived communities. The Bill has the potential to start the serious work of tackling child poverty again. Let us not miss the opportunity, simply by not including child poverty as a serious and specific mission. My noble friend Lady Lister rightly asked why it was not in the White Paper or the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, proposed a solution. There may be other ways of doing it, and I hope that the Minister has taken account of what she has heard in the Chamber this afternoon.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his advocacy for our disability community—I am sorry he could not be in his place this afternoon. As he says, this should be considered through every policy aspect of the Bill. Despite successive Acts of Parliament attempting to drive equalities forward in this respect, one has to spend only a very short period in the company of anyone with a disability to see just how far we still have to go. Access to transport, public buildings, education and the workplace, and the ability to participate in the political process, simply must get better if we are to see real levelling up. These are spatial issues, planning issues, and I hope we will see some progress as a result of the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for tabling the amendment on increasing cultural infrastructure across the UK. Unfortunately, due to the vicious cuts in local government funding in recent years, we have seen local cultural assets closed or mothballed across the country just at a time when creativity, innovation and celebration of local heritage could be creating jobs, developing skills, supporting mental well-being, giving educational opportunities and underpinning social cohesion and collaboration. In an excellent report from the Local Government Association, Cornerstones of Culture, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, chair of the Commission on Culture and Local Government, sets out the incredible opportunities that supporting the development of cultural infrastructure can deliver in terms of levelling up. As a resident of Hertfordshire, which is rapidly becoming the Hollywood of Europe, with film, TV and creative studios driving our economy—there is always a commercial in my speeches—and creating huge opportunities for our county, in particular its young people, I can say that the benefits this cultural intervention could bring across the UK are clear to see.

We have amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on meeting net zero, which are very welcome. There was a huge discussion on this on Second Reading, and it was notable just how many noble Lords said that without a specific mission to drive the target of reaching net zero across our nations and regions and across all policy areas, the Bill would be significantly deficient and miss a valuable opportunity. It is difficult to understand why amendments tabled the other place that attempted to strengthen the Bill in this respect were not adopted. As far as I am concerned, the situation is quite simple: either the Government mean what they say on net zero and climate change mitigation, in which case, make it the subject of a specific mission, or they do not. The consequences of the latter are enormous and unthinkable. It absolutely must be a target of devolution that every place in the UK fulfil its role in delivering net zero, and that progress be monitored.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, pointed out that achieving net zero is most challenging in the areas most in need of levelling up. The south-east is improving in this regard while the north-east is continuing to decline. At COP 27 the Prime Minister made a commitment to honouring promises on climate finance. That must apply equally across our nations and regions, as it does to external funding support. Yet, at the moment we do not even have a commitment to financing, for example, the decarbonisation of public housing. I urge the Minister to take seriously the strongly held concerns of noble Lords across this House about leaving out net zero as a specific mission of this levelling-up Bill. I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how green jobs, new biodiversity targets and environmental planning challenges each relate to the levelling-up agenda, and how the Bill can be improved by incorporating these.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her powerful speech on a healthy environment and for pointing out that access to green space is definitely an equalities and levelling-up issue. The link to health and mental health outcomes is clear from all the evidence the noble Baroness cited and that we see elsewhere. Can the Minister say why this cannot be dealt with in the planning frameworks? I was lucky enough to grow up in a new town, where green space such as parks was planned from the very start. It comes under increasing pressure as the cramming of urban areas is seen as a way of solving the housing crisis. That cannot be right, and we need to have a careful look at this from a planning point of view.

We have a group of amendments here that are intended to address serious omissions from the Bill and include missions that will make a significant and important contribution to the levelling-up agenda. I hope that the powerful words of the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate will receive a receptive hearing from both the Minister and the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments includes those related to new missions and metrics. The missions contained in the levelling-up White Paper are the products of extensive analysis and engagement; this analysis is set out in the White Paper. As I have made clear already, the Bill is designed to establish the framework for missions, not the content of missions themselves. The framework provides ample opportunity to scrutinise the substance of those missions against a range of government policies.

I start by addressing Amendments 4 and 9, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would require the levelling-up missions to include a mission on child poverty. Let me say that everybody in this Government accepts that child poverty is an issue that needs continually to be kept an eye on, managed and acted upon. However, the way we deal with it is perhaps the issue that we need to discuss. We believe that the best and most sustainable way of tackling child poverty is to ensure parents have opportunities to move and progress in the workplace. Setting targets can drive action that focuses primarily on moving the incomes of those just in poverty to above a somewhat arbitrary poverty line, while doing nothing to help those on the very lowest incomes or to improve children’s future prospects. We therefore have no plans to reintroduce an approach to tackling child poverty that focuses primarily on income-based targets. Ministers and officials engage extensively across government to ensure a co-ordinated approach to tackling poverty, and we will continue to do so in the future.

Moving into work is the best way to improve lives. In 2019-2020, children in workless households were over six times more likely to be in absolute poverty than those in households where all adults were in work. Since 2010, there are nearly 1 million fewer workless households; under the Conservatives, 1.7 million more children are living in a home where at least one person is working. However, that is not to be complacent. The issue for me—the noble Lord, Lord Best, brought it up—is good housing, good education, good skills and good jobs. All these things are covered by the missions, and they do not need to be one separate mission.

While I am talking about living standards, my noble friend Lord Young asked about the definition of living standards. The Bill seeks to raise the living standards of people in work and people who are able to work, or whom we can get into work:

“By 2030, pay, employment and productivity will have risen in every area of the UK,”


getting those who are not already in work into work. That is the definition in the White Paper.

The levelling-up White Paper highlights the challenges faced by children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and how these vary between and within places. It takes a systematic approach, through the missions, to address a number of factors which we believe contribute to child poverty. The levelling-up mission on living standards commits to increasing pay and employment in every area of the UK, which would in turn help to reduce child poverty. We are also committed in the White Paper to investing an extra £200 million to expand the Supporting Families programme in England, which will help to improve the life outcomes and resilience of vulnerable children and their families. Additionally, over £300 million in funding for family hubs and Start for Life has been allocated to 55 high-deprivation local authorities, supporting a focus on perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationships, infant feeding and parenting support. These are very important at the beginning of a child’s life, as we heard again from the noble Lord, Lord Bird.

Leasehold Charges

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper and draw the attention of the House to his relevant interest as a leaseholder.

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

Service charges must be reasonable and where costs relate to work or services, they must be of a reasonable standard. Such moneys must be held in trust unless specifically exempt and used for their intended purposes. We are committed to ensuring that residents have more information on what their costs pay for, and this will help them more effectively to challenge their landlord if they consider their fees to be unreasonable. We will bring further reforms later in this Parliament.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there seems to be some confusion regarding statements made in the other place and in the media by the Secretary of State, the Member for Surrey Heath. In the other place, he talks of the reform of leasehold as a tenure of housing, yet in the media he talks about the abolition of leasehold tenure. Can the Minister tell the House which it is: reform or abolition? It cannot be both. Leaseholders deserve absolute clarity on the intentions of government.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government would absolutely agree with that. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in the Commons his intention to bring the outdated and feudal leasehold system to an end.

Local Councils: 2023-24 Budgets

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, given the impact of current levels of inflation on budget planning for local councils for 2023–24, what support they are providing to councils in setting balanced budgets and ensuring that local services are delivered.

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

We recognise that councils are facing pressures, which is why, taking 2023 and 2024 together, we have increased the funding available to local government in England in real terms. The provisional local government finance settlement for 2023-24 makes available up to £59.5 billion for local government in England—an increase of up to £5 billion, or 9%, in cash terms on 2022-23—and includes a £2 billion additional grant fund for social care. We consulted on these proposals until 16 January, and will consider the responses prior to publishing the final settlement in early February.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Those standing as councillors do not do so to cut services for their residents. The Local Government Association estimates a gap in funding of £3.2 billion this year, rising to £5.2 billion next year. Across the country, local councillors are taking awful decisions on closing libraries, swimming pools, children’s centres, domestic abuse services, nurseries, transport services for disabled children and more. Even Tory Hertfordshire says that it has exhausted all options for service cuts. Do His Majesty’s Government recognise that cutting local services puts pressure on other public services? Why has the fair funding review for local government ground to a halt?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as I said, we recognise that councils are facing pressures but the 9% announced in the Autumn Statement is, in real terms, an increase in funding. Local government is having to meet pressures in the same way as every resident in this country is under pressure. As I said in answer to a question yesterday, we will look further at funding issues for local government in future—probably not in this Parliament but in the next.

Housing: Private Rented Sector

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government have made it clear that, within this Session, they will bring forward the private renters Bill, which will look at the issues that my noble friend raises, as well as many others. The Government have allocated £654 million in funding this year and next year on homelessness and people in temporary accommodation. Recently, because of those issues that we know are happening, we have topped that up in December by another £50 million. We are doing everything that we can in this difficult time to support these vulnerable people.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as a serving councillor, I deal with cases of homelessness every day. The number is increasing every day because of eviction from private tenancies and/or the affordability of those tenancies, and fewer landlords coming forward. With social housing waiting lists now at over 1 million due to decades of underinvestment in social housing and an annual loss of 24,000 social homes a year due to demolition and sales under the right to buy, what are the Government going to do to address the housing emergency?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are doing many things. When the renters reform Bill comes through—it was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment—it will look at these issues, particularly in the private rented sector. However, this is a much bigger issue across all sectors, as the noble Baroness said. We are doing an enormous amount, as I have said and am not repeating, and will continue to do so. Just to say, I think that an important thing that will come out in the renters reform Bill is that we will remove Section 21 evictions.