Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to take up too much time, because much has already been said, but I want to add a couple of points that have perhaps not already been made and expand on one point from the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is really important to acknowledge that the Government have found the means to increase planning fees for major and minor applications to 35% and 25% respectively. That is a positive move in the right direction and it has to be applauded.

As always, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has nailed Amendment 267 and I want to expand on one of his comments, on devolution. In reality, councils are effectively asked—and in effect taxpayers are asked—to subsidise a whole range of services, not just planning services. Licensing fees are one, and the one that really gets my goat is supplying credit agencies with the electoral register. There is a statutory cap on what can be charged, regardless of the actual cost. Even with land searches, which councils have to do the work on, the Land Registry actually gets the cash. I think it is an area that is ripe for looking at, particularly as we are in cash-strapped times; other agencies and other companies, not just the taxpayer, should pay the bill.

My only caveat about letting each individual council area decide absolutely on its fees is that “To those who have, more shall be given”. In areas where developers want to build—they are usually the areas where it is most lucrative and they will get the most profit—they will be able to get away with charging much higher fees simply because they can. I think the opposite should be true, so Amendment 267, which refers to the actual costs, is the fairest way of dealing with this, especially as salaries and other incidentals also vary depending on the geographical area that a council sits in.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 281C. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her introduction and support for that amendment. It is one of two amendments which I have tabled to give effect to recommendations by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, seeking to promote the principle of legal certainty. The problem which concerned the committee in this case relates to the width of the power in the new Section 196E, introduced by Clause 113.

The Explanatory Notes say that the position at the moment about decisions

“to take enforcement action in response to breaches of planning control is at the discretion of the local planning authority”.

New Section 196E seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to provide relief from enforcement and planning conditions in a particular way, by providing that a local planning authority

“may not take … relevant enforcement measures”

or is subject to particular restrictions as to whether it should take that step.

The reason given in the Explanatory Notes is really a bit of history. In the difficult circumstances that arose as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, with a later acute shortage of heavy goods vehicles,

“local planning authorities have been encouraged to be flexible in terms of enforcement action of non-compliance with conditions imposed on grants of planning permission which govern construction working hours and delivery hours”.

Those are the kind of conditions put forward to protect the environment of local residents, and so on—and, obviously, when they are imposed, they are imposed for a very good reason. But the Covid-19 situation, with the acute shortage of heavy goods vehicles, made it desirable that these hours should be extended, instead of being restricted to hours that would not interfere with people’s sleep, or whatever else it would be. There was a good reason for being more flexible and allowing the hours to be extended.

That is the background to the step being taken here, but the Constitution Committee’s concern was about the width of the power being sought under new Section 196E. The section is carefully drafted, because it says that what the Secretary of State may do by regulations is to give direct attention to

“relevant enforcement measures in relation to any actual or apparent failure to comply with a relevant planning condition”.

Those expressions, “relevant enforcement measures” and “relevant planning condition”, are carefully defined in this new section and are wide in their scope. “Enforcement measures” includes all the powers that one might expect—the powers to apply for enforcement orders, injunctions and entry without a warrant, and so on, to see what is going on, and to deal with issues about planning contravention notices, temporary stop notices, enforcement notices, warning notices and so on.

The new section is very carefully drafted. What it does not do is contain any kind of limit on the extent to which the power might be used, which is why the Constitution Committee, in its report, said that it was concerned by the breadth of the power and recommended that the clause should be amended to ensure that the power was limited to

“emergency situations or other forms of serious disruption”,

following the example set out in the Explanatory Notes. My amendment provides simply that the power may be exercised only

“in the event of an emergency or other form of serious disruption which makes it necessary for the local planning authority to be provided with this relief”.

As I said, the background is that, in any case at the moment, the local authority has a discretion as to how far it should go in dealing with breaches of planning conditions, but the power is actually giving directions. Therefore it is necessary, in the interests of legal certainty, that the scope of the power should be limited along the lines that my amendment suggests.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this is a really interesting group of amendments and clearly very technical and detailed. The Minister may be relieved that I shall keep my comments quite simple, to address certain principles.

Clause 107 represents a radical change. There is quite a difference between four years and 10 years, which will apply to all forms of unauthorised development. As has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the Explanatory Notes do not actually give any rationale for the actual number of years. Is it a proposal following consultation of some sort, or just a figure between four and 10—in which case, may I suggest six? I would be interested to know how it was arrived at.

I am also interested in the Minister’s response to the noble Earl’s Amendments 278 and 279 on transition and consultation, which both seem reasonable and sensible, given that this is a significant time change, with consequences following from the scale of the change.

I agree that there is definitely some sense in bringing about a single limitation period, beyond which all such development is lawful, to put an end to the fraught arguments and confusion of what applies to which and when and why. Such confusions, in my experience, come from all parties—council officers, definitely residents and even on occasion legal representatives. It is not straightforward. When is a garage not a garage? What is a garage? I remember that one vividly.

Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Earls seeks to retain the four-year rule where a breach—I am choosing my words very carefully—involves a place where people live. From my urban experience, I have seen too many “beds in sheds” where, at worst, people are living in conditions not fit for animals and at best, they are massively overcrowded with inadequate facilities. Nobody should get away with exploiting vulnerable people, who are living in those conditions because they are desperate, just because the breach was reported only after four years and one day.

On Amendments 275 and 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I seek clarification from the Minister and I accept that I may have got this wrong. Given that I agree with many of the noble Baroness’s amendments and her way of thinking about the Bill, I am, in a sense, sense checking. As I read it, the Government’s intention in this clause is to give local planning authorities a considerably longer timeframe—some might say too long—to intervene in a breach of unlawful planning that has been brought to their attention. I would say that was a good thing from the point of view of the local authority, affected residents and communities. Therefore, would her two amendments, if passed, mean that despite the breach having

“a significant impact on the local environment”,

the noble Baroness is seeking to reduce the time that residents have to notice it and their council to respond? It is the time to enforce and not the time to comply with enforcement: that is my understanding. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that and put me right.

Amendments 281 and 281A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, deal with council finances. The situation was described well, so I do not need to repeat that, but what I will say is that enforcement is a very important service. We all want and need more effective enforcement. Poor enforcement across a whole council can undermine all our efforts to improve the place we live in. Enforcement is a big signal to residents that their council cares about what goes on in their areas and will do something about it. Over the years, I found it was a trust issue with residents, about “Whose side are you on?” Helpless cries of, “Well, it’s outside the four-year period” cut no ice.

The harsh reality, particularly in district councils, is that, increasingly, councils are responding only to breaches that are brought to their attention, rather than proactively going out looking for them, which I think is something we all think they should do and which should cut across a wide range of council functions. The reality is that, due to the reduction of available funding and a decline in the number of skilled staff over many years, that is not happening. Capacity and capability is an issue here too. The real skill in enforcement work is to bring about compliance without the need to serve notices and go to court, with all the additional cost and time that that incurs, in order to perhaps get a paltry fine. In my experience, most council officers will seek not to do the sorts of things that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned; they actually work very hard to take proportionate and flexible actions with minor infringements.

On Amendment 281B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about social housing, we all know that of all the current Section 106 obligations that developers try to wheedle out of, social housing is their number one target. Reducing the wriggle room and strengthening this obligation is surely a good thing. We have several ex-council leaders in the Chamber who will all have experienced occasions when a developer has found it more cost effective to breach the rules and pay the fine. Chopping down trees covered by tree preservation orders is a regular example that springs to mind. We are all battle scarred, hence our cynicism regarding some developers and the desire to recover full costs, as in our earlier debate.

Supported Housing

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. Her excellent opening speech, as well as the short but on-the-button contributions from other noble Lords, have really laid bare the fact that this is indeed a very complex, multifaceted area, and we have a long way to go.

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I spend my four minutes taking a slightly different angle. My very first experience of supported housing came when I was standing for election for the first time back in the early 1990s. Some noble Lords will remember that this was the era that saw the start of care in the community.

A housing association had bought a pair of semis in my road and was turning them into supported housing for adults with learning difficulties. I was shocked and disappointed to find that some of my neighbours had decided “We don’t want that sort of people here”. They were banging on my door telling me that if I wanted their vote, I had to get it stopped. There were very nasty public meetings. The council stood its ground and granted the planning permission, and I lost the election.

However, I learned a very valuable lesson. People in my parents’ generation had been used to “that sort of people” being locked up in Victorian gothic institutions and they had massively entrenched views about the worth of such citizens and where they should live.

I am pleased to say that the residents moved in and one of the first things they did was to invite the neighbours to a barbecue. A good time was had by all and it was the start of a positive relationship with the home.

Would it not be good if I could say that that attitude has long gone? But it has not. Throughout my 16 years as mayor, some of the most acrimonious meetings were about the following: a drug rehabilitation clinic, a homeless shelter, accommodation for ex-prisoners and a women’s refuge. Yes, decent, civilised and, one might say, respectable middle-class people were screeching, shouting, swearing and baying for blood like film extras in a medieval hanging scene. Each meeting is etched in my memory.

I am left wondering whether this is at the heart of why vulnerable people across a wide spectrum of needs are very much the forgotten of the housing world. Think Grenfell Tower—they certainly felt forgotten; not seen and not heard.

It is clear from numerous reports and research that things are far from well in this part of the housing world, as articulated by noble Lords. There are many questions, but the one that struck me forcibly in those early days was: why should every local authority not have to provide for these vulnerable groups? Clearly, some opt out and find different ways to do so, particularly in two-tier areas where the upper tier has the duty to advise, support and provide the strategy, but the district council is not always obligated to work with this and provide accommodation in their local plan, so—guess what—some do not provide it. Guess why. It is because the attitude of, “We don’t want those sorts of people in our area” is still alive and well, often disguised as, “There’s no need for this here. We don’t have those sorts of problems”.

Is this why unscrupulous people feel that they can exploit and abuse such people? Who is checking up on them? Who gives a damn? The accounts given to the DLUHC committee last year made for difficult reading but did not surprise me. If some of our residents are regarded by some as the flotsam and jetsam of society, does that not make it easier to ignore them, at best, and, at worst, to assault and rob them? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that quick wins will be had, loopholes will be changed and plans for long-term change are, at least, on the table. Finally, I am sure that she has got the message about the need for social housing. I apologise for going over time.

Housebuilding

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Bill makes it clear that local authorities, in their local plan, have to include housing for older people and for disabled people and other vulnerable groups. The Government want to deliver the best possible outcomes for these groups by helping them to live independently in safe, appropriate and good-quality housing for as long as they can possibly stay in it. The £11.5 billion affordable homes programme includes the delivery of new supported housing for older, disabled and vulnerable people, and our planning rules already mean that councils must consider them in their plans.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Targets do not get homes built. People do, people with a wide range of skills. Given that every single report, from Kate Barker in 2004 to the recent BEIS figures, have warned us of a severe skills shortage in the construction industry, what are the Government’s plans to reverse this decline? Do the Government see SME builders as part of the solution, as they appear to have been phased out of significant housebuilding altogether over the past decade?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are collaborating across government to ensure that we are supporting the sector. The Department for Education is improving training routes into construction and creating opportunities for workers to retrain by working with employers to make apprenticeships available and more flexible and to promote T-levels. The Government are increasing funding for apprenticeships across all sectors, including construction, to £2.7 billion in 2024-25. We are continuing to fund more apprenticeships in non-levy-funded employers, which are often SMEs, and the Government will continue to meet 95% of the apprenticeship training cost for those companies.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendment 187 would affect the position of the CCAs. The amendment in this group that seems the most powerful is Amendment 185A, which at least seeks to—I am not sure whether it actually does—give the local decision primacy. That is what the people of England are particularly looking for: the phrase “take back control” will be familiar to noble Lords, and there is a great hunger for that around the country. Here, we are down in the detail and the weeds of how the Bill works, but we are actually talking about something really important to how local elected representatives can decide how the future of their community is directed.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the main debate on the new plan hierarchy was clearly spelled out in this Chamber last week, but Covid prevented me from joining in, although I listened with interest. I will not waste time going over that debate, but I still want to reiterate certain facts. As was well demonstrated in the debate on the last group, it is a fact that so much detail is still missing and so many important matters are still out for consultation—that is probably why there are so many amendments and why there is so much anxiety around the content of NDMPs. In particular, as was well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, what will truly be left over for local councillors and their communities to shape their place? The Bill is very strong on the rhetoric of place shaping, but it feels that we are being disempowered to do that.

Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I will say that it is absolutely clear that the potential for conflict is significant. Without some clarity and legal clout from the Bill—not just ministerial promises that there will be more details in the revised NPPF, or that it will be more clear when we have the NDMPs—what will happen as a result of this is that there will be plenty of work for the planning chambers and litigators going forward. There will be a long transition period—the Government are quite sensibly allowing for that—because this is a new system, so there will be quite some time before we get precedents set, we get used to it and we get to see which way it is going.

The amendments have regard to the obvious potential conflicts between NDMPs and local development plans, and they also question the increasingly all-powerful Secretary of State role and the position of combined authorities. The issues concerning Secretary of State powers have also been well articulated, but, as drafted, Clause 86, which was previously debated, and Clause 87 very clearly—I do not think there is any ambiguity—favour NDMPs over development plans. But they also transfer significant policy-making powers directly to the Secretary of State—this is yet another area of concern and potential conflict because, as we know, NDMPs come with no minimum public consultation or primary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Despite the Government’s previous assurances that this undemocratic effect was not the intention of the clauses, no legal safeguards have been introduced, so this is an area in which we would certainly hope to see movement from the Government.

My first question for the Minister on this group is on the issue of local plan soundness, as it seems to me that a lot of conflict could and should be avoided if both the NDMPs and the local development plan are very clear about what they are trying to achieve, where the boundaries of their scope are, and where one might take over from another—I was envisaging the Venn diagram and hoping that there was not very much in the middle. It seems highly desirable that the overlap should be almost impossibly small, or as limited as possible, so can the Minister confirm whether a plan would be found sound under the new regime if it contained policies that were at variance with NDMPs?

The proposed introduction of gateway checks, which is an excellent suggestion, would seem to indicate that the intention is, on the one hand, to allow both parties an opportunity to point out unacceptable variance, or, on the other, for the local planning authority to present its evidence as to why local policies should deviate from the NDMPs and therefore receive advice and engage in constructive dialogue. From the thrust of the questions of the NPPF consultations and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statements, it seems that local variance is both expected and accounted for—good.

If that is the case, why do we need new subsection (5C), and why can we not just accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor? It is very definite and legally tight—too definite and legally tight to allow for circumstances when it might be absolutely legitimate to give the local plan precedence. Is that deemed to be a bad thing by the Government? If not, under the current system, in which decisions are now weighed and balanced, surely a degree of leeway is desirable—the more so, as has already been mentioned, as the main criticism around NDMPs is the worry that they will set a low floor and stifle ambition and innovation, which has always been, in the main, local authority-led. New subsection (5C) might sound definite, final and firm, and therefore intended to reduce conflict—but at what cost? Could there be unintended consequences?

If the Government do not accept that proposal, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, provides a more nuanced response to a very complex issue to allow for a time when the NDMP may not necessarily be “Top Trumps” because it is appropriate in those local circumstances. I believe that the weight of new subsection (5C) does not allow that for that discretion, so we will certainly support that amendment. As to the discussion of the word “significant”, I respectfully suggest that planners, inspectors and litigators have always weighed up, and probably always will weigh up, these words. It is part of their bread and butter, it is what they do all the time, and this will be no exception.

Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is a natural extension of that same logic. She can envisage times when a local plan can and should take precedence, especially if it relates to the additional responsibilities in a larger geographical area. On these Benches, we believe that there is real value in the Government incentivising, encouraging and supporting local authorities to work together to get a larger—and, dare we use the word, regional—spatial strategy of that sort. In effect, we would not want any barriers to be put in the way of that, because there is far more at stake in a local area, such as economic growth, than just meeting housing need.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 192 and 195 are an interesting extension of this dilemma. I wonder whether her Amendment 193 could be logistically challenging, as the Secretary of State would have to actually hear and know about every single challenge and conflict. But the principle of a feedback loop regarding conflicts seems a good one, particularly during a period of transition, as all this will all new and very different territory for everyone. I think we would all like to know where the pinch points and places with the most disagreement are and, more importantly, how they are being resolved. We will be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this thread of feedback, reporting, learning and, presumably, revising.

Amendment 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seems very sensible. If the Bill is, as we hear all the time, to truly make the system a plan-led system, it absolutely makes sense that local plans must and should be up to date. My concern, particularly now, is with the removal of the tilted balance and planning by appeal, plus the supremacy of NDMPs. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise councils to keep their plans up to date? I cannot see how that will be done, as there appears to be no disincentives to do otherwise.

We will support any amendment to insert a process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny, as has been set out in the Planning Act 2008 and is already deemed necessary for national policy statements. If local authorities are rightly required to consult on such policies when preparing local plans today, in future it must be right that Secretaries of State be held to account by the public and Parliament in a similar way. As with national policy statements, we ask that Parliament be required to scrutinise NDMPs and that the public be allowed to consult on proposed changes to them.

There are loads of possible advantages of NDMPs, and there seems to be a general acceptance of this in principle, but the devil will always be in the detail. The unprecedented level of central control for planning that they introduce means that safeguards are needed to maintain local consent. These amendments touch on only a few areas of potential conflict, and we had plenty in the previous group. We have yet to touch on street votes versus local plans, neighbourhood policy statements versus the rest, and—one matter that is starting to come to the fore—the turning of supplementary planning documents into supplementary plans and all that this will entail. Those are debates for another day.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add a short footnote to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and to try to understand in what circumstances the conflict that we have been debating can arise—that is, the conflict between the local plan and the national development management policy.

Page 294 of the Bill—I appreciate that we have not got quite that far yet—describes the process that a local authority must go through when it prepares its local plan. New section 15CA(5) states that:

“In preparing their local plan, a local planning authority must have regard to … any observations or advice received from a person appointed by the Secretary of State … other national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.


If that process has been gone through, the local plan should already be consistent with the national development management policies—it would have been spotted. So is it the case that the only time a conflict can arise is when, subsequent to a conforming local development plan having been adopted, the Government actually change the policy? Is that the only time that a conflict can arise? It cannot arise if a plan has gone through the process under the current NDMP.

Leasehold Charges

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. This is an important issue, particularly for older people who may be considering downsizing. It is just too complex at the moment. That is what we will be dealing with as we move forward, and I thank the noble Lord for all his help in doing so.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the points raised in the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, are, in fact, all covered by very good codes of practice, advice from government and professional bodies. The problem is that there is no enforcement and no sanctions. Evidence from the First-tier Tribunal chamber and the Leasehold Advisory Service shows that this is happening all too often. When will there be a regulator with teeth, as recommended in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Best, or will the Government at least consider making the First-tier Tribunal’s decisions legally binding?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We will certainly have a social housing regulator once we get the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill through the other place and back through here, and I hope that will be as soon as possible. Regarding the noble Baroness’s other concerns, we will have to be patient and wait for the Bill to come forward.

Local Councils: 2023-24 Budgets

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, adult social care has been an issue to be solved for not just this Government but many Governments before them. The Government are putting more money into adult social care. They put £2 billion more into local authority funding this year for it, and we will continue to look for better ways of delivering adult social care, working with the NHS as well.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, according to LGA evidence, without further government intervention 74% of council areas are at risk of losing their local swimming pool or reducing leisure services due to rising fuel costs, and that is this year. Can the Minister explain why the Government’s energy bills discount scheme includes museums and libraries, which is very welcome, but surprisingly excludes public leisure facilities? Can she please check whether the Government were aware of this evidence when they drew up the recent scheme? Will they seriously reconsider classifying pools and leisure centres as energy intensive, as they surely are?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the energy bill relief scheme this winter provides a discount on energy for councils whose bills have been significantly inflated. This scheme was to run until 2023, and in January the Government announced that the energy bills discount scheme would run for a further year, until March 2024. But the noble Baroness opposite is right; I have already asked that question, and when I get an answer, I will come back to her.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by reassuring the House that my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond is not leaving the House. The V next to her name on the speakers’ list stands for virtual, not valedictory.

I thank all the creators of the excellent briefings we received, which are too numerous to list individually. From them it is clear that the Bill carries a huge weight of expectation. It seems as though a lot of these experts —pressure groups, charities and professional bodies—are not convinced that it will ever deliver what it says on the title page, while welcoming many individual aspects, as do we. We believe that this Bill will neither measurably level up nor ensure long-term regeneration, which is regrettable. We on these Benches think it is a missed opportunity to do both. The rhetoric will not match the reality. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, it is like getting a soft Christmas present—you are hoping for a silk scarf but you get socks.

The Bill provides a framework for delivering the Government’s 12 missions for reducing inequality by 2030, but it is a shaky one at best. Someone has definitely failed to look at the instructions for assembly, as it really does not hold together. The Explanatory Notes give us four overarching objectives, but it is hard to see how they live up to the aspirations of the missions. The missions themselves are not part of the Bill—Part 1 sets out how they will be set, monitored and reported on annually but not how they will be effectively delivered and funded.

Let us be candid: aspirations of this breadth and magnitude have failed to a greater or lesser extent under successive Governments over many years. This is a herculean task which we all want to get behind. Our job is to ask the Government what will be different this time. I am certain that we all want to see the missions succeed, but is everything underneath them strong and clear enough to actually deliver? Is there really a cross-government focus on levelling up? After all, you do not fatten a pig by weighing it.

The second objective covers

“the devolution of powers through the creation of a new model of combined county authorities”.

Our view is that devolution should be much more than this, and so the Bill is yet another missed opportunity. It is centralist, with the regions of England controlled out of Whitehall still. It could be argued that it is about delegation with a bit of decentralisation, but it is not what we would call devolution. There is no significant commitment to fiscal devolution, nor to devolving appropriately down to parishes and districts—those closest, after all, to the communities that the Government seek to empower and engage with.

The third objective covers the regeneration of town centres and is probably set to be the most disappointing of all. For levelling up to work in the longer term, it must be about transforming the economic fortunes of left-behind areas. The proposals in the Bill are largely cosmetic quick wins, probably designed to arrive in time for the next election—heaven forbid—and not bold policy solutions to drive regional economic success. As a party, we will continue to work for more transparency in politics. We were particularly concerned at the apparent lack of impartiality in the distribution of the towns fund.

Your Lordships must excuse me while I take a drink: my cancer treatment has side effects, including dry mouth—I am sure lots of noble Lords are familiar with that.

A more attractive high street is important to how residents feel about where they live—I have no doubt about that. But a nice-looking high street will not thrive unless residents have more money in their pockets to spend in it and a reason to go to it. New businesses will not invest in challenging high streets without incentives, including serious reform of business rates and a costed and coherent plan to address wider economic factors. Drab, rundown town centres are a symptom of economic decline. This Bill does not address the root causes of that decline. Giving residents more say in street names and protecting alfresco dining does not quite get the investors’ pulse racing. I admit that proposals for high street rental auctions and compulsory purchases sound interesting, but on closer examination, which we will all surely do, they could well have the opposite effect of decentralising investment —something to scrutinise at the Bill’s next stages.

The fourth objective is the most controversial and has aroused the most comment. The Bill has at its heart the much-heralded planning reforms. We have been inundated with briefings from different organisations about this section, and they have been very revealing and sometimes worryingly contradictory in their interpretation. We will seek clarification on those contradictions.

One major concern is who wins at Top Trumps— the local plan or the proposed national development management policies? Which will the Planning Inspectorate give most weight to? These are really important questions. How will these play out in council chambers and planning offices up and down the country? We will be seeking an unequivocal answer during the passage of the Bill.

The Bill is full of words which are subjective and open to interpretation, such as targets being “advisory”, but what does this actually mean? The word “guidance” pops up a lot. When does guidance mean that you can take it or leave it, it is up to you, and when is it a very strong diktat with punishment for non-compliance, such as the current housing delivery test? The word is very useful when MPs are playing the blame game: “It is not the Government’s fault but the council’s interpretation of the guidance”. We will be seeking clarity on these issues. More seriously, the Bill is peppered with wide-ranging Henry VIII powers, not least the proposals in Part 5 to give the Government extensive powers to change a range of environmental protections, with very limited scrutiny.

One word we would like to see banished from the Bill is “affordable”, in relation to housing. It is meaningless; affordable to whom? Our country needs social housing on a scale not seen for decades, and we will support all measures to ensure that this happens. We are deeply concerned that although one of the missions is restoring pride in place, and talks about community engagement and empowerment, the only solution that is offered to the problem of the second homes and short-term lets which blight parts of the country is a registration scheme. We believe that the Bill could do more to respond to the concerns of these communities.

A new draft of the National Planning Policy Framework is out to consultation at the moment, including the delivery test. The consultation closes in March. The final details of both will be extremely important in the application and interpretation of many of the measures in the Bill. The draft of the NPPF is a serious document which deserves serious scrutiny. It may well, I hope, answer many of our questions and concerns and allay fears, but it may also provoke many more.

We are dismayed by the lack of focus on the role of the planning system in tackling the climate crisis. People living in the most deprived areas are often the most vulnerable to threats from a changing climate, and their homes urgently need to be prioritised for retrofitting. We are not convinced of the Government’s commitment to this, as the rhetoric does not seem to match reality. There is much in this Bill—too much, one could argue—and I am sure that your Lordships are looking forward to getting stuck into the detail, because the devil will be in the detail.

Housebuilding: Government Targets

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think this question was asked last week as well. We are tackling the barriers to increasing use of modern methods of construction in the industry, which are cheaper and quicker to deliver, but it means we have to be joined up so that we have a sustained pipeline for these companies to be able to deliver these important new houses. Through our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme we are challenging the sector to increase the number of homes delivered through this modern method. Around 40% of current allocations made through the programme use modern methods of construction.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Despite the Minister’s very genuine assurances, we are told that housing targets are now advisory, not mandatory, and we know that an increasing number of councils are actually stopping work on their local plans. Indeed, some are withdrawing them. The Secretary of State has said that councils do not need to pass as rigorous a test to get their plans through. Are the Government not now in danger of punishing the majority of councils that have complied with the manifesto and the rules and had their plans adopted, and letting off the hook or even rewarding those that have dragged their heels?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, we are not. The Bill that is starting Second Reading tomorrow in this House will make it very clear that local plans are what are required from local authorities. It is important that they have local plans. Only 40% of local authorities have up-to-date ones at the moment. It is important that all local authorities have up-to-date plans, because the evidence shows that local authorities that do not have a local plan often deliver up to 14% less housing than those that do.

Housing: Private Rented Sector

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend brings up an extremely important point. The Government have always welcomed new institutional investments in the private rented sector and will continue to do so. We have also made a number of interventions to support the build-to-rent sector, such as the build to rent fund and the private rented sector guarantee scheme. Build to rent boosts housing supply and diversifies the private rented sector, but it also increases quality and choice for renters in cities and towns across the country. I will take the noble Lord’s views back to the department, and we will look into this further.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer to the first part of the Question, but does she accept that part of the reduction in supply is due to some landlords choosing the more lucrative Airbnb lettings and platforms, and that the Government’s policy to restrict mortgage interest relief on buy-to-let mortgages has inadvertently contributed to this loss of homes by exempting those lettings from that relief? Will the Government look seriously at this and other tax issues to level the playing field in order to attract landlords back to much-needed longer secure tenancies?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness brings up an important point. We know that this has become more important over the last year. We have committed as a Government to consult on the introduction of a use class for short-term lets; I think that is important. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, this will help local authorities to better control the increase of such uses where landlords seek to use existing homes for short lets, rather than using them for longer lets.

Housing: Cost of Living

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I agree with that. We are seeing some difficulties within the private rented sector because of the issues of the maintenance of these private properties, but also because of the expectations, as the noble Lord said, about the decarbonisation of those properties. That is why we are offering a number of funding streams to SMEs at the moment in order to do that.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, given the Minister’s earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young, will she concede that the Government’s refusal to unfreeze housing benefit and raise the local housing allowance is ignoring a rental crisis that is already unfolding, particularly in the private rented sector, and that consequently this winter homelessness and evictions will increase? Have the Government done an impact assessment of that decision? More importantly, will they now consider a temporary ban on no-fault evictions, as happened during the pandemic?