Renters (Reform) Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the rural private rental sector, as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for her time in briefing me, as well as all the organisations that have also sent me such excellent briefs. I thank all noble Lords who have iterated many of the points that I will make.

I welcome this Bill, including the removal of the sometimes misused Section 21 for the ending of tenancies. The Bill attempts to balance the interests of tenants and landlords, to both improve the letting experience of tenants and to secure the future of the PRS through protecting the possession rights of landlords. The Bill deals with a wide spectrum of industry interests and characteristics, and is principally demand-driven. Sadly, it is unable to address the underlying supply problem of insufficient housing, which has a direct effect on the availability and cost of rental properties—points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and many others. In the five or more years that we have been waiting for the Bill, the supply of rental accommodation has worsened. Hamptons has calculated that there were 43% fewer homes available for tenants to rent in the first 10 months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2015.

Leaving aside the supply of housing, another major challenge facing the Bill is the perceived inadequacy of the court system, which, of course, is not under the control of DLUHC. I would be most grateful if the Minister could assure us that the two ministries involved are united in their efforts to make the necessary reforms.

The abolition of Section 21, under which some unfair evictions have taken place, involves the reform of the court system and the efficiency and timeliness of procedures under Section 8. Although Section 21 notices are now referred to as no-fault evictions, they are typically used for justifiable reasons, including rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, or landlords needing to sell or move back into a property. It is the unjustifiable reasons, such a landlord seeking to up the rent or failing to properly maintain a property, that have brought it into disrepute. Currently, Section 21 is being used as a substitute for other methods to secure possession because it is easier and quicker. Its abolition will add to the court’s workload under Section 8.

The loss of Section 21 notices means the loss of the ability to issue accelerated possession proceedings. There is therefore a practical fear on the part of landlords that, without reform, the courts will be even more overwhelmed and will not be able to deal with cases in a reasonable time. This is a major reason for landlords exiting the sector.

The Government are now committed to abolishing Section 21, but only when reforms are made to the court system, including the need to increase resources and ensure a timelier resolution of justified possession cases. In addition, in order to secure fairness for both tenants and landlords, a properly functioning justice system is essential. This involves access to and funding for housing and legal aid, as well as the courts. Landlords and tenants need to be able to enforce their legal rights in a timely and efficient manner.

Reviews, reports and surveys are all part of the reform process, but there is an absence of published information on the metrics of improvement. This all resembles the age-old question: how long is a piece of string? Please can the Minister give us a timeline, and even consider a drop-dead date, for the abolition of Section 21? What are the parameters for an improved court system?

My other concern is the proposal to make all tenancies assured periodic tenancies. With the abolition of Section 21, there is no need to abolish fixed-term tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies. The Government, by accepting the minimum term of six months, whereby a tenant can serve two months’ notice at the end of the first four-month period, concede the importance of securing landlord and lender confidence to make private renting financially viable. The problem is that, for some tenants and landlords, six months is too short, bearing in mind the favourable terms that can be negotiated under these agreements.

Last year, the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee agreed a strange statement, indicating that

“fixed-term tenancies should remain available where both parties want them, but … given the current shortage of private rental properties, this would likely result in tenants having fixed terms forced on them”.

This is plain wrong. No one is forcing a fixed term on anyone. A landlord cannot and should not be held responsible and suffer for a lack of housing supply that is out of his control. That would be a very good reason for exiting the business, whereas, conversely, the continuation of fixed terms for a year or more would stop more landlords exiting the private sector.

As other noble Lords have said, fixed-term tenancies suit many landlords and private renters, and have the attraction of solid security of tenure that allows the landlord to gain possession in mid-term only in the case of anti-social behaviour and non-payment of rent. If a landlord fails to adhere to his obligations, including the proposed decent homes standard, the tenant should be able to terminate the tenancy with the advice and support of the local authority. This could also be dealt with by amendment to Section 30 of the Housing Act 1988.

Since the late 1980s, ASTs have worked well for most tenants and landlords. They are based on the freedom of contract between consenting parties. The average tenancy length in the most recent English housing survey was 4.3 years. Allowing tenants to fix a longer period that suits them is in a tenant’s best interest—surely a vote of confidence in the system. There is a place for them in the new world, albeit as an option open to both parties if they wish to fix a term rather than accept the new norm of periodic tenancies. At the end of the fixed term, the tenancy would revert to being a periodic tenancy, but surely there should be an option for the landlord and tenant, if they agree, to opt out of this periodic tenancy and agree a further fixed term.

At Third Reading in the other place, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, several Members raised the abolition of ASTs leading to some landlords moving to short-term lets and the holiday-let market. The amendment of the MP for Totness asked for a fixed-term tenancy option, but it was not called, although it had secured 50 signatures of support, as well as a powerful speech at the end of the debate from Sir Christopher Chope regretting the move away from privity of contract. He also warned of the potential loss of housing available to rent and the likely increased cost.

My third major concern with this legislation is much the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but I am pleased to say that the Government have largely accepted that it is a problem: that is, the housing of agricultural and other workers in the rural context, where housing, particularly affordable housing, may be in short supply. Access to affordable accommodation is a key part of rural employment, and we should remember that 85% of rural businesses are not farming or forestry. In Schedule 1 to the Bill there are listed the various grounds for possession, which partly cover my concern, but I will be supporting various amendments to strengthen these clauses, which are so important in the rural economy.

I welcome much that is in the Bill, from the new decent homes standard to the creation of a private rental property portal and an ombudsman scheme that will, I hope, resolve matters that might otherwise go to court. However, student letting requires more amendment, including measures to allow flexibility for students to alter accommodation arrangements during the academic year.

This Bill has many of the right ingredients for reform of the PRS, but there is room for sensible refinement to enable both landlords and tenants to be comfortable at the same time as ensuring that the supply of housing for rent is not threatened but encouraged. In parallel, government should concentrate on housing supply, particularly in the social and affordable sectors, as mentioned by many other noble Lords.

Long-term Plan for Housing

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend makes two very good points. England has a proud history of new town development, and well-planned, beautifully designed, locally led garden communities are playing a vital role in helping to meet our housing need, through providing a stable pipeline of new homes. The Garden Communities programme supports local authorities to build places that people are happy to call their home. That programme was launched in 2014, and has awarded over £58 million of capacity funding to assist places to deliver their proposals for housing. A further £12 million has also been invested to deliver the infrastructure critical to unblock the delivery of homes. The 47 locally led garden communities have the capacity to deliver over 300,000 new homes by 2050. That is something that the Government absolutely continue to support.

The number of planning consents being down was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. When it comes to the wider conditions in the housing market, we recognise that this is a challenging time. The broader economic conditions we face due to very high levels of inflation, and the high interest rates that are in place to bring that down, make it harder for people to get on the housing ladder. That is why this Government have been focused, laser-like, on tackling inflation. We met our commitment last year to halve the level of inflation, and are back on the road to the Bank of England’s 2% target. That is the most effective way in which we can make sure that people are able to afford their mortgages and access the housing market in the way they wish to. But there are also important things that we can do—for example, ensuring that our affordable housing programme continues throughout this period to provide more stability and certainty in terms of the pipeline of new homes while it is a difficult market out there for housebuilders.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister, following on from the question from the right reverend Prelate, about the certificates—the EPCs? We have had a problem and a review on EPC measurement. Could she let us know where we are on that review?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Carrington]

246: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Compulsory purchase orders: duty of care(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, publish a duty of care which applies to acquiring authorities involved in compulsory purchase orders, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(2) The duty of care must involve, but is not limited to, obligations on the acquirer to—(a) only acquire the land they demonstrate is necessary,(b) mitigate the impact of the scheme on claimants,(c) pay for the land taken at date of entry or vesting, and(d) ensure that all communication with the claimant is conducted in accordance with the Government’s guidance on compulsory purchase orders.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will introduce a duty of care that considers the impacts on rural businesses when their land is acquired through compulsory purchase orders.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in landownership as set out in the register.

Somewhat reluctantly, I am retabling the amendment from Committee stage, despite the very helpful response that I received from the Minister. Amendment 246, which I propose with the support of my noble friend Lord Lytton and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, involves the Secretary of State establishing a statutory duty of care setting out the obligations of the acquiring authority in a compulsory purchase situation. That would strengthen the obligation of the acquirer to consider, and possibly reduce, the impact of a compulsory purchase proposal on the claimant, their property and their business. The intention is to safeguard owners against the excesses of the acquiring authorities, many of which are large companies or government bodies.

The Minister, in her response, pointed to the guidance that is already in place for acquiring authorities to treat claimants with respect by undertaking early negotiations to identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the proposed schemes’ impact on land- owners. However, although the guidance is there, it really needs strengthening due to the lack of resources at acquiring authority level to understand fully and implement that guidance. A duty of care resulting from a statutory instrument will give a greater level of protection to those under threat of compulsory purchase and ensure that the acquiring authority considers it as a matter of first priority.

I cannot emphasize enough the appalling experience that greets the property owner affected by compulsory purchase. Some lose their whole property, while many others lose only a proportion, but the whole property suffers from the impacts of construction, which may go on for many years or decades, with the owner having to maintain a viable business throughout that time.

The acquirers’ responsibility is to compensate the land or business owner for their loss, but this is nearly always paid after the land has been taken, in some cases many years thereafter. This delay only adds to the loss. Anyone who has been affected by HS2, which includes me, knows exactly what I mean.

Property owners who are affected by compulsory purchase feel that their interests are often ignored by acquirers keen to deliver the scheme together with any environmental mitigation but with little consideration for the person or business that occupies that land. The statutory duty of care to consider and mitigate the impact on landowners and businesses impacted by the scheme, on top of government guidance on compulsory purchase, would rebalance the interests of delivering the scheme and reduce the impact. It would not delay or prevent schemes and could assist them by avoiding legal battles on interpretation of the guidance. It would also ensure that impacts on property owners and businesses are considered as a key part of the scheme, rather than being an afterthought considered only when compensation is due sometime later.

I hope the Minister will accept that this is a constructive amendment, designed to take much of the aggravation out of compulsory purchase while enabling sensible schemes to progress with greater consideration of the interests and livelihood of the owner. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and am a signatory to this amendment. I commend him for his succinct explanation. I also have land interests and some professional familiarity with compulsory purchase.

I have very little to add, but I simply say that the use of CPO powers, and the number of bodies exercising them directly or indirectly, is expanding. It risks subsuming the interests of the individual owner from whom rights are being compulsorily wrested. Some acquiring bodies have overriding commercial objectives, possibly only indirectly aimed at the promotion of public best interest, and I think we should be aware of that. Moreover, many of the safeguards built into the processes when they were used by what I will call the traditional acquiring authorities—for instance, government agencies, local government and so on—seem no longer to be entirely honoured in spirit. That is very important, particularly as we have an expanded use of CPO powers.

The amendment is thus a natural, logical and necessary safeguard for owners who are subject to these powers. They would, inter alia, deal with the evils of entry and taking of land without concurrent payment of compensation. That arrangement leaves a claimant on the back foot in negotiations, prejudiced financially and reorganising their affairs. Failure to adhere to the principles behind this amendment suggests a material erosion of the protocols that are familiar to us under the Human Rights Act—for the reasonable enjoyment of a citizen’s property not to be deprived without due process and for the rules-based system. That is why I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment would add duplication and complexity to the CPO process, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives. I trust I have given the House reassurance that Amendment 246 is unnecessary and that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is able to withdraw it.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I am delighted to receive that response from the Minister. I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate for the general support that I appear to have received from everybody who has spoken. It all comes down to the guidance and the enforcement of that guidance, and it is particularly welcome to hear that the update is currently under way. I think we will all look forward to seeing how that pans out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 246 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said, in introducing the amendments, that they were carefully targeted and specific. With great respect to her, she could scarcely have chosen less appropriate adjectives for the Henry VIII clause that she seeks to introduce through Amendment 247YY. It is astonishingly broad, even by modern standards, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope said. To give the House a flavour, it allows the Secretary of State to make any provision that they consider “appropriate” about the operation of any relevant enactment connected to the effects of nutrients and water that could affect a habitat’s site. Relevant enactments include all Acts of Parliament, including the future one we are debating today.

I will add a few other points on that clause to those made by my noble and learned friend. The Delegated Powers Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, has stated that such broad Henry VIII powers must always be fully justified—all the more so, one might think, when they are introduced at the last moment without any public consultation or parliamentary scrutiny. The committee also said that inadequate justification for such exceptionally wide powers had been given and recommended, in terms, that this clause should not form part of the Bill.

The position has not improved since then. The explainer circulated on Monday had nothing to say about the clause at all, although I and others raised it with Ministers last week. In fairness, the Minister said that she had written to the committee today, but the letter did not appear on its website when I checked 10 minutes ago, and I have no reason to suppose that the committee has changed its mind.

We cannot get into the habit of passing clauses such as this one without the clearest and most compelling reasons for them. This clause may have been conceived as a fail-safe in hastily prepared legislation, but its effect is to abdicate the influence of Parliament altogether over substantial and important areas of policy. Why would we sign up to that? The Minister undertook that these delegated powers would be used sparingly, and I do not doubt her good intentions. However, with respect to her, no such undertaking can have any value when the clause will expire not in this Parliament or the next, but in the Parliament after that, on 31 March 2030. I see every reason to follow the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee and to vote against the addition of the amendment.

There is a practical, as well as a constitutional, reason why I propose to vote against the amendment. If those who wish to oppose the main amendment—Amendment 247YYA—are successful, they will also need to exclude this clause because, if we do not, the powers that it grants will be quite broad enough to allow the Government simply to reintroduce the substantive measures by secondary legislation, or indeed to do anything else that they might wish to do in this general area, without Parliament having the power to amend it or, in practice, to block it. As I said, that is true not only of this Government but of the next Government and the one after that.

I was relieved to hear that my noble and learned friend Lord Hope will not press his probing amendment, because, as he said, it is inadequate to meet the problems identified by the Delegated Powers Committee. Like him, I am not content with Amendment 247YY and, if it is put to a Division, I will vote to exclude it.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming as set out in the register. I will add one or two comments to those made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Parminter and Lady McIntosh, on the progress made on nutrient neutrality, its effect on the farming community and the wish not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

It appears that the Government are concerned that the speed of the supply of mitigation options is holding up planning consents. Has the Minister considered the possibility of delaying the requirement for developers to have nutrient mitigation in place to a defined date after build, rather than before building commences, as is currently the case? This would ensure that existing processes and tools are kept in place and not wasted, and that those who have invested in mitigation schemes are not left with stranded assets—for example, many local planning authorities have purchased land and farmers have invested heavily in feasibility and planning works. In maintaining the emphasis on requiring developers to fund the measures, the essence is that the polluter must pay.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I associate myself with the remarks made in a very fine speech by my noble friend Lord Deben. We entered the other place on the same day, in June 1970—I have been here continuously since, and my noble friend was briefly absent from the other place for a year or so. I think that we both feel exactly the same: a deep sense of shame that the Conservative Party should behave like this. I thought that I had got over feeling ashamed after the two last disastrous Conservative Prime Ministers. I have a great feeling of support for our present Prime Minister, but I am deeply saddened. It must be because he does not have the long parliamentary experience to see how Parliament should be treated by the Executive. This is no way to legislate.

On this extraordinary Bill, I pay genuine tribute to the stamina and energy of my noble friend the Minister. If anyone ever drew a short straw, she drew a whole packet full and got one free. She has behaved impeccably, but she has been landed with something that no Minister should be landed with: a Bill, at its very last stage, being added to in such a way without proper consultation or discussion.

This does not need to part of this Bill. If the Government believe there is a problem over house building and the environment, it can bring in another Bill in the King’s Speech that can have a proper Second Reading in the other place. It will not get scrutiny in the other place; Bills do not get it there these days. It could then go through all the necessary processes and be through before the end of the next parliamentary session.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership, as set out in the register.

The reason for retabling Amendment 221 is to question the Minister on her response in Committee. I thoroughly understand that permissions in principle are currently used only in respect of housing developments. She explained that our National Planning Policy Framework strongly supports policies and decisions to promote sustainable development in rural areas and support a prosperous rural economy. She confirmed that local plans and neighbourhood plans should enable the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses.

However, many question the noble Baroness’s rather negative assessment of the amendment’s utility in creating rural economic development. I would be most grateful if she could expand on why it is unnecessary and would not work. My point is that although the National Planning Policy Framework strongly supports policies and decisions to promote sustainable development in rural areas, the planning system is so underresourced that it is not filtering through into local decision-making. It therefore seems highly desirable that the permission in principle route is extended to rural economic development and not just housing.

Let me reiterate the purpose and advantages of permissions in principle in the rural business context. The rural economy is 19% less productive than the national average, and for this gap to be closed, the countryside needs more rural economic development so that it can grow sustainably. Businesses are put off submitting planning applications to grow their businesses because of the risk of putting capital up front with an uncertain outcome. Planning applications are costly, risky and take a lot of time to submit.

The permission in principle route splits a planning application into two stages: the first stage is high level and sets out the principle of the development to be approved by the planners. The second stage, which involves the cost, is to confirm the technical details. Extending the permission in principle to rural economic development reduces the resources required to process applications and creates certainty as to what is required at the technical stage.

In her response in Committee, the Minister agreed to take the issue back and consider with officials how we can strengthen economic development in those rural areas. Perhaps the new discussion of this amendment will encourage her further to grant this request. If more applications were submitted and approved for rural economic development, businesses would grow, creating more employment opportunities and adding more to local rural economies. This sounds like an easy win in the levelling-up process.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, before making a point about the amendment, I acknowledge that my noble friend on the Front Bench rightly feels a little blindsided by it. I apologise to her for that. I am a newbie on the Back Benches and I clearly have much to learn about the process here. In my defence, I shared my plans and the wording of the amendment with my friend the Secretary of State who, I am pleased to say, was excited by much of the contents, although not all of it.

I will be brief because this proposal is relatively simple and, in many respects, speaks for itself. Before I describe it, I will heap praise and thanks on a campaigner who is simply formidable. I am pleased that she is in the Gallery today, probably holding a swift box. Hannah Bourne-Taylor has single-handedly made what for many people appears to be a niche concern into a national campaign—not least by walking naked through London painted as a swift and causing quite a stir, as noble Lords can imagine. She has turned this into a national cause. It is because of her that this amendment exists.

Back in 2002 the British Trust for Ornithology cited the loss of cavity nesting sites as the key factor in the decline of cavity-nesting urban birds. Since then, four species—house martins, starlings, swifts and house sparrows—have been added to the dreaded red list of species of particular concern that, crudely speaking, face extinction. Worst hit among them are house martins. When I was preparing my notes, I was going to say that there has been a 37% decline, but I have since discovered that the figure is even worse at 50%. Swifts too have suffered horrifically; their breeding population declined by 60% between 1995 and 2020. That number continues to sink.

Despite broad agreement, not just in this place or the other place but across the whole country, that the UK—one of the most nature-depleted countries on the planet—requires urgent action or to introduce emergency measures to turn around these trends, the reality is that nothing of any real substance has yet been done. The problem, as noble Lords no doubt know well, is that sites for cavity-nesting creatures such as swifts have simply been lost. It is not because of evil or malign intent but because of repairs, house modernisation and even insulation—something of which we all in this House would like to see much more.

This simple proposal to include swift bricks in new builds is key. It is not just about providing a supporting hand to a species in trouble; it is critical, indeed essential. Modern new-build homes are simply not designed to accommodate nature. Swifts in particular rely completely on cavities, as noble Lords know. Without those, there are no safe or permanent nesting sites for them in Britain. Without manmade cavities in this sense, those birds have no future in this country. It is crazy, and something I learned only recently, that the simple swift brick is not even included in the biodiversity net gains metric.

The amendment that we are here to discuss today could not be much simpler. The swift brick is a zero-maintenance solution. It is just a brick in a wall that can be added to a building as any other brick could. For a refurb or a new build, it is cheap; it costs £30 or thereabouts. We know that they work because, wherever they have been tried and installed, they have worked. Surveys conducted on, for example, the Duchy estates, where swift bricks have been installed in numerous buildings, have resulted in a staggering 96% occupancy rate. Even that number continues to grow.

Obviously, not all the bricks are used by swifts. I have heard that as one of the counterarguments—“What about other creatures using these boxes?”—to which my answer is, “So what?”. Heaven forbid that a house sparrow might decide to use one of these swift boxes. Who would not be filled with joy at the prospect? It just seems to me to be such a non-argument as to almost not merit discussion.

If this amendment is adopted—I really beseech colleagues to support it—and it becomes national policy to ensure installation of these magical, simple, cheap bricks in all new homes, it will not only help counter the tragic loss of cavity-nesting birds but directly help the Government themselves meet what are, let us remember, legally binding targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2030. This measure has unanimous support—not all measures do—from ornithologists, all of whom agree and have gone to great lengths to explain that there is no downside.

By the way, swifts do not eat vegetation; they eat insects. They particularly enjoy mosquitoes and eat mountainous volumes of them, so there is yet another bonus to encouraging swifts in and around our homes. I am told that they also do not leave droppings; there is a reason for that, which I will not go into. I am sure that the expert up in the Gallery will know, but they do not leave droppings underneath their nest boxes. They tidy up—I will tell noble Lords what they do; they eat them, I am afraid, probably to recycle the mineral content. I do not know why, but for whatever reason they remove them. They are very tidy, conscientious and thoughtful creatures.

This amendment is also flexible for developers. Those I have heard from are all supportive. One major housebuilder, Thakeham, has actively appealed for an industry-wide commitment. Very recently the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss voted to include swift bricks in all new builds. In the Netherlands, swift bricks are already installed as a mitigation measure.

There have been suggestions, and I understand where they have come from, that this should be a voluntary measure. I get that; no one wants excessive bureaucracy and mandates. But I am afraid we know that this has not worked. It is not through lack of caring: who does not want to see swifts flying in and around—maybe not in—their homes and gardens? Who does not feel better, frankly, when they have greater proximity to nature?

In fact, a petition that was initiated by Hannah in the Gallery attracted 110,000 signatures—

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 139, to which I have added my name. I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority and vice-chair of the APPG for National Parks.

As we discussed in Committee and as the noble Baroness has eloquently introduced today, the amendment addresses the legislative deficit identified right back in 2019 by the Government-commissioned Landscapes Review, which was chaired by Julian Glover. The review identified the huge potential of national parks to deliver the Government’s ambitions for nature recovery, but it also recognised that, as currently constituted, national parks are restricted in the role that they can play and the interventions that they can make.

At the time, the Government accepted the vast majority of the review’s proposals. They also made it clear that they understood that it would require legislation, and we have been waiting for that legislation ever since. This matters, because the national parks and other protected landscapes have a critical role to play in meeting the COP 15 and environmental improvement plan targets of delivering 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. As we know, and as we can realise, that is an increasingly desperate challenge, given our low starting point and with only seven years left to reach that target.

It makes absolute sense to start with the sites that can be upgraded relatively quickly. Protected landscapes cover about 25% of land in England, and they are the obvious place to start if we are serious about delivering the targets. There is widespread support for this approach from the national parks themselves and from the environmental NGOs. We also heard in Committee that a number of eminent scientists and advisers also support this approach.

This Bill was identified by the Government some time ago as the best vehicle for making these changes, so it has been a huge source of frustration that the issues have not been progressed in it. It is now four years since the Landscapes Review report and 18 months since the Government’s response. The irony is that there is—apart from the noble Baroness’s contribution just now—widespread agreement about what needs to be done and the statutory underpinning that is necessary.

Our amendment would give national parks and AONBs new purposes to actively recover nature, tackle climate change and connect more diverse groups to nature. Crucially, it would strengthen the duty on public bodies not just to have regard to those purposes but to further them. That might sound like semantics, but it is a huge difference in terms of statutory obligations. We have seen all too often in the past that “having regard to” is not taken seriously by other public bodies and allows them to ride roughshod over the priorities of the national parks. I shall give a quick example: it allowed National Highways, when drawing up its proposals for the A27 Arundel bypass, to say it had “had regard to” the South Downs National Park’s objections without demonstrating how that had in any way impacted on its eventual recommendations. There are many more such examples. The point is that the current requirement to “have regard to” is not having any effect. Our amendment would make sure that the targets and actions of public bodies’ management further the purposes that we are now proposing, and indeed are published.

When we discussed this issue in Committee, there was huge cross-party support. In his response at the time, the Minister referred to strengthening the biodiversity duty on public bodies such as national parks and the ambitious environmental targets that have been set. However, what is the point of piling obligations and targets on national parks when they do not have the authority to deliver on them?

The Minister also suggested that the new guidance arising from the Environment Act would deliver the Glover review objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has done a very good demolition job on how ridiculous that is, given the wording of the guidance that has come out so far.

If there is a problem with our amendment, can the Minister tell us what it is that he does not like about it? I contend that it is completely in line with the Government’s thinking and their own response to the landscape review. Meanwhile, we are running out of road and out of time to resolve this issue. I hope the Minister has some good news for us today and the Government plan to back our amendment or come back with their own amendment which would achieve the same objectives.

I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on her intention to introduce a third purpose. I found it slightly ironic that she criticised us for adding new purposes to the national parks, given that she has now come up with a different one. You cannot have it both ways. However, I have some sympathy with her argument about rural communities. In fact, the government response to the original landscape review stressed that. We agree that support for rural communities is important, but a new statutory purpose is not the way to achieve it. An economic third purpose would duplicate the roles of the economic development bodies and the local partnership authorities, which already have this responsibility, so I question the direction the noble Baroness is going in.

More importantly, I am anxious to hear the Minister’s response, and I hope he has some good news for us this evening.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership as set out in the register. I am also a farmer and landowner in the Chilterns AONB.

I am enthusiastic in my support for Amendments 272 and 273, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I have considerable reservations about Amendment 139. This is due to the experience of how changes in the financial support of farming have affected the profitability of farming in marginal land and the consequent need for diversification of farming businesses in the Chilterns AONB—and probably in all the others. Farming is not the only business in these areas. I cannot give precise figures, but nationally, 23% of all businesses are based in the countryside and 85% of these are not in farming or forestry.

The inclusion of these two amendments would ensure that promoting the economic and social well-being of local communities and businesses in national parks and AONBs is assured. These amendments are not limited to business but cover concerns that arise about the provision of affordable and small-scale housing developments in villages, as well as community facilities and the like. Failure to promote and allow economic and social progress in these areas will also encourage people to go ahead with unapproved activities in their buildings, which could be both damaging and short-sighted for the community and themselves. These amendments would not undermine the existing purposes but strengthen the first purpose and reduce the risk of continuing the existing one-dimensional approach, which prevents the diversification that could feed into the financial resource required to conserve and enhance these landscapes and ensure overall sustainability.

Businesses that produce natural landscapes need to evolve to adapt to the challenges of climate change and migration to the countryside, as do the land managers who deliver nature recovery. Environmental considerations currently overrule economic and social decision-making, resulting in a lack of a sustainable flow of funds for businesses. This is weakening the current recovery of nature and the aim of connecting more people to the natural world and tackling climate change.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I support the other amendments in this group, but I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for pointing out that the “geographical disparities” referred to in his amendment will cover disparities between urban and rural areas. It is those disparities that have led me to table the two amendments in my name—Amendments 10 and 303—and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his support.

Only yesterday, the Rural Coalition produced a document urging all political parties to do more to help rural areas. The document, A Better Future for Rural England, called for a sea-change in the way rural areas are perceived and treated. It argues that achieving the economic and social growth envisaged

“will only prove possible if there is a sustained implementation effort led by central Government and made across Whitehall departments. Much of that effort will need to focus upon addressing the structural inequalities, fragile infrastructure and economic weaknesses which characterise and hold back rural areas”.

Sadly, calls to give rural areas a better deal are not new. For example, in 2015 the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, was commissioned by the Government to review the way in which the development of government policies took account of rural communities. Responding to his recommendations, the then Secretary of State, Liz Truss, said:

“This Government is committed to ensuring the interests of rural communities and businesses are accounted for within our policies and programmes”.


Subsequently, the Government produced a booklet called Rural Proofing: Practical Guidance to Consider Impacts of Policies on Rural Areas. It was updated recently and part of the update states:

“It is important that government policies consider how they can be delivered in rural areas”.


The booklet explains:

“This document helps policy makers and analysts in government to consider how to achieve the outcomes they want from their policies in rural areas. This is called rural proofing”.


In 2019, I chaired one of your Lordships’ Select Committees on the rural economy. One of our key recommendations was that rural proofing should be beefed up even further. The Government actually said they were going to do that and then said that they were going to produce a report about how they were doing it every two years. On the basis of all that, one would expect that by now rural areas would be faring at least as well as urban areas or at least were well on the way.

Sadly, the reality is incredibly different. There is a huge disparity in the cost of living between urban and rural areas. In rural areas, house prices are higher but wages are lower. Council taxes are higher, but government support for their councils is lower. Funding per head on many services, from healthcare to public transport, is lower but it costs more to provide those services. From broadband coverage to banking, rural areas lag way behind urban ones.

Only today, many noble Lords will have received a briefing from the NFU on rural crime, which states:

“The NFU recognise that crime is crime wherever it takes place. However, rural crime is very different from urban crime. The scale, cost, social impact, and other effects of crime in rural areas are underestimated, under-reported and not fully understood”.


The briefing noted, for example, that the current funding formula means that in the area where I live, Suffolk, we get £114 per resident from the Home Office grant, whereas if you go to Merseyside, you get £217. So the Rural Services Network, using government metrics, concluded that if all rural areas were brought together and treated as a single region, their need for levelling up would be greater than for any other region. But to make matters worse, Defra has produced its rural proofing report. Indeed, its most recent one, the 2022 report, amazingly and despite its title provides no evidence whatever of rural proofing procedures outlined in the guidance being followed. The Rural Services Network concluded:

“Nowhere … is anything evidenced anywhere to show if these processes were followed”.


During our deliberations, I asked on two separate occasions whether a Minister could tell me whether those rural proofing processes were carried out in relation to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have had no response. Now, in fairness, various Ministers have attempted to allay my fears. For instance, when I last raised it, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, responded with three examples of very good things that the Government have done. First, she was very proud to boast of the £110 million rural England prosperity fund, failing to point out that that is simply a continuation of the previous scheme, the EU structural investment programme fund. So there is no extra money there.

Then we had the great example of the extended subsidy scheme for buses—£250 million, of which £20 million is going to the whole of rural England, whereas £20 million will be given for bus priority measures in just the West Midlands, and £50 million for the first all-electric bus town. But the ultimate example that I was given was that I should be really pleased that the Government had given some rural energy support—extra funding for rural areas. But when you analyse it, what is that? That is for the nearly 1 million people who are off the gas and electricity grid, who predominantly live in rural areas. And what happened? They got the extra money ages after the previous scheme had been introduced. They had to wait for a lifetime for it. Surely that is real evidence of rural proofing not having taken place.

So I hope I might get an answer to the question today of how the Bill has been rurally proofed. If not, we can fall back on the two amendments that I have put down. Amendment 303 simply requires that that answer be provided before the Act is implemented. Amendment 10 deals with mission statements and seeks to embed rural proofing in them, requiring

“a rural proofing report detailing the ways in which the levelling-up missions have regard to their impact on rural areas and will address the needs of rural communities”.

That is a pretty simple request, given that it is meant to be government policy anyway.

I believe it makes sense to take the steps outlined in these amendments, to make meaningful rural proofing a fundamental part of all levelling-up policy development, delivery and outcomes monitoring. Ideally, I would like to go even further, as they have already done in Northern Ireland, where rural proofing is on a much stronger legal footing. But that is perhaps for another day.

I hope we will not have to take these two amendments to a vote, because I hope we are going to get an answer to the question that I am now asking for the third time.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my rural interests as set out in the register. It gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on Amendment 10, as well as consequential Amendment 303. As he has said, he has been deeply involved in promoting rural issues for many years. Although progress has been made, in particular with the recent publication of the report Unleashing Rural Opportunity, there is a long way to go to address the disparity in productivity between urban and rural areas, which can differ by as much as 18%. We need to take into account issues such as housing, connectivity, transport and energy costs and it seems clear that, economically and socially, there is much more to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned many of the reports that have been written and the actions that have followed. I add two reports from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Rural Business and the Rural Powerhouse, on which I sit. One was an inquiry into rural productivity and the rural premium, which explored the impact of the cost of living crisis in rural areas, the other an inquiry into rural productivity. Many organisations whose remit involves rural affairs contributed to these reports, including the CPRE, the CLA, the NFU, the Rural Services Network, the Federation of Small Businesses, Citizens Advice’s Rural Issues Group and many more.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

We must not forget that these three amendments lie at the heart of the Government’s responsibilities to their citizens: a place to live in relative safety. This is a crisis, and it is in the Government’s gift to prioritise it in the Bill by adopting Amendment 341. I ask the Minister to agree to these amendments to prioritise affordable housing as a fast track to solving the crisis.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I declare my rural interests.

My particular angle of support relates to the importance of the provision of sufficient rural affordable housing, which is a huge gap in housing provision, as identified in two reports from the APPG for Rural Business and the Rural Powerhouse, of which I declare my membership. These reports concentrated on levelling up in the countryside and the impact of the cost of living crisis in rural areas.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Forgive me; I may be mistaken, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was here at the start of this debate on the last occasion.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I was.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I apologise; the noble Lord is not in my notes. I will accept his word that he was.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

Citizens Advice and others have pointed to provision of rural housing being a growing problem and a significant barrier to the rural economy, as the average house price can be up to 10% of average earnings, compared with 7.4% in urban areas, excluding London.

Navigating the planning system has always been a problem in rural areas, and larger building providers have been the most successful. CPRE, the countryside charity, has pointed out that successful housing applications tended to be in a very narrow segment of the market—the upper to middle end, which does not favour renters, first-time buyers and affordable housing.

The Government are prioritising the development of brownfield sites, which is certainly laudable, but 87% of these are in urban areas and often in the south-east. However, the economic impact of small developments and, in particular, affordable housing in rural communities can make a huge difference in supporting businesses and communities in terms of employment and other activities. It would also assist with the growing problem of rural homelessness, as identified by Shelter and other charities.

These amendments make strategic housing and market assessments of affordable housing compulsory, and influencing the rate of the infrastructure levy would be of great benefit to the sensible provision of affordable housing in rural areas.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I want briefly to refer to the clause stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and I for a probing purpose. Clause 126 has the effect of retaining the community infrastructure levy in London and Wales, but I will not talk about Wales. We are leaving Wales out of it for these purposes. The clause retains the community infrastructure levy in London, alongside the introduction of the infrastructure levy. I understand that that is essentially because the mayoral CIL has been used for the provision of Crossrail and is expected to do so for years to come.

However, it has raised in our minds a question to ask my noble friend the Minister about whether the community infrastructure levy, which of course does not provide for affordable housing, can live alongside the infrastructure levy for a number of years. The technical consultation, which is to be concluded on 9 June, does not explain how the respective contributions are to be assessed in a combined fashion because they apply to different parameters of the development. That leads to the assumption that with a 10-year transition we are looking at many places across the country with a combination of community infrastructure levy obligations that have arisen in relation to developments over a number of years and past developments, alongside the introduction of the infrastructure levy. The technical consultation, to my reading, does not help us understand how these two things are going to be meshed together. Of course, many noble Lords tabled their amendments in this group before the technical consultation was published. It answers some of the questions, but not all of them, and I think this is one question that it does not quite answer.

Another question occurred to me while reading the technical consultation in relation to affordable housing. It does not yet provide certainty about whether contributions under the infrastructure levy may be regarded as an improvement on the situation where developers are able to negotiate or renegotiate their liabilities under Section 106. Developers are not engaging in negotiations simply because they can and therefore they do and local authorities do not give way simply because they ask for it. Circumstances change.

I am always burned by the fact of the October 2008 crash. In the space, literally, of weeks, the economic viability of many large-scale development projects changed dramatically. If you look at any system, including this system, and it cannot meet the test of what you would do under those circumstances, I am afraid it does not help. Renegotiation of the contributions is one solution. It might be said that if the market price and the gross development value of a large site crash in the way they did in October 2008, the infrastructure levy crashes as well. The problem then is: how is the affordable housing going to be funded? How is the other infrastructure to be funded?

I do not have answers to all these things, but my noble friend and I will perhaps have an opportunity in the next group to talk a bit more substantively about the infrastructure levy and what we might do about it, but that does not answer the question. If affordable housing presently often suffers by being a residual after other Section 106 obligations have been met, and if under the infrastructure levy it becomes, in effect, a right to require and it is elevated above other requirements, there will be a great deal of difficulty in local communities about the fact that there are many other obligations that the infrastructure levy has to meet that may not be able to be met if the gross development value comes down or if, for example, the affordable housing right to require and the tenures that have to be provided lead to a much higher cumulative discount needing to be paid. We have to have some flexibility built into the system, and the risk at the moment is that that is not presently available in the way that we have understood it in the past. We can strengthen local authorities, and in the next group I hope we can talk about how that might be possible.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Carrington]

292: After Clause 123 insert the following new Clause—
“Duty of care(1) It is the duty of any body using compulsory purchase to act fairly towards the owner of any property being acquired and any claimant of compensation.(2) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice specifying how the duty in subsection (1) is to be discharged.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that legislative provision for compulsory purchase, and the actions of the acquirer, always achieve a correct balance between the interest of the state and that of the property-owning individual.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my rural interests as set out in the register. My Amendment 292 would establish a statutory duty of care that makes the acquirer consider and possibly reduce the impact of a compulsory purchase proposal on the claimant, their property and their business. The intention is to safeguard property owners against the excesses of acquiring authorities, many of which are large, commercial and profitable companies or government bodies. HS2 comes to mind in this respect: stories of its excessive use of compulsory purchase powers are numerous in the part of Buckinghamshire in which I live.

Property owners are affected by compulsory purchase in many ways. Some lose their whole property. Many lose only a proportion of their property but have to suffer the impacts of construction for many years or decades, having to maintain a viable business throughout that time.

The acquirer’s responsibility is to compensate the landowner or business owner for their loss. This is nearly always paid after the land has been taken, and in some cases many years after. This delay only adds to the loss. Many property owners affected by compulsory purchase feel that their interests are ignored by acquirers keen to deliver the scheme, together with any environmental mitigation, but with little consideration for the person or business that may have occupied that area for generations. For an individual, this really is David and Goliath.

A statutory duty of care to consider and mitigate the impact on landowners and businesses affected by the scheme would rebalance the interests of delivering the scheme and reduce the impact. A duty of care would not delay or prevent schemes but it would ensure that the impacts on property owners and businesses are considered as a key part of the scheme, rather than being an afterthought considered only when compensation is due some time later.

The Secretary of State will have to justify how this duty of care is delivered, but an appeal to an independent person or ombudsman would give the proposal legal force. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this constructive amendment designed to take much of the aggravation out of compulsory purchase while enabling sensible schemes to progress with considerations of the interests and livelihoods of the owner.

Moving on in this group, I now call for the deletion, or at least complete redrafting, of Clauses 174 and 175, as well as government Amendment 412D, which proposes a new clause after Clause 175. The compulsory purchase provisions contained in these three clauses are immensely complicated to the layman, including myself, so I will contain my remarks to an overview and the principles at stake. In opening this debate, I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness how these clauses relate to the Law Commission’s review into compulsory purchase reform, as it seems odd to be legislating before receiving the outcome.

By way of background to these clauses, the Government in June 2022 initiated a consultation process largely covering the contents of the clauses. We finally received the Government’s response to those consultations last week, some nine months after the close of the consultation. Under consultation principles the response should be within four months. Please also consider the fact that this Bill was introduced to the other place in May last year. What was the point of the consultation if the Government had already decided what to do?

Broadly speaking, the comments are highly diverse and no consensus was reached on any of the questions, and the negative and “not sure” views were the majority in most cases. The main comments highlight issues such as unfairness created by a two-tier property market, the vague definition of public interest, absence of clarity leading to additional costs and delays, human rights, mental health and stress, the European Convention, and potential wider effects on housing developments.

The clauses bring into question the long-held principle that anyone forced to sell land should expect to be put in the same position as would be the case if the land had not been taken from him. In other words, he should be paid market value. The purpose of Clause 174 is to cap the cost of acquiring land for affordable housing in a compulsory purchase situation by eliminating “hope value” in certain defined circumstances through the use of directions by the Secretary of State. I quote:

“In assessing the value of land … it is to be assumed that no planning permission would be granted for development on the relevant land”.


In other words, the value would be existing use rather than market value, which might incorporate hope value, which is the value attributed to the expectation of development in the future. This market value currently applies to any purchaser, whether compulsory purchase or a commercial sale. In the case of compulsory purchase, any hope value included in the purchase price paid would have to be justified and have sound basis, as it can be challenged at a tribunal.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell]

I speak to Amendment 285AA, which refers to Clause 123. It is by way of a probing amendment, and I would have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, had he been here, that the missing quarter last time was about how probing or speculative it was. I make no secret of the fact that mine is a probing amendment. The first few lines of Clause 123 were the red flag that made me put down this amendment. It reads:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments and modifications of the relevant enactments as in the Secretary of State’s opinion facilitate, or are otherwise desirable”.


There follows a long list of things to which the Secretary of State may, if in their opinion it is useful, make changes. It is another clause with very wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State, and the purpose of giving them to the Secretary of State is not at all transparent.

What is perhaps relevant, and is certainly the reason for tabling the amendment, is that subsection (7) contains some exceptions. It reads:

“Regulation under this section must not make any provision which is within”—


Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland,

“unless that provision is a restatement of provision or is merely incidental”

and so on. It is a clause with wide-ranging powers which do not apply in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, unless, again, the Secretary of State has the opinion that they are a restatement or merely incidental.

My amendment removes the exceptions to that, so there is proper devolution to the three national legislative bodies in those three nations, and adds a fourth exception to the application of the clause, which is for combined mayoral authorities. I could have added a whole lot more as well, but the amendment is in the spirit of devolution and making sure that we do not allocate to the Secretary of State powers which are not needed and which, in the hands of a different Secretary of State, might be abused or misused and might have unforeseen bad consequences.

I want to hear in clear terms from the Minister: why we need the clause at all; why it has to be in such wide-ranging terms; and, with regard to the exceptions for the three national Administrations, why even within that, there is an exception built in which allows him or her to impose powers. Why does he not take the opportunity to make devolution in England mean something more substantial by saying that, in combined mayoral authorities, such powers as may be needed in Clause 123 may be exercised within that authority and not simply cascaded down from Whitehall?

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given notice of his intention that the clause do not stand part of the Bill, and I would say that that is very much of a piece with my amendment. We have here a clause which is neither necessary nor useful and absolutely not contributing to levelling up in any way. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Carrington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 79, 82, 83, and 84. All these amendments relate to audit and scrutiny, and issues that I think are extremely important if the public are to have confidence in the combined county structure, but those principles, of course, apply to any structure in local government and to any combined authority structure.

Amendment 77 would ensure that the combined county authority cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee. This is a probing amendment, for the Minister to explain that indeed it is possible, as I propose in Amendment 77, that an overview and scrutiny committee can

“make its reports public whenever the overview and scrutiny committee believes publication to be in the public interest”.

I simply seek the Minister’s confirmation that is actually what is intended, because I do not think it is actually in the Bill—maybe the words are there and I have simply missed them.

Amendment 79 in my name would prevent a CCA restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason. I think this is really important because an overview and scrutiny committee must have independence to operate without undue influence by the parent committee. Therefore, my amendment simply says that a CCA cannot unreasonably withhold permission for some work of the overview and scrutiny committee taking place.

Amendment 82 relates to whether recent members of a political party can qualify as “an appropriate person”. Amendment 83 is on the same subject or principle. It seems to me that the Bill actually permits someone to be appointed as “an appropriate person” the day after they have resigned from a political party. I have proposed five years: if you are really going to be “an appropriate person”, surely you can be appropriate only if you are not recently associated with an individual political party—five years is a probing proposal; some other period might be relevant. I feel very strongly that you cannot have people appointed as an appropriate person who have very recently been a member, perhaps a prominent member, of any political party. I hope the Minister will be able to put my concerns at rest.

Amendment 84 would enhance public confidence in the audit process by increasing the number of independent people on the audit committees. At the moment, the Government have put one person in the Bill. I think one person is inadequate. What if there were one person and that person’s only contribution to a meeting was to apologise for their absence? I have proposed three people: then if somebody is not present at a meeting, at least somebody is more likely to be present. The general public are now increasingly aware of some of the problems around the audit process in local government: I think that six local councils are now in special measures under the Treasury.

One of the reasons the public have concern is that they are being asked, in some places, to pay much higher levels of council tax to make up for losses that the council has created. The audit function—as opposed to just the overview and scrutiny function—really does matter. To have only one person appointed as an independent person seems to me to be insufficient. Given the concerns that can arise so very quickly about investments and the administration of current expenditure that may go wrong, audit committees play a very important role in giving the public confidence that the taxes they pay are being properly spent. I hope very much the Minister can indicate that the Government understand why just a single independent member of an audit committee is not sufficient. I hope she will confirm that there will be at least two independent people—though I would prefer three, it could be that there should be four or five—for that is the basis of audit. It is and should be run on the basis of independence. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in farming as set out in the register.

I rise to speak on Amendment 80, and I will continue with my theme I brought up on Amendment 33 in Clause 2 about rural proofing. The levelling-up Bill is an opportunity to correct the systemic failings in the Government’s rural policy development. Defra is often seen as being responsible for rural policy but does not actually have the remit to change economic and social policies in the countryside other than on the environment, farming, fishing and forestry. The cross-departmental objectives set out in this Bill should now enable serious rural policy-making to level up that part of our community in both social and economic terms.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the combined county authorities are structured in a manner that enables them to review or scrutinise decisions which have rural implications, with relevant and experienced knowledge at their disposal. A lack of awareness and understanding of the special challenges facing rural communities is very much exemplified in the development and implementation of the rural England prosperity fund. Local authorities’ strategies for using this fund to exploit the potential of the rural economy are not clear, and their engagement with rural businesses has been scant. By ensuring that the overview and scrutiny committees of combined county authorities have the power to appoint rural sub-committees, a better understanding of the needs of rural challenges—from housing to education to transport to connectivity—will be embedded at the grass roots. This would lead to better local authority engagement with rural households and businesses, enhancing their understanding of the workings of the rural economy and rural livelihoods. Please can the Minister give her support to this amendment in the interests of confirming that and enabling rural issues to be properly considered in wider policy-making.