Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 are in my name. Amendment 61 would ensure that social housing providers—councils and housing associations—offer a new secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, including domestic abuse and gang violence, in accordance with police advice.

The amendment has its origins in the debates on the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. It was proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. Helen Hayes’s constituent, known as Georgia, was forced out of her housing association home of nine years when her eldest son was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that her son’s life was at risk and that she should move immediately for his safety. If anyone thinks that the risks in such a case may be exaggerated, they should note that later the younger brother in this case was brutally murdered in a separate unrelated incident. Having moved swiftly to temporary accommodation, as advised by the police, when the moment came to return to a secure tenancy, Georgia found herself at the bottom of the housing waiting list once again, despite paying rent on both her original home and the temporary placement.

Georgia spent a year in dreadful temporary accommodation but then found she had no right of return to a secure home until the housing association finally relented. Amendment 61 seeks to rectify this deficiency in the protection afforded to social housing tenants, giving them a right of return where their move resulted from police advice. The Regulator of Social Housing would ensure that the social landlord granted the displaced tenant a secure tenancy. In the event of the registered provider being unable to do so, the regulator would have to ensure that the social landlord concerned co-operated with other social landlords to ensure an appropriate new, secure tenancy. Although an enlightened housing provider might ignore the administrative niceties and allow a return to a secure home, the amendment makes this obligatory, not a matter of discretion, for the social housing landlord. This would seem to be a matter of righting an injustice in the current system and would seem only fair.

I turn to Amendment 62, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I am grateful for the important work done on this amendment by the Chartered Institute of Housing. Amendment 62 clarifies the legal position for social landlords who need to gain access to their property to carry out safety checks and works. Social landlords must fulfil a widening range of health and statutory duties following the increased regulation of the sector over recent years. However, they are finding increased difficulty in gaining access to some tenants’ homes for checks, particularly the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic electrical safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. If these checks are not done, the occupiers and their neighbours face potential dangers and the landlords themselves can be accused of regulatory failure and may face criminal prosecution.

Amendment 62 aims to clarify the law and provide an acceptable route for forced access where, in a minority of cases, this is necessary. The aim must be to prevent cases being taken to court, as well as to be clear on what happens when this is the only option in no-access cases. In 2025, bodies representing social housing providers, led by the Chartered Institute of Housing, commissioned a consultancy, HQN, to consider these issues. The resulting report, Opening the Door, provides sound advice on good practice for gaining access to tenants’ homes by consent. However, there remains the need for landlords to go to court to obtain permission to enter a tenant’s home in persistent no-access cases.

For forced entry, the social landlord currently relies on the tenancy terms and can seek a county court access injunction. Section 12 of the Housing Act 1988 applies, along with Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985. The problem is that two conflicting county court judgments have created confusion over whether landlords really can force access to a property despite the dangers of not doing so; for example, from faulty gas or electrical installations. The social landlords have no desire to start possession proceedings for eviction, which would represent a disproportionate and unhelpful way of resolving the safety issue. Tenants might be failing to give access because of mental health difficulties, including hoarding behaviours, while others might simply struggle to make appointments. These tenants need help and support, not eviction. Amendment 62 would clarify the law, providing for compulsory access after the issuing of clear notice requirements, prior reasonable engagement and strict safeguards. It is a necessary response to a growing problem. I commend the amendment and I beg to move Amendment 61.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63 in my name. I apologise to the noble Lord: I was just coming through the doors as he rose to his feet. It took me longer to get down the stairs than I was intending. It would have been easier if I had been swimming.

Amendment 63 simply extends the statutory provision to include a wider group of potential beneficiaries. In no sense does it seek to dilute the critical importance of the primary purpose of the intention around those suffering domestic abuse, but it seeks to include other groups who would benefit and whom it seems appropriate to fit within this statutory provision, not least disabled people, those coming out of care situations and those coming out of custodial situations. It seems a logical extension of the statutory provision that does not in any sense dilute the primary purpose but is very much in the spirit, intention and purpose of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we seek to increase housing supply, how do we ensure that social housing is not only available but safe, well maintained, accessible and capable of supporting thriving communities? The debate about housing often focuses on numbers, and understandably so, when we face such a shortfall. However, quality matters just as much as quantity. People deserve homes that are safe, healthy and fit for modern living. Equally, they deserve neighbourhoods that are well designed and capable of supporting long-term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe whether the existing guidance is sufficient and whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector.

The importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences when basic maintenance problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Awaab’s law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and that expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is not simply about the condition of a property when it is first built; it is also about how the property is maintained over the many years of occupation. Good maintenance protects tenants, preserves housing stock, and reduces costs in the long term. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond regarding his amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100 and the other amendments in my name. We have the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty, but it is clear that in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations.

In Amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusion by design standard set out in the Bill. Though it appears duplicative at first instance because of the previous legislation I referred to, it would be additive, clarifying, enabling and empowering, not just for disabled people but—by nature of being inclusive by design—for all people. Through that clarity, it would enable and empower the local authority and the landlords, who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country. An inclusion by design standard would be something to rally around and a gleaming light that could focus attention and deliver for disabled people and all people, far more than what the current legislation specific to equalities achieves.

In Amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting accessibility and adaptive housing standards. There are standards that exist in this area currently, but to have something that brings together accessibility and adaptive housing in a clear statutory statement in the Bill would be empowering for all people, not least those who are trying to do their best to deliver on this provision. The amendment suggests a register which would clearly set out the list of adaptive and accessible housing countrywide. I know that the Minister will consider this to be centralisation, but I believe it would be empowering to all local authorities. In a sense, it is something that any other organisation and business would do. It is nothing more than having an asset register—a clear, up-to-date and real-time set of registers of what the provision is. It will enable local authorities to have clarity as to what might be available just across the way in enabling authority. I know that local authorities and landlords work incredibly hard with adjacent authorities and neighbouring organisations, but to have this provision in real time available to them would be assistive in that process. Because of new technologies, it would not need to be expensive, bureaucratic or burdensome. In fact, with some neat coding, it could very much take care of itself once established.

Similarly, on my amendment on accessibility of digital, it is right that local authorities and landlords seek to use digital means wherever they can, but it is critical that all those digital means are accessible to all in our local communities, and indeed that alternative means are always available.

The amendments are not duplicative, because what is more significant than housing? It is about the safety and security of having somewhere you can go, and when you close your front door, you can say, “This is me. This is us”. That provision, safety and security should be available and accessible to everybody across our communities, not least to disabled people. It cannot be right that just by dint of being a disabled person, for lack of accessible and adaptable accommodation, you have a longer wait on a list than a non-disabled person. These amendments would be assistive in that process. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the debate on this second group of thoughtful and varied amendments. We have just heard a spectacular defence from noble Lords of the right-to-buy scheme, which the Government seem determined to restrict quite drastically throughout the provisions in the Bill. In Clause 1, the Bill proposes to extend the qualifying period for right to buy from three to 10 years. I will focus on Amendment 2 in my name, which is a probing amendment as to the rationale behind this extension.

I already have concerns that tenants of social housing who are able and willing to buy their property should be forced to wait longer. I understand that the Government, in their manifesto, committed to increase the protections on newly built social housing, but this provision would affect existing social housing tenants too. There may be many tenants right now who are on the cusp of reaching the three-year eligibility requirement, with high hopes of finally being able to own their own home, but who will have to wait an additional seven years when the Bill becomes law, unless it is amended. That is a long time to wait and be on welfare. If the Government insist on an extension to the qualifying period, why not extend it to five years rather than 10, as my amendment suggests? Can the Minister explain what evidence base there is behind that number? In addition, exactly how much social housing stock is a 10-year extension expected to protect for us—as opposed to five, say—and how has the impact on existing tenants been assessed, if at all?

We must ensure that 10 years is not just an arbitrary number chosen randomly. If there is a justification, it should be outlined and explained clearly for the House to scrutinise. We must also remember that we are talking about real people living in social housing right now—people with hopes and aspirations, whose rights to buy a property should not be treated carelessly or without thought. What data do the Government have, if any, as to how many tenants are about to reach the three-year qualifying period? Can the Minister please share that data with the Committee? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and from other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Committee. I apologise to noble Lords that I was not able to be in your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I declare my relevant technology interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of Avalanche (BVI), Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.

In my set of Committee amendments, I want to assist the Bill by bringing the strands of inclusion and innovation and talent and technology through every possible supportive clause of the Bill. In this group, I speak to Amendments 3, 10 and 13 in my name.

Amendment 3 sets out provisions to establish a digital life-cycle service for right to buy. In doing so, it would provide greater empowerment, knowledge, connection and communication to those who may wish to avail themselves of the right-to-buy service. This would be an effective and important use of digital technology and, through that, could play a positive part in enabling digital inclusion. Critically, the amendment does not seek to rely just on digital; it sets out provisions for alternative means of connection to ensure this life-cycle service could be achieved through systems such as text messaging. Amendment 10 would develop this in the context of fraud requirements, clearly supporting the measures in new Section 124A inserted by Clause 4.

Amendment 13 further seeks to use the benefits of technology to provide an immutable record—an audit trail—which is tamper-proof for all Section 122 applications. In 2017, I wrote a report on blockchain called Distributed Ledger Technologies for Public Good. At that stage, I wanted to set out not just the potential public use cases but the public value cases in which the distributed ledger and other technologies could assist across the state. My fear was that, if these potential use cases and value cases were not set out, the debate would get stuck and, whenever blockchain was mentioned, it would naturally be assumed that it meant just Bitcoin, which had nothing to say on beneficial provision for operations of the state across potentially all government departments and local authorities. Amendment 13 is therefore one such potential use case or value case, where there could be a clear audit trail, available for all, of use to the department, and indeed the regulator, with the safety, security and knowledge that it is a clear, accurate, immutable record of applications and any potential fraud hearings and investigations that have happened around right to buy.

These three amendments look to deploy the benefits of such potential technologies. I believe they would greatly support the provisions set out in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 4, 6 and 122 in my name now and then come back to close at the end, if that is all right with noble Lords.

The Government clearly set out in our response to the consultation on reforming the right to buy that we would prevent existing property owners or those who have previously benefited from the scheme exercising right to buy unless there are exceptional circumstances. This was supported by 91% of respondents to the consultation, including 86% of social tenants who responded. We have already drawn up the latter part of this commitment through Clause 2 of the Bill and intend to add to this by including a provision in new Clause 2 to prevent existing residential property owners exercising the right to buy. The Committee will appreciate that defining residential property ownership is complex, given the many forms that property ownership can take. Capturing this complexity in legal drafting required additional time, meaning that this clause was not present at introduction. Given that the intent behind the right to buy is to enable tenants of social housing to become home owners, preventing existing property owners using the scheme is a fair and rational approach.

We have set out in this amendment what we think is a reasonable definition of a residential property owner. The new clause will apply to anyone who owns a residential property, whether owned outright or with a mortgage. Leasehold and freehold properties will be captured, with exceptions for short-term leases under 21 years, as will joint ownership and any properties owned outside England, including those held in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and abroad. As in Clause 2, exemptions will be made for victims of domestic abuse who have moved from the accommodation that they were occupying for reasons connected to the abuse.

As part of the application process, tenants will be required to declare to the landlord whether they own another property and landlords will be able to check the information that the tenant provides. If tenants are seeking exceptionally to buy under a right-to-buy scheme, where they already own a residential property, because they have been a victim of domestic abuse, they will be required to provide evidence of that to the landlord. Amendment 4 thus follows through on our commitment to exclude existing property owners from using right to buy and is accompanied by Amendments 6 and 122, which are consequential and enable the new clause to operate as intended. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 58A in this group. I am delighted to support the other amendments in the group about which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has spoken, asking the Government for various assessments of impact.

The Government contend that they want to protect the stock of social housing but also to maintain the right-to-buy scheme, but under the Bill tenants are likely to be discouraged from exercising the right to buy by obstacles, delays and uncertainties posed for a renter aspiring to home ownership. My amendment would require the Government to provide on an annual basis, once the Bill comes into operation, an analysis of the income to the public purse as a result of any change in the number of sales, broken down by the numbers sold, the resulting income and additional income from cost savings from overhead and maintenance when a property is sold and no longer a charge on the council. This should equip the Government to assess the scheme and its costs in the round against competing commitments when establishing an order of priority in spending, as Governments must do, and an overall budget. Councils too would have the essential figures to judge how best to meet their competing commitments and responsibilities.

Indeed, for a democratic system such as the UK, Parliament should also be given the full picture to assess matters and judge how the legislation is operating. Above all, the public, who foot the bills through council tax, rates and general taxation, and who face the highest overall levels of certain taxes—income tax et cetera—since records began in 1948, should also know what impact these changes will have in respect of right-to-buy sales. One of the most popular measures passed by any Government since the 1980s, right to buy has enabled 1.9 million council homes in England alone to be sold to tenants so that they can stand on their own two feet.

There are two deeper reasons for my amendment. First, there is the imperative of obliging any Government to take account of the finances of the country in making policy, and the burdens their policies might place on the economy and on the people and businesses who work and pay taxes. Secondly, there is a need to reduce benefit dependency, yet one of the most effective ways of reducing dependency is to help people to buy their own homes. By contrast, one of the most dangerous ways of encouraging dependency is to put increasing numbers of people in the socially rented sector, where already 25% of households fall into the economically inactive category and other inactive categories. This is excluding people who are retired or have a physical impairment. If the Government are serious about reducing dependency, they should not be putting new obstacles in the way of people who want to buy their council houses.

I hope the Government will accept this modest amendment for an impact statement on the results of the Bill. This would ensure that the Government themselves, the councils and everybody who needs to know has the knowledge of the outcomes of the new arrangements, so that we have the evidence to measure the impact of the Bill on right-to-buy sales and associated finances. On that basis we can review the Bill and, if necessary, make changes.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 101 and 104 in this group, which are in my name. Quite simply, they would impose equality impact assessments and ESG assessments, ensuring that, in this important area of work, local authorities and landlords are doing the right thing by tenants but in a way which is equitable across all protected characteristics for the many vulnerable people they have in their care in the social housing sector.

That is critical as, without an EIA, it is impossible to have the evidence that something is occurring. This would be good not only for tenants and those who want to see that the right thing is being done but for landlords and those with responsibilities. The evidence could be brought to bear that they are operating in a way which is equitable and accessible, and they could prove that point. If the EIA demonstrated that that is not the case, action could be taken to address those inequalities.

On Amendment 104 and the ESG assessment, the environmental case is clear for housing with the energy crisis we currently have. Equally important are the “S” and “G”, which often do not get the same focus. Looking at the composition of housing boards here is critically important as well. Quite simply, the two amendments would fit together to ensure that there is clarity around EIA and ESG when it comes to this important area of work.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in particular on the ESG framework. The reason is, frankly, that we need better figures about what is happening. I say to the Minister that this is not because I disagree with the Bill—in many ways it is a perfectly reasonable Bill—but because Parliament needs to know more about what happens when we make decisions and what is actually on rather than what we hoped was going to happen. That is why these two amendments are valuable.

I hope the Minister will not be disappointed if I say that I am very much concerned about the protected characteristics. However, I also want to say that I was disappointed that, in her summing up at Second Reading, she did not refer in any way to the problems of rural housing. We talk about protected characteristics, but the way in which this House increasingly ignores what is happening in rural areas is a disgrace. The ESG framework, proposed in Amendment 104, is important here, because there is a particular problem in the countryside with the quality of social housing that is provided. I hope that the Minister will, in future, always think about the particularities and worries of the countryside. Above all, we need to know, because then we can assess whether this is as good a Bill as we hope it will be or whether it will need changes in the future. If we do not have the figures, we cannot possibly make proper statements.

I hope that housing can be more and more understood as something that can be cross-partied agreed, disagreed and argued, and then it will come down to the facts. For far too long we have argued about housing from principles and party-political views and have not got down to where we actually are. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has done the Committee a great service in asking that we get facts and know what is actually happening in order that we can make decisions in the future.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

48: Clause 11, page 11, line 36, at end insert—
“171E Blockchain audit trail for disposal notifications(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require each private registered provider to maintain an immutable distributed ledger record (“the disposal audit trail”) in respect of every sale notice given under section 171A.(2) The disposal audit trail must record—(a) the date on which each sale notice was given and to whom;(b) any response received from a local housing authority or other notified person within the period specified in section 171A(3);(c) the outcome of the proposed sale, including whether the dwelling was acquired by a notified person and retained within the social housing sector.(3) The Secretary of State must publish annually an analysis of disposal audit trail data, cross-referenced with local housing need data, identifying areas of net social housing stock loss.(4) Records in the disposal audit trail must be cryptographically secured against retrospective alteration and retained for not less than 12 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires private registered providers to maintain a tamper-proof blockchain audit trail of all section 171A disposal notifications, recording responses and outcomes. It also requires annual publication of disposal data cross-referenced with housing need, identifying areas of net stock loss.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48 and all other amendments in my name in this group. All the amendments in this group, whether they concern AI, data or interoperable systems, are predicated on a number of straightforward questions. Do we believe that, when it comes to social housing, for those providing and maintaining social housing, and for those tenants living in social housing, the considered and thoughtful deployment of AI, data and new technologies could be assistive in those endeavours? If we believe that there is something in that then we should look to the Bill, as currently drafted, and see that it is curiously silent on all these new technologies and data possibilities.

That is important, not just because there is currently nothing in the Bill on those matters but because the Government’s stated position on artificial intelligence is to not have cross-sector AI legislation. There is nothing unusual or party political in this; it is exactly the same position that the previous Government adopted. However, I believe that both Governments have taken a suboptimal and unfortunate approach to AI regulation and legislation in this respect. If we accept the position of the current Government—no cross-sector AI legislation and a domain-by-domain approach—here we have such a domain, social housing, so where are the domain-specific AI provisions in the Bill?

In looking at the amendments I have set out, it is helpful to take a purposive rather than literal approach to their interpretation. This is always a far more productive approach, whether one is doing statutory analysis or Bill consideration. To that effect, on Amendment 48, we can take out the technology blockchain and simply ask whether it would be beneficial to have a system of audit trail in these circumstances that is tamper-proof and immutable, and a record of which everybody has the same view in real time, at any time. Would that be a positive thing to have? Similarly, when it comes to using data, having the right mechanisms and frameworks for sharing data across agencies and departments for the benefit of housing associations, landlords and tenants, with all the right privacies and consents put in place, is at least worth considering.

Amendment 60 is about zero-knowledge proofs. Would it not be worth the Government at least considering whether they could provide—and through their action enable housing associations, landlords and other interested parties to have—a far safer and more secure means of supporting and assisting tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, who are often at the sharpest end of horrific situations in our society? Would not zero-knowledge proofs be worth considering and potentially piloting? We could have credentials which could enable support and assistance to be provided for those vulnerable tenants without any sense of being able to identify who they were.

If we suggest that AI may be of benefit, it would make sense to experiment and look to proof cases across the social housing landscape. If that were the case, would it not be helpful for government to offer flexible support and guidance—not prescriptive but certainly principles-based—to further enable and empower housing associations and landlords to have greater comfort and confidence when they seek to procure and deploy AI and algorithmic systems across their operations?

All these amendments have the potential to support and assist the underlying approaches set out in the Bill and the landlords and housing associations that seek to do best by their tenants, and indeed to empower and enable tenants themselves—yes, to have greater safety, security, privacy and protection, but also to have more empowerment through the considered development, proof case and deployment of certain technologies, including AI, in this space.

If the Government are not going to have cross-sector AI legislation, which they are not, what will the approach be to AI use for social housing, so that tenants can be protected and so that, through the deployment and use of predictive analytics, for example, potential horrific harm situations can be avoided before they even occur? Similarly, predictive analytics could produce a repair schedule that kicks in before the need for any of those repairs becomes acute. Those are but two examples—there are hundreds and thousands more.

How will tenants, landlords, and anyone else across the social housing ecosystem be enabled, empowered and supported, and have the comfort and the confidence to use and to be alongside these new technologies, not least AI, if the Bill stays silent on these important matters?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 114, which is about freedom of information.

I start by commending my noble friend for being forward-thinking in his consideration of AI and the impact it will have. I particularly like his Amendment 99. I appreciate that his explanatory statement says:

“Compliance with the standard is a precondition for any AI deployment in connection with functions under the Act”.


However, the broader point made is simple and straightforward, and would help not only central government but local government and those involved in more regional planning, as is anticipated, with Acts already passed in this Parliament, to have a better grip of what is going on. Having said that, I am surprised by quite how many Answers come back from Ministers—not necessarily the Minister answering today—saying that it would cost too much money to work out an answer to a Question tabled by a Peer. Let us get AI, or indeed data, to help us in this regard.

I turn now to Amendment 114, which again is quite a broad-brush amendment about the Freedom of Information Act. Recognising the special situation that private registered social housing providers are in, I think there is something more that we, the public, should be able to understand about how they operate their business. This is not unique; it is already undertaken in Scotland. In 2019, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act was extended to include registered social landlords. This was done on a limited basis—not the entire range of what the FoI Act does in the rest of the UK, or certainly in England and Wales—but it is there to increase openness and transparency by allowing people to understand how they work, how decisions are taken, how public services are delivered and how they spend their money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments on data, digital systems and technology within the social housing framework. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady O’Neill, for contributing.

Amendments 48, 49, 59, 60, 97 to 99, 114, 117 and 117B raise important questions about transparency, security and the effective use of data in delivering housing services. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 48 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. Amendment 48 sets out the details that the noble Lord would like to be included in a ledger prepared by housing providers. It would require the Secretary of State to publish annually an analysis of disposal data, cross-referenced with housing need data, that identifies areas of net social housing stock loss.

I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that private registered providers maintain a robust record of their disposal notices. In turn, this supports the analysis he wishes government to undertake each year on disposals, housing need and the net loss of social homes. However, again, I think we must remain alive to avoiding undue requirements on registered providers, and indeed government, and also recognise the information and data already available.

The Regulator of Social Housing already collects and publishes data annually on sales by all large private registered providers. Local authorities already, as part of the plan-making process, publish their assessment of housing need. Finally, the Government already publish on GOV.UK statistics on affordable housing supply in England, including annual social housing sales and demolition figures, and statistics on the delivery of new affordable housing supply.

Amendments 59 and 60 seek to place cyber security requirements on landlords when handling data connected to the domestic abuse protections and would require the Secretary of State to establish a pilot programme to test zero-knowledge proof techniques. I must admit, that is not a term I had heard before I got involved in this debate. It is critical that the domestic abuse protection measures work in practice. I welcome the intent of this amendment and recognise the importance of landlords working sensitively and safely with data when considering cases and making a possession claim to the courts.

Social landlords work with tenants on a range of complex issues and can make possession claims on other sensitive issues such as anti-social behaviour. They are therefore very experienced in considering these matters. As the responsible data controllers, we expect landlords to handle tenant data responsibly. Social landlords are required to handle sensitive information securely and lawfully under UK data protection law, including the UK general data protection regulation—GDPR—and the Data Protection Act 2018. These laws are regulated and enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

We will be working with landlords and the wider sector to ensure effective implementation in practice. That will include considering whether additional or further guidance or best practice is needed on data protection and confidentiality to support the safeguarding of victims as a result of these reforms. It is right that these considerations are alongside wider implementation, working with the sector. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move his amendments.

Amendments 97 to 99 and 117B, also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to put in place frameworks for data handling and sharing and the use of artificial intelligence in the social housing sector. I recognise and welcome the intent behind the amendments and support the aim of ensuring effective data protections. However, the amendments are not necessary. They would introduce prescriptive frameworks for data usage in social housing decisions, which would not be the right approach to achieving the desired aims. In gathering evidence and making decisions related to social housing, individual social landlords and multi-agency partners are best placed to identify the systems and approaches that best meet their needs. Local housing authorities, registered providers of social housing and government departments must already operate within UK data protection law, and decisions on data protection are taken within that context.

On Amendment 98, AI, if used well, has the potential to make organisations more efficient, effective and innovative. However, social landlords and other agencies should continue to be mindful of their data protection responsibilities and ensure compliance with UK law. When considering whether and how to use artificial intelligence, landlords and multi-agency partners must still consider data protection, including its lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Again, the Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on AI and data protection within this context. The amendments take a significantly prescriptive approach, requiring social landlords and partners to work within centrally set frameworks. We are of the view that the objectives of the amendments are better achieved within the current data protection legislative framework.

Amendment 117B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the use of artificial intelligence and cyber security governance in social housing provision. I recognise the intention behind this proposal and the importance of ensuring that new technologies are used responsibly and securely. However, I do not consider a specific statutory reporting requirement to be necessary. Social landlords already operate within established data protection and cyber security frameworks, and wider work is under way across government to consider the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in public services. This would be an additional statutory requirement and risks duplication with existing work.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to bring private registered providers within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. We have already taken forward a targeted and proportionate approach to improving transparency for social tenants through the introduction of the social tenant access to information requirements, known as STAIRs. This will ensure that private registered providers proactively publish more information about their activities and share information with their tenants on request.

Following a direction issued to the Regulator of Social Housing in September 2025, this scheme will come into force on a phased basis over the coming year. From October 2026, private registered providers will be required to proactively publish information about the management of their social housing and, from April 2027, tenants and their representatives will be able to request access to information relating directly to the management of their homes. Unless it is reasonable not to, landlords will be required to fulfil their tenants’ requests for information within set timeframes. These requirements have been carefully designed to ensure that tenants have access to the information that matters most to them. With this in mind, the Government’s view is that a targeted, tenant-focused approach through STAIRs is the more appropriate way to deliver meaningful transparency for tenants.

I turn to Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which would require local authorities to publish data on complaints received related to measures in this Bill. I hope that our commitment to introducing STAIRs demonstrates our commitment to transparency, which I share with him. However, we think it is important to look at complaints data in the round, looking at the whole service rather than focusing on specific measures. As such, the Housing Ombudsman publishes annual complaints reviews providing an assessment of complaints received across the whole sector. All registered providers of social housing are also required to collect and publish tenant satisfaction measures annually, including metrics on how satisfied tenants are with their landlord’s approach to complaints handling.

For all the reasons I have set out, while I recognise the important issues raised around data use, transparency and emerging technologies, the Government consider that these matters are best addressed through existing frameworks and ongoing policy development. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for her response. My only comment is on the Minister’s statement that landlords and those in social housing should observe UK law. The difficulty is that, when it comes to so many elements of AI, there is no UK law. If tenants find themselves on the wrong end of an algorithmic decision, for example, there is no current UK law. There are some provisions, as rightly identified, when it comes to data, but not in many of the specific contexts as set out. So, currently, we have a largely analogue Bill in an increasingly digital environment, where much of that digital could be so assistive, not only to landlords and those involved in social housing but, most importantly, to those who are all too often at the sharpest end of some horrific situations where digital and AI could help. Currently, this Bill does not bring forth any of that potential help, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

I thank my noble friend for showing that he cares passionately and for his loyal service to your Lordships’ House and to disabled people. No one coerced him. No one compelled him. He chose to use his position to do good. A huge amount of good he has done. To any Member who asks why these amendments deserve their support, I simply pose this question: why should I, as a disabled Member of your Lordships’ House, have to wait any longer for taxis to be made accessible just because I am disabled? I am done with waiting. I look forward to joining my noble friend and colleagues from across the House in the Division Lobby in support of his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s amendment. He has done as much to empower disabled people when it comes to transport as anybody in this country, not just in Parliament.

To continue my noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s theme, this is about the unacceptability of waiting—not waiting for legislation to pass but waiting on the kerb-side for an accessible taxi which may never come and waiting on the phone to be told there are no accessible cabs in your local area. Imagine that being told to any other group in society and it being accepted and acceptable for 31 years. It is not even a matter of passing legislation; it is on the face of a Bill—though after 31 years, I imagine the text is already rising off that vellum as we speak. How many more years do disabled people have to wait on that kerb-side or in their homes, or on the end of a telephone, to not get an accessible taxi?

The Government talk about growth as their overriding principle for government, and quite right, but if that is their overriding objective then policy across all departments has to be focused on that. If the Government want more disabled people in work, we need accessible taxis; if the Government want greater health equality and health outcomes for disabled people, we need accessible taxis; and if they want bright, diverse, talented, disabled people to be fully empowered to bring those talents to bear in their local communities, we need accessible taxis.

There is nothing overreaching about these amendments from my noble friend. They are modest and merely seek to bring about something which should have happened not years but decades ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has the great good fortune to have the power of a Minister of the Crown. I suggest that he uses that power to empower disabled people and accept these amendments. If he will not do that, who will? If not now, for all those disabled people who have waited for 31 years, when?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a very brief contribution to this short debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his tireless advocacy for improved mobility for those with a disability. It is sad that we will no longer have that advocacy available at the end of this Session.

I want to pick up three points arising from the Minister’s response when we debated this in Committee. First, he said that there would not be enough time. He said:

“We will need to consult on them”—


that is, the new standards—

“and there is a risk that setting a deadline could negatively impact our ability to undertake a meaningful consultation”.

The deadline in the amendment is three years. The Cabinet’s guidance for a consultation period is actually 12 weeks. Honestly, to plead the lack of time is not a good excuse for resisting the amendment.

Secondly, the amendment was criticised because it applied only to taxis, and therefore it potentially excluded disabled people in those parts of the country where there was reliance on private vehicles. It seems to me that that is an argument for actually extending the provisions to private hire vehicles, rather than using it as an excuse to resist the amendment.

Then we had an argument which I simply did not understand. It says in Hansard that

“the noble Lord’s amendment would require every taxi in England to comply with a single set of standards, taking no account of the variety of access needs that disabled people have”.

The position in London is that we have a standard for the whole of London—we have had that for 30 years. I believe it is the case that, within London, we have the same range of disability as exists elsewhere in the country, so I did not follow that argument. The Minister then said:

“This approach would not only be exclusionary but would risk infringing the Government’s legal public sector equality duty to consider the impact on people with all protected characteristics”.


I do not believe that any case has been raised in London that the existing single standard for taxis is in breach of the Disability Act. I did not follow that at all.

Finally, I appreciate that the Minister wants to do the right thing, but his response was simply to rely on that fact that:

“Existing government ‘best practice’ … recommends that each licensing authority develops an inclusive … plan”.


He went on to say:

“I encourage them to act to ensure that there are sufficient wheelchair-accessible vehicles”,—[Official Report, 5/3/26; cols. GC 547-49.]


and that they will look again at “other accessibility standards”. But there was nothing in his speech that gave any certainty or guarantee at all that the position would change by a specific date.

Unless the Minister can move a little from what he said in Committee, I again will be with my noble friend in the Division Lobby if a Division is called.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 235BA, 235CB and 235CC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name. I associate myself with all the amendments in this group. I must also apologise that this is my first intervention in this Bill. A mixture of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and my own children’s well-being, I am afraid, has precluded me from taking part so far. As this is my first time speaking on this Bill, I must declare, as ever, that I am a teacher in a state secondary school.

As we have heard, there is real concern from local licensing authorities that, nationally, cross-border hiring generates serious public safety issues while undermining local licensing regimes. The TaxiPoint website says:

“The Casey Report highlights what has been evident for more than a decade: in a small minority of cases, taxis have played a role in the exploitation of children. Vehicles have been used both to traffic victims and to introduce them to perpetrators. This was identified as early as the Rotherham inquiry in 2014, where Professor Jay found that taxi drivers were a ‘common thread’ in abuse cases. Subsequent reports from Oldham, Newcastle and Telford reinforced these concerns”.


The scale of the cross-border hiring problem has been magnified significantly in recent years through the advent of new technology, with many taxi and private hire customers now mainly being through app-based services. This also restricts the enforcement capabilities of local licensing authorities, as they have only limited powers to enforce against out-of-town vehicles. Cross-border hiring in the taxi and private hire industries has been commonplace for many years, which has resulted in localised issues, particularly in areas where there are a number of licensing authorities in close proximity. This is coupled with a significant and rapid growth in the number of private hire drivers and vehicles, and all these issues have exacerbated cross-border hiring concerns.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about Wolverhampton Council, which has issued in excess of 40,000 private hire licences, far exceeding local operational demand. The proposals considered by the Law Commission review in 2012, in respect of addressing cross-border hiring, are now considered by TfL and other stakeholders to be out of date. Urgent legislative reform is required to address these issues. The Metropolitan Police Service has said that cross-border hiring is the single largest risk to policing nationally. Amendments 235CB and 235CC would go a long way to solving these issues, and Amendment 235BA would strengthen enforcement. They have been needed for far too long, and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with all the speakers and amendments so far. In making my comments, I would like to focus on just one word. It is in the title of the Bill: “empowerment”. I ask this very simple question, not only on taxis but on transport in this country: if you are a disabled person, where is the empowerment? That is true with so-called shared space—completely inaccessible and excluding to large swathes of the community—and so-called floating bus stops, ditto. When it comes to taxis, having an integrated transport strategy that does not consider the key role of taxis at key points in people’s journeys means that there is no integrated transport strategy and there is certainly no inclusion.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

248: Schedule 20, page 459, line 8, at end insert—
“1A In section 1 of the 2020 Act (pavement licences), in subsection (5), at the end insert—“or any part of a vehicular highway which is adjacent to such a highway.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the pavement licence to include part of the carriageway, where the carriageway is adjacent to, for example, an eligible pavement. This would enable a licensing authority to grant licences which occupy part of the highway shared between space for pedestrians and vehicles.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group that are similarly in my name, and I will give more than a nod to the other amendment in the group.

When it comes to pavements and pavement licences, the Bill has done nothing for pedestrians, those with access needs or those who simply want to rely on the primary purpose of the pavement. The primary purpose of the pavement is to get from A to B, be that for work, leisure, hospital appointments or whatever it may be—to go about one’s business on a clear, uncluttered, maintained pavement. I will not speak to all the amendments in this group but I ask the Minister to respond to all of them because each in turn raises important points when it comes to our ability, as members of our local communities, to use the pavements in our area.

The amendment that I want to spend most time on is Amendment 252, which addresses the consultation period when businesses seek to acquire a pavement licence to run part of their business on the pavement in front of their properties. The Government argue that this consultation period has been doubled from seven days to 14 from the Business and Planning Act we passed during Covid. In fact, what has happened is not a doubling of the consultation period but a halving of it, from 28 days in the Highways Act, which was always the period before Covid.

The seven-day consultation period is the wrong comparator to look at. When we debated the Business and Planning Act, it was clear that we were considering the balance between the needs of businesses and those of the local community. The need of businesses at that time was to acquire a pavement licence and to be able to have a business at all, as a consequence of the social distancing rules under Covid. That is in no sense the comparator now, which is simply, as it was pre Covid, for a business to extend its services on to the pavement, thus having additional business, not just a business or no business.

So it seems completely clear, fair and equitable, balancing the needs of businesses with those of all the members of the community, that the consultation period should revert to what it was pre Covid, in order to enable all members of the community to engage in a consultation when such pavement licences are sought. There are obvious and particular accessibility needs for certain groups within a community, and it is self-evident that to halve that consultation period from 28 days to 14 effectively excludes many people from participating in that consultation. Effective exclusion from consultation does not in any sense sound like levelling up.

In Amendment 252 I propose what I believe is a fairer compromise: to take the 28 days down to 21. The Minister may well argue, “What’s the difference between 14 days and 21?” It may well be the difference between individuals and large sections of our community being able to participate in that consultation and their being effectively excluded from such participation.

I will touch briefly on Amendments 256 and 257, which are linked in respect of the question of access and enabling people to travel from A to B, as the pavement was always intended to do. What is the Government’s problem with simply requiring businesses that may well have gained a licence to tidy up and pack away furniture from the pavement when it is not in use? Similarly, when it is in use, there should be some form of reasonably costed demarcation, be it tactile markings or physical barriers, to surround that seating area, which would benefit both those using the pavement and those using the seating area.

I fear that the Minister does not have much for me today, but I am afraid that in those circumstances the Bill will lead to a less accessible pavement. It will lead to people finding it increasingly difficult and sometimes impossible to access their local area and get where they need to go. It will mean local authorities missing out on potential income from the additional profits that businesses will be able to make on those pavements—when I say “those pavements”, I think we all agree that they are our pavements that our taxes have paid for.

I urge the Minister to think again and strongly to consider the amendments, not least the ones concerned with accessibility and the one that refers specifically to consultation, which would enable all the members of our community to participate fully in the question of whether they believe a pavement licence is good for their local community. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. Obstructions on the pavement are an issue not just for those with a visual impairment but for a wide variety of other users of the pavement. He rightly calls for a better balance between the needs of business on the one hand and the needs of pedestrians on the other, and he deserves a sympathetic response from the Minister.

Amendment 258, in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would introduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free and so to contribute to the Government’s worthy ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The House has previously expressed strong support for such a measure. Under the current pavement licensing rules, councils have two options on pavement smoking: to implement the national condition to make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licences at local level.

I have previously welcomed the current requirement, secured only after pressure from Members in both Houses who objected to the original proposal, which had no provision for non-smokers. But, although where we are is better than what the Government originally proposed, it does not go far enough.

When this amendment was debated in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe defended the current arrangement, stating that

“it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 661.]

I note in passing that, when I asked for that flexibility this morning on planning fees, my noble friend robustly rejected it. Although I understand the principle behind this position, in practice it places a significant burden on councils, which must provide reasonable justification for introducing a smoke-free condition on a case-by-case basis.

This is the point made by local councillors from the London Tobacco Alliance, who this week have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, calling on the Government to introduce a national 100% smoke-free pavement licence condition. This would reduce the amount of bureaucracy faced by councils and help to protect non-smokers, especially children and of course those who work in the hospitality industry, from toxic tobacco smoke.

This amendment is also supported by the Local Government Association, the cross-party national membership body for local authorities, which has said that 100% smoke-free pavement licensing

“sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.

Under the current system, implementation of smoke-free conditions is highly inconsistent across the country, meaning that non-smokers, children and hospitality staff will continue to be exposed to second-hand smoke. That is why Dr Javed Khan OBE’s independent review of Smokefree 2030 policies, commissioned by DHSC and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present.

This recommendation has strong public support, with two-thirds of the public polled in 2022 saying they wanted smoking banned in the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafés. Fewer than one in five opposed a ban. This was a large sample of more than 10,000 people, carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health. Some councils are doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. The experience of these councils shows that smoke-free seating has proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and has not been shown to cause a decrease in revenue.

When South Tyneside Council surveyed opinion on 100% smoke-free seating among local café proprietors, it did not receive a single objection. A number of proprietors were very supportive of the more consistent approach, which is easier to comply with and requires little or no enforcement. The director of public health in South Tyneside said:

“Creating and supporting smokefree environments benefits individuals, the wider community and businesses—supporting those trying to quit the habit, promoting positive role modelling for children and young people, and reducing the harm from second-hand smoke”.


This amendment is an opportunity to implement Dr Khan’s recommendations and take a small but important step forward towards a smoke-free 2030. I hope that my noble friend, who took a keen interest in preventative medicine when he was a Health Minister, feels able to support this modest but popular amendment. If, by any chance, the dreaded word “resist” is at the top of his folder, can he say whether primary legislation is required if, in the future, the House wants to revisit this issue if we do not achieve this progressive measure this evening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. It is clear that there is cross-party support for these measures concerning pavement licences and, indeed, smoke-free areas on such granted licence areas.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response; he gave me nothing, but he did it in a very charming way. It is always a pleasure working with him.

It is clear from our deliberations in Committee and on Report that the levelling-up Bill is riddled with inconsistencies and is incoherent as a totality. In some parts of the Bill, the Government say there should be a national approach; in other parts, when it comes to smokers, not so. Only this afternoon in the previous but one group, we heard a full-throated commitment from the Minister and, indeed, the Government to the polluter pays principle but here—not so.

When it comes to pavement licences and the use of the pavement, I am afraid that there is little that speaks to levelling up; it is more holding back and tripping up. However, with the cross-party support I believe we have for the measures—reasonable, balanced, equitable measures—proposed in my amendments, I believe that we will be returning to these issues. For now, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 248 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

I therefore welcome the opportunity that the Bill gives to ensure that all government levelling-up policies take into account rural-proofing constraints, such as poor public transport, restrictive planning, geographic isolation, access to skills training, lack of digital connectivity and lack of affordable housing. For too long, those living in rural communities have lacked consideration in policy-making. The Government should take the view that rural-proofing can be an effective tool in assisting levelling up. The Bill could provide that by the adoption of this amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on these amendments. In doing so, I declare my financial services and technology interests as set out in the register.

We are talking about levelling up, which can really be reduced to enabling human talent, yet two of the key enablers of that talent get scarce a mention in the many pages of the Bill: regional finance, and all the new technologies that I believe can do so much to help in this overall and overarching levelling-up mission. That is why I have brought back Amendment 14 on the underuse of robots throughout manufacturing, the country and our production processes.

My question to my noble friend the Minister is simply this: when we consider the UK’s robots per 10,000 of the workforce, the issues we have on growth, which would lead to levelling up, and the multiple roles—economic, social and psychological—in which robots are already being deployed around the world in comparable nations and economies, does she recognise that we need a robotics task force? We need to unleash a community of robots to assist in this levelling-up mission, which will be of benefit right across the United Kingdom. With the ability to deploy robots into the economy and society, it can be done in a far quicker and far more economically, socially and psychologically effective way than some of the measures currently set out in the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 12. It asks for an evaluation of progress towards each mission from an independent advisory council, to include the variances of delivery between different nations and regions—the geographical disparities that we have heard about from other noble Lords in this debate.

As I said in Committee, where we had a similar amendment, we believe that independent oversight enables good governance and good government. Clear, trusted and impartial analysis makes for better policy decisions. It delivers far better outcomes, and it can be only a good thing for our democracy. An independent body such as this can also ensure that progress in the development of the missions is being monitored on the road to being achieved. One of the things that concerned noble Lords throughout Committee and now on Report is that it is all very well having missions written down, but how do you achieve them and how do you monitor that progress? We already have good examples of independent scrutiny within government. The Office for Budget Responsibility is one example, and the Select Committees that sit here and in the other place also do independent scrutiny and provide advice and recommendations.

I am aware that in Committee the Minister said in answer to my proposals on an independent advisory council that scrutiny is in place through the Levelling Up Advisory Council. I appreciate that such a council could provide scrutiny, but where is the proper, clear independence in where it sits and how it reports? On the understanding that the Minister is going to mention that again, I ask her what reassurance she can provide that it is the Government’s clear intention that this council will be fully independent and that that independence can be demonstrated and achieved.

I will comment on some of the other amendments in this group, and I thank noble Lords who have introduced them today. When he moved Amendment 2, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some extremely good points about the timescales. When we look at the length of time before we see some of these reports, things can change an awful lot, not just with government but with policy and priorities. We were both involved in the debates on the Procurement Bill, for our sins, and we made progress on some of these kinds of issues in that Bill. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, because it is important that Parliament gets the opportunity to consider the statement and to have a look at whether it thinks it is the correct statement for the time or whether changes need to be made—or it needs to be started over again, for that matter. The noble Lord made very important points.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is of course important for Parliament to be able to debate the missions, but he came back to the question of how successful government is on delivery, or otherwise for that matter. That is one of the core areas of concern coming through in our debates when we look at missions and even the term “levelling up”.

The noble Lord also made the important point that this is about cross-departmental delivery, priorities and funding. We all know that government likes to work in silos, in individual departments; it is not straightforward. Even when I was in the shadow Cabinet—so looking at this from the shadow perspective—it was not easy to get cross-departmental working in the long term, although you could do it on short-term issues. This will be critical if we are going to deliver, so his amendment looking at the indicators of how we can achieve cross-departmental working is really important. I assure him that, if he wishes to test the opinion of the House on this matter, he will have our support.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. He very clearly laid out why his amendment is needed. As someone who has spent their life living in rural communities and was brought up in a rural community, he does not have to convince me. Every Government seems to talk about rural proofing to ensure that rural areas are considered, yet the concept as it has been formatted, both previously and now, has clearly failed. Had it been successful, we would not have so many existing challenges facing our rural communities.

We know that rural communities are being hit hard. My area in Cumbria is a good example of this: young people leave to seek better opportunities, older people move in to retire and then you have what they call “super ageing” rural communities without so many young people to work in them. It is therefore harder to deliver care and support for an ageing community. We also know that there have been cuts to rural police services, and we hear that houses in rural areas are less affordable, yet these areas have twice the proportion of officially “non-decent” homes as compared with suburban residential areas.

We talk about rural proofing in relation to the impact of policies on rural areas. I think we are looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Policies should be developed for rural communities in the first place, reflecting the challenges that we face. If are going to rural-proof properly, we need to do both. I have probably said enough on this, but I am sure noble Lords have gathered that, if the noble Lord, Lord Foster, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will be very happy to support his amendment.

Finally, on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as we said in Committee, he is absolutely right to raise the potential of robotics to assist with the levelling-up missions. It is an opportunity that we should not miss, and which could also provide jobs in this country—much-needed jobs in skilled work. I hope that the Government will work further with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on how this could be achieved.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendment 465 refers to an impact assessment to test a number of measures in the Bill and those that are the subject of amendments in this group, such as the change to consultation periods, the introduction of mandatory tactile markers or barriers around licensed areas and the removal of the automatic approval of licences. In general, we see real benefits in giving local authorities the ability to manage outside spaces on their high streets in a way that works best for their communities and without unnecessary bureaucracy which makes the application and implementation onerous for either the local authority or the businesses that are applicants. However, it is important that, in doing so, we ensure that we do not create a street scene that is in any way less accessible to those with disabilities, nor create health hazards for other users by turning outside areas into smoking zones that deter them. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I congratulate her on the efficient and effective way in which she dealt with 17 amendments; she did so with such clarity. I rise to speak to Amendments 449 to 460, all of which bar one are in my name.

In speaking to my amendments and thanking all the organisations that have sent helpful briefings to noble Lords, I want to cover something before we get into the detail: I simply wish to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement. It is not a place for excessive A-boards, advertisements, marketing materials or sprawling seating. It is a place to connect people. It is a place where we can meet on our streets. Yet, all too often, we experience inaccessibility, obstacles and problems when we are simply trying to go about our daily business. This is bad enough for anybody, but for those of us who use guide dogs or wheelchairs it can often be an impossibility. Add to that the excessive dumping and the discarding of e-scooters and you can hardly say that the current usage of our pavements is in any sense optimal, accessible or inclusive.

Let us take a step back to the Business and Planning Act 2020, in which sensible measures were brought in at a time when we were facing a once-in-a-century pandemic. It cannot be right that the lessons we take from that are to roll over some of those provisions in perpetuity now that we are, fortunately, in such a different set of circumstances.

The amendments in my name can be split into three categories: accessibility and inclusion; payment for our pavements; and healthy environments. First, on accessibility and inclusion, the principle of “inclusive by design” should be the basis on which we base everything that we do, be it physical infrastructure or things way beyond. It should be the heart and soul—indeed, the very fabric—of our communities. Yet, as we see with this set of amendments, this is all too often not the case when it comes to pavements.

As has already been set out, Amendment 455 puts the case that, when pavement licences are to be granted, the flow and access needs of users and pedestrians should be thoroughly taken into account. We can call this, if you will, the amendment that goes to the heart of the purpose of our pavements.

Amendment 460 talks about the need for tactile markings and physical barriers to demark seating areas. This is not only to enable them to be safe and demarked for people who may use white canes to navigate and may have buddies who need to get through; crucially, it will also stop the sprawl of seating. Amendment 460 can now be known as the “prohibition of sprawling seating amendment”.

Amendment 458 seeks to put the case that, where licences for seating and other ephemera are granted, such seating must be removed from the pavement when it is not in use for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has already set out.

Similarly, Amendment 450 puts a real case that not only the pavement should be considered for such licences. If the circumstances fit and are safe, it could be quite proper to include part of the carriageway in that pavement licence. We have already seen schemes to skinny highways; this could be an effective part of that where, in effect, the load of sharing the licence is more equitably shared between pedestrians and the users of the carriageway.

However, access and inclusion are not just about the physical environment; “inclusive by design” is just as important for practices, policies and procedures. That brings me to Amendments 454 and 456, which look at the application and consultation processes for the granting of pavement licences. In 2020, when we passed the Business and Planning Act, there was a particular need for increased speed. Businesses were facing an extraordinary set of circumstances, as were local authorities and, indeed, all of us. Those circumstances have now changed and there can be no case for that consultation not to be returned to 28 days. In fact, I put it to my noble friend the Minister that, if the consultation period is reduced as currently set out in the Bill, it could very well represent a prima facie breach of local authorities’ public sector equality duties and contravene wider equalities legislation; I welcome her view on that point.

I turn to payments for our pavements. Although we can all be supportive of a certain level of pavement usage, such as for cafés, eating and the like, it should be clearly understood that the pavement is our pavement. It is operated and administered on our behalf by the local authority. Amendments 451 and 452 speak directly to this point, not only in terms of the cleansing and maintenance of pavements as a result of the granting of these licences but in terms of the potential profit share. I believe that sharing the profits generated on those pavements—our pavements—should be strongly considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, pointed out, a formula could well be constructed within the licence itself, not least for cleansing and maintenance, but I believe that the profit share point is a critical one. We want to support our local businesses but, when they have a licence and are generating business on our pavements, it is only right and proper that, through the local authority, we should share in that profit.

Finally, these amendments would enable not only safer but cleaner, more accessible and more inclusive pavements, and therefore in all senses much healthier spaces. This cannot be inordinately difficult. It is simply about properly considering and balancing the needs of restaurants and residents, cafes and the community. Unfortunately, this clearly is not happening at any level to the extent it should. If this Bill is about levelling up, if it is about regeneration, then this starts with our streets and with the primary purpose of the pavement. That is what these amendments are all about. I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

217: Schedule 7, page 294, line 22, at end insert—
“(4A) A local plan must conform with the principle of inclusive design, and where a local planning authority receives any observations or advice from a person appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) to the effect that a proposed local plan does not conform with that principle, the local planning authority must modify the plan to ensure conformity in accordance with the observations or advice.”

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is pleasure to open this group of amendments. I intend to speak to Amendments 217 and 302 in my name, but I also give more than a supportive nod to the double nelson in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. My two amendments are pretty similar in terms but address two specific areas. They simply require that, whether we are talking about local plans or planning more broadly, they should be predicated on the principle of “inclusive by design”.

Let me share a small example to make this point. A number of years ago, so-called shared space became popular among local authorities. I say “so-called” shared space, because in reality it was nothing of the sort—some might say it was a planning folly. In effect, it was where previously inclusive and accessible public realm was converted into “shared space”. Let us take a carriageway, for example. Shared space came in and removed kerbstones, road markings, pavements, crossings and lights, and then pedestrians, tankers, toddlers and buses were all supposed to share that space, with everybody paying more respect to one another. As I say, some may say that it was a planning folly. There are still examples across the country, some not that far from your Lordships’ House.

Had we had the principle of “inclusive by design” underpinning public realm, underpinning planning and underpinning—as in this Bill—local plans, we would not have had such designs which exclude so many people from the local community who were previously able to access those areas independently. Had we had “inclusive by design” as a planning principle, with everything predicated on it, we would not have had such “shared spaces” and we would not have inaccessible, non-inclusive areas across our public realms, across our cities and across our communities.

I wrote a report in 2015 on “shared space” and it saw that over two-thirds of people found it difficult if not impossible to navigate. “Inclusive by design” is a key planning principle. It is not just for disabled people or just about access; it is about the very heart, soul and fabric of our local areas—inclusive by design so that they can be accessed, enjoyed and passed through by all members of our community. That is what my Amendments 217 and 302 are all about. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will. I will look back at Hansard and ensure that we get exactly what the noble Lord wants. To tell the truth I thought he had already got it, but I believe what he says and will see that he gets it.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would require all local planning authorities to prepare authority-wide design codes as part of their development plan, either as part of their local plan or as a supplementary plan, as I have said before. The Bill already includes the obligation, found in the new Sections 15C and 15CC of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by Schedule 7, that local plans and supplementary plans must be designed to secure that the development and use of land in the authority’s areas contributes to the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change.

In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectation that plans take a proactive approach to adapting to and mitigating climate change. It makes it clear that local plans and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. The national model design code provides guidance on how local design codes can be prepared to ensure well-designed places which respond to the impacts of climate change, through ensuring that places and buildings are energy efficient, minimise carbon emissions and contribute to the implementing of the Government’s biodiversity net gain policy.

I understand and agree with the importance of this subject matter. We are clear, though, for the reasons I have set out, that this is already being addressed through the Bill, national policy and design guidance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will understand that this is not an amendment that we feel is necessary.

I hope I have said enough to enable my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to withdraw his Amendment 217, and for other amendments in this group not to be moved when they are reached.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this group of amendments. I particularly thank my noble friend the Minister for her full response. Green spaces, inclusive places: we can achieve this and deliver it through statutory design if we so choose. I think we will certainly return to some of these issues, and more, when we get to Report in the autumn, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 217 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

43A: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting on missions: robotics and automationWithin 90 days of a Minister of the Crown laying a statement of levelling-up missions for the first time which contains reference to the use of automation, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report which considers whether introducing a taskforce would help to increase effective use of robotics and automation, and reduce disparities between geographical areas in this regard.”

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this amendment. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register.

We have a productivity problem in this country. There are a number of causes—immigration policy, skills policy—but an area that gets precious little attention is the number of robots in the workforce, not just in manufacturing but across the whole United Kingdom workforce. The measure, taken by the IFR, is robots per 10,000 of the employed population. The UK has 111; we are in 15th position, at the bottom of the G7, yet robots could make such a difference to productivity, to levelling up and to the shape, size and scale of the UK economy. That is what my Amendment 43A is all about: opening up the whole question of how we increase the number of robots in the workforce—and they should be considered members of the workforce. We need to consider them, and be cool with “cobots”.

In the medium term, they are certainly productivity creators and job makers. Yes, in certain sectors and industries, there may be serious transition that should be taken seriously, considered and dealt with as we move more robots into the workforce, but ultimately they are productivity creators and job makers. Amendment 43A merely asks the Government to have a task force for this purpose, to improve the levelling up of the economy across the UK for the benefit of all of us. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for tabling this amendment. It is really interesting, and I was very interested in what he had to say about the possibilities this opens up. It is important to encourage the Government to consider how automation and robots can help, not hamper, the levelling-up agenda, and how they can be part of making a difference. Automation and robotics can bring enormous possibilities to improve Britain’s productivity and boost the national economy. This is clearly a really important part of what underpins the White Paper and its objectives, but it will be realised only if the Government can actually harness that potential.

There have been ad hoc announcements relating to robotics. For example, Defra has promised new funding for agriculture and horticulture automation and robotics. However, what we do not have is an overarching strategy to ensure that the benefits of this kind of technological development can be felt equally across the board, and there are so many different areas that noble Lords referred to where this can be used.

Similarly, it seems that there is no concerted effort to negate the harmful effects of automation on the future of work. Workers are rightly concerned when they hear about automation coming into the businesses and factories in which they work. That is partly because, for too long, many workers have been at the wrong end of automation and have suffered as a result of their labour being casualised. It is really important that this be addressed, so I would be interested to hear if the Minister has an update on steps following the 2022 Future of Work review. If the Minister commented on how that could take forward robotics and automation in the workforce, that would be very helpful.

Having said that, our ambition for automation and robotics should extend far beyond just negating any negative impacts. The Government should be considering how they can make the UK a destination of choice for investment in these emerging technologies. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, say that we are in a really low position in this regard. I was quite surprised by that, because I have always thought of us as an inventive country and society. There is ground to be made up here, and it seems that, unfortunately, a lack of skills is presenting a common barrier. As announced, the Labour Party believes that a “Skills England” body should be set up to address the current skills shortages. There should be a national effort to upskill Britain, which would allow us to meet the future challenges of automation and other emerging trends in our economy. Will the Government consider whether replacing the Unit for Future Skills would allow automation and robotics to better support the levelling-up agenda?

Finally, any prosperity that results from emerging technologies in the UK needs to be distributed a long way beyond just the south-east of England, which, unfortunately, is where it is mainly focused at the moment. As part of the levelling-up agenda, it is important that these emerging technologies, skills training and where businesses are deciding to invest are properly monitored, and that local authorities become part of that. The noble Baroness spoke earlier about the importance of working with local authorities on other parts of the levelling-up agenda. Engaging with local authorities on future opportunities to invest in automation and robotics will be really important if we are to spread the benefit and make the most of automation and robotics for the future of our economy.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 43A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, would oblige the Government to publish a report that considers establishing a taskforce to help increase effective use of robotics and automation and consider the impact on regional disparities. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing us to this important set of issues, which have major implications for the levelling-up agenda.

It is perfectly true that the UK lags behind the global average when it comes to adopting robotics technology, and this is holding back UK manufacturing productivity. There are, of course, shining exceptions to that general statement. The nuclear fusion cluster around Culham in Oxfordshire has been described as the UK’s Silicon Valley for nuclear fusion robotics and will play a key role in maintaining fusion power plants. The UK Atomic Energy Authority’s RACE programme is at the forefront of developing robotic technology. Nevertheless, we are ranked the lowest in the G7 for robot density and 24th globally.

What are the barriers to adoption? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put her finger on one of the main ones, which is technical skills. We lack those technical skills. However, apart from skills, there are three others that I am afraid have held us back: leadership and management skills, access to finance, and investment appetite.

I am in full agreement with my noble friend in wanting more manufacturers to adopt technology that will improve productivity and stimulate growth, such as robotics and automation, and we have programmes that support them to do this. This includes the Made Smarter programme, which has committed almost £200 million in funding to manufacturers—large, small and medium enterprises—to develop new technology solutions and adopt existing tech, including robotics and autonomous systems.

The £24 million Made Smarter adoption programme is available to manufacturing small and medium enterprises in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the east Midlands and West Midlands regions. The programme provides expert advice, grant funding and leadership training to SMEs to help them adopt robotics, automation and autonomous systems, as well as other industrial digital technologies that can improve productivity and growth.

We are also considering what further to do in this field. We convene a Robotics Growth Partnership, chaired by Professor David Lane and Paul Clarke, which works with robotics and autonomous systems sector leaders across academia and industry to put the UK at the cutting edge of the smart robotics revolution ambition, turbocharging—as we would like to call it—economic productivity and unlocking benefits across society. Last year the Robotics Growth Partnership published a vision for cyber physical infrastructure, and the Government will shortly publish their consultation response on that subject.

The levelling-up mission on R&D, designed to increase the amount of R&D funding outside the greater south-east, and accompanying initiatives such as innovation accelerators, will help to provide additional support to areas with existing expertise in robotics such as the Glasgow City region. The Derry/Londonderry and Strabane region city deal will also see investment in the region’s Centre for Industrial Digitalisation, Robotics and Automation. The Levelling Up Advisory Council has also committed to exploring how to improve the uptake of productivity-enhancing technologies by businesses as part of its work considering regional adoption and diffusion.

I hope that my noble friend will find what I have said a source of some good cheer. The Government are well aware of how important this agenda is, and while at the moment a task force is not thought necessary, should the Government find it desirable to establish a task force in future, it would not be necessary to legislate to establish one. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her comments; I agree entirely with her comments on skills. If we are to gain all the advantages of the new technologies—the fourth industrial revolution—it will be this combination of skills, the right immigration policy and robotics, and all the new technologies that are at our fingertips right now. I thank in particular my noble friend the Minister for a very full, thorough, detailed and positive answer. I am certainly aware of the initiatives that he has set out and it is excellent to have them all now on the record.

We need, however, a target—something to aim at —because we should be on the podium when it comes to this. Currently, we are not even in the B final. So we may want to return to this in some form on Report and certainly see whether something can be done to tie this very clearly to the overall levelling-up mission that I know that we are all so fully committed to. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43A withdrawn.