Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a lot of Youngs involved, and I will try to respond on behalf of both of them. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the government amendment, and I am sure that, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would also do so.

On the rest of it, I had hoped that, with this group of amendments, we might have found a chink in the Government’s armour that has been deployed throughout our debates. I am disappointed that we have not been able to make progress, and I know that the Local Government Association will also be disappointed.

I am grateful to all those who took part. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made the valid point that the flat rate prescribed by the Government simply does not reflect the costs to a local authority of a complex planning application that spans a number of years; that point was not adequately dealt with.

I was most concerned to hear what my noble friend Lord Moylan said about developers offering to second to an overstretched planning department a planner who might assist them. That is rather like me saying to Test Valley Borough Council, “I understand your electoral department is under some pressure; I would like to second a returning officer to the forthcoming election”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If my noble friend will allow me to say so, I did not suggest that they were offering to second somebody but to fund a planning officer who would be recruited from the pool of available planning officers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. None the less, the principle that he ended his speech with is still valid: a local authority should not be dependent on the good will of a developer to process that developer’s planning application. That goes against most of the codes of independence for local government.

In response to my amendment, my noble friend the Minister said that she could not accept it because of the uncertainty that might confront developers and the costs might be too high. But the charge under my amendment could only reflect the costs. A local authority could not charge a fee as a deterrent if it was not substantiated by the underlying cost.

As for uncertainty, what developers, housebuilders and any planning applicant want is for their application to be processed promptly and efficiently by a well-resourced planning department. That is their priority. I do not think that uncertainty about future fees comes into it, or it is right down their list of priorities.

Also, I do not see how this central control of planning fees sits with the whole language of the Bill, which is about empowering local authorities and giving them more autonomy to reflect local needs. It appears that, despite all that, we cannot trust them to set planning fees. I think the Government’s stance on this group of amendments sits uneasily with their whole philosophy, but, while I reflect on what to do next, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it pains me to find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, with whom I have worked on another cause in your Lordships’ House and for whom that I have the highest respect. I know she is motivated only by the highest considerations in bringing forward this Bill.

First, I shall address Clause 2, which I do not think has been mentioned so far. I wish to summarise and dispose of it, so to speak, but I want to come back to it later, which is why I think it is worth mentioning. Clause 2 imposes a duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. It is already the case that sexual harassment in the workplace can give rise to actions against employers, but there is no corresponding duty on their part to prevent it happening. This clause is aimed at filling that gap—uncontroversially, in my view—and that is absolutely fine.

The meat of the Bill is in Clause 1. Clause 1 is an attempt to respond to, in some ways, the events that occurred at the Presidents Club dinner some years ago, which, I say straight away, in my opinion were wholly reprehensible and should not have been allowed to happen, and the people involved should have some form of redress. I believe they do but not necessarily through the Equality Act as it stands, hence Clause 1 coming forward to address those issues.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for arranging a meeting for me with the Government Equalities Office, which supports the Bill. I am grateful too for the written briefing that I have had from the Fawcett Society, in which it draws attention to the fact that 56% of women working in the hospitality sector experience sexual harassment. That is clearly unacceptable, but the first question to ask is: does Clause 1 do anything for them? What does it do for the people who served and were abused at the Presidents Club dinner? I think it probably does nothing for them at all, because it specifically says that it applies to employees.

I know nothing about the Presidents Club dinner and the particular arrangements on that occasion, but I know that, in general, it is the case that where large banquets and other events like that take place, even in hotels, the staff are normally supplied by a silver service agency, which does not employ them in the first place. I once had an office in the same corridor as a silver service agency—a very reputable firm that supplied staff to many events throughout London. The office was occupied only by the owner of the business and his secretary; there were no other employees. The staff who were supplied to wait at table at such events were very often students and people like that. They were part of a contact list, and the owner would assemble these people as occasion required. They were contract workers. Section 40 of the Equality Act defines employees, and generally speaking the status of employee arises for someone who has a contract of employment. However, a contract worker is not an employee, and they are dealt with in a separate part of the Equality Act.

So my first comment is that I do not think that Clause 1 would have done anything at all for staff working at the Presidents Club dinner, nor would it do anything for other people in similar circumstances, because large numbers of people in the hospitality sector are not in employed status but are in fact contract workers. It seems to me that the Bill does not even do what it intends and sets out to do.

Secondly—again taking the Presidents Club dinner as the starting point—the Bill chooses to go way beyond sexual harassment. Clause 2 is about sexual harassment but is not pertinent to the Presidents Club dinner. Clause 1 defines the harassment simply as “harassment”; it does not say “sexual harassment”. However, in Section 26 of the Equality Act harassment is defined, and it covers all relevant protected characteristics. So the Bill goes way beyond sexual harassment, as I think my noble friend Lord Strathcarron mentioned, and would concern religion and all the other protected characteristics in the Act. That seems to me to be an overreach and a misfiring of the Bill, which could be so much better targeted at the evil that it intends to address.

This brings us to the freedom of speech problems. Because the net has been cast so wide and covers all protected characteristics, the problems that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron instantiated in relation to his own experience as a modest publisher and a trustee of a museum immediately arise. In places with large numbers of persons having access, the policies that will need to be put in place will need to be very in-the-face of those who are likely to have access to such an event. I do not know what they will consist of, but—this is another important point—they all have to be reasonable steps.

The Fawcett Society brief says that employers will be required to take “reasonable steps”. That is not what the Bill says; it says, “all reasonable steps”. There is a world of difference in law, as I understand it, between “reasonable steps” and “all reasonable steps”. A small business, which might take the reasonable steps that it can see for itself but which fails to take other steps that larger businesses are taking—perhaps it is not even aware that those larger businesses are taking those steps—would be found to have failed to have taken all reasonable steps. At the very least, it should be required to do what the Fawcett Society thinks it will be doing and take “reasonable steps”. In my view, the word “all” needs to be removed.

I will now slightly repeat a point made by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron in coming to the question of the defence inserted by the Commons in new subsections (1C) and (1D). The meat is in new subsection (1C), where we find conditions which have to be met before that particular section can be prayed in aid by an employer. As drafted, all those conditions have to be met. I will not read them out because noble Lords have them in front of them and they are easily read, but each is quite onerous in itself, and cumulatively they will barely be available to employers when they come to an employment tribunal, should they do so. All this will do is result in more and more policies and more and more compliance culture as employers attempt to protect themselves from being sued, because their objective is to avoid ending up in an employment tribunal in the first place rather than to have a defence when they get there, which is completely understandable.

My final point is more of a query, because I am doing my very best on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said that there would be a statutory code of conduct issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which would show how the Bill would work. However, I cannot find it in the Bill; I cannot find a basis in the Bill for such a code of conduct. The notes produced by our own Library in the House of Lords say, as the noble Baroness said, that there will be a statutory code of conduct and that this is referred to in the Explanatory Notes. Look though I might in the Explanatory Notes, I cannot find that either. But then I note that the Library note puts this remark about a statutory code under its explication of Clause 2, so it possibly means that there will be a statutory code of conduct in relation to Clause 2. That would be absolutely fine—I have come back to Clause 2, as I said I would. I regard Clause 2 as uncontroversial, so supporting it with a statutory code of conduct seems to be a sensible step. But where is the evidence that there will be statutory code of conduct in relation to Clause 1, which is the one that is causing us so much difficulty?

Moreover, a point of considerable concern is that even if we find that there is to be such a statutory code of conduct—my noble friend the Minister might be able to give an assurance and explain what its statutory basis is—we are, in effect, outsourcing to the commission most of the substance of the operation of this clause that we are being asked to approve today. I think that is rather troublesome.

I do not say, as my noble friend did, that this piece of legislation has been rushed. I do not know whether it has been rushed, but it is ill thought out and misses the point. It does not do anything for the people it is trying to help, and it creates difficulties in other areas. My view is that it would be sensible if it were withdrawn and rethought; otherwise, it will have to be amended in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Without referring specifically to the Presidents Club dinner, because none of us knows the actual facts of that, I ask in general terms whether, for a large banquet served by persons supplied by a silver service, the liable employer—given that they are not employed—would be the silver service company, the organisers of the banquet or indeed the owners of the premises, which might be an hotel, in which the banquet took place.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will not answer my noble friend, as I do not have a degree in employment law, but I will ensure that I find the answer for him and put a copy in the Library.

My noble friend Lord Moylan also asked why there are so many conditions in the Commons amendment. I understand that a number of conditions all need to be met for the amendment introduced in the other place to be triggered.

I think that is everything. If I have not answered everyone’s questions, I will look in Hansard and make sure that I get a written answer to everyone. At the same time, if noble Lords still have concerns about the Bill and its contents, I would be more than happy to discuss it further with officials. I am happy for anyone to get in touch with me—we will put something in the diary.

I end by underscoring the cross-party support that the Bill enjoyed in the other place, where speakers from all walks of life appealed to this House to maintain that collaborative spirit. So it is with particular determination that I now commend the Bill to the House. The Government are proud to back it and wish it safe passage through its remaining stages.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

176: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—
“Traffic emission road charging schemes(1) This section relates to schemes under which drivers are charged for using roads within a specified zone (affected roads) according to the traffic emissions of the vehicle concerned.(2) A devolved authority may only introduce such a scheme if, before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities which have affected roads within their boundaries.(3) In considering whether to grant consent under subsection (2), the relevant local authorities must have regard to their duties in relation to air quality under section 83A of the Environment Act 1995 (duties of English local authorities in relation to designated areas).(4) Where consent is sought under subsection (2), the question of whether to grant consent must be considered by the relevant local authority in full Council.(5) Where such a scheme has been introduced by a devolved authority before the coming into force of this section, the devolved authority must request consent to the continuation of the scheme from all local authorities which have affected roads within their boundaries.(6) In considering whether to grant consent under subsection (5), the relevant local authorities must have regard to their duties in relation to air quality under section 83A of the Environment Act 1995 (duties of English local authorities in relation to designated areas).(7) Where consent is sought under subsection (5), the question of whether to grant consent must be considered by the relevant local authority in full Council. (8) Where consent is sought under subsection (5) and not granted, the devolved authority must cease to implement the scheme within three months of the decision not to grant consent.(9) In this section—“devolved authority” means—(a) Transport for London,(b) the Mayor of London, or(c) the Mayor of a Combined Authority;“local authority” means—(a) a district council,(b) a county council, or(c) a London borough council.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 176, I will speak also to Amendment 178B, both of which are in my name; I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given them their support.

In our discussion of the Bill, we have had much debate on the powers of mayoral authorities and the balance between upper-tier authorities—local authorities, regional authorities and mayoral authorities—and those lower down the chain. These amendments continue that debate in a different way. With noble Lords’ agreement, I will start by speaking to Amendment 178B; I will come to Amendment 176 after that.

Amendment 178B is very brief and technical but has quite a lot of effect. It amends the Greater London Authority Act to allow the assembly to amend the mayor’s budget by an absolute majority, rather than requiring a two-thirds majority, as now. Although it is drafted to apply to London, if granted this would have a wider effect, because there are other metropolitan mayoral authorities with similar arrangements for the scrutiny and passing of a mayoral budget. I will speak about London, from my experience, and the other matters can be taken later.

When the Blair Government set up the Greater London Authority through the 1999 Act, they were wedded to the idea that it should have a very strong mayor—a sort of Nietzschean super-figure bestriding the capital and, crucially for our purposes, able to impose his or her own budget on London, even if opposed by a majority in the elected assembly. No reason was ever given for this, as far as I understand, and it entailed a significant denial of the norms of democracy. When he was mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had a certain sense of irony, used to sit in the public gallery of the assembly when his budget was being debated. Every time he lost a vote and there was a majority against, he would give a little chuckle and declare a triumph, because although 50% or even 60% of the members were voting against that provision in his budget, it had no effect because they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.

When it was set up, it was explained that the Greater London Authority’s powers were strictly limited to it being a strategic authority for London; it was not meant to be a delivery authority. The mayor did operate four functional bodies in addition: Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, the fire and rescue authority and the London Development Agency. Although the architecture around the development agency later changed slightly, that position remained. However, the powers of the mayor have increased very significantly. As the Government have made clear in discussion on this Bill, the intention is to increase the powers of mayors in other parts of the country as part of their devolution and levelling-up approach.

We are seeing mayors accumulate more powers and larger budgets. For example, the Mayor of London is now responsible for the housing budget for London, which is billions-plus. These powers are being accumulated but the co-decision and scrutiny functions that go with them are not being kept up to date. In fact, the Government recognise this. It may not be government policy yet, but I even saw in a newspaper that the Government were speculating on increasing the scrutiny of elected mayors by setting up panels of local MPs to scrutinise what they were going to do. There is no need to do this: the assembly exists. The scrutiny body is there already: it needs empowerment, which this amendment provides. I am putting a burden on my noble friend by inviting her to explain why we should be denying democracy in our great cities and urban areas—such a burden that quite possibly she will decide to agree with me. I look forward to that very much indeed.

Turning to the question of balance of powers, we come to Amendment 176, which is drafted to cover the whole country and is not specific to London. However, I will speak of it in London terms because of my own experience and allow noble Lords to draw parallels with other areas. It relates to the ULEZ charge—a power the mayor has in fact had since the foundation of the Greater London Authority; road user charging was in the Greater London Authority Act as far back as 1999. It has been expanded in geographical terms. Under Ken Livingstone, it was small and very focused. There was a low emission zone around Heathrow Airport and a congestion charge around just the very centre of London. It has been expanded to include not only inner London, which has already been delivered, but outer London as well—the current proposal—into areas wholly different from inner London and best understood by their own elected councils. Yet, they have no say.

This amendment would give councils that say, not just in London but in other parts of the country. It would give a power of co-decision with local councils in the extension of a road user charging scheme—ULEZ in this case. It would require that that decision be made in full council. It would not be a decision of the executive arm—for example, the cabinet or the locally elected mayor. It would also be retrospective, so that existing schemes would have to be subject to such a vote in order to continue. It would also ensure that local councils have regard to their air quality duties under the Environment Act when making their decisions. Nobody is in favour of poor air quality; it is a question of how to get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not least for taking me down memory lane. He began by describing the Greater London Authority Act. I had the honour, and sometimes the pleasure, of taking that Bill through this House from the Front Bench, along with my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I remember the debates very well indeed. The noble Lord’s references to the prospective Mayor Livingstone were slightly wide of the mark. As I recall, the then Labour Government were terrified of the threat of Mayor Livingstone—and it was a threat as far as they were concerned. We spent much of our debate on the Greater London Bill discussing measures to reduce his powers. However, we should not divert too much into history.

I welcome Amendment 178B, on the budget. As it happens, when we were doing the Greater London Bill, I was the leader of a London borough council. I was certainly the only council leader in the Lords, and perhaps the only one in Parliament at that time. I went on to lead the Liberal Democrats on the Greater London Authority for its first eight years. I remember only too well the first eight years of Mayor Livingstone’s budget. Never once did he come close to getting majority support for it. It was always passed, because it had to be, but always without the two-thirds majority to amend it.

That has continued to be the case throughout the life of the Greater London Authority. In both of the last two years, in the preceding debate on the budget—it is a two-stage process—there was not even majority support for the mayor’s budget. When it came to the all-important final decision, a two-thirds majority was not there. So I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about the need for some democracy there and that the practice for majority support for a budget should apply, as it does virtually everywhere else.

I move now to what I call the ULEZ amendment, although it is not strictly speaking a ULEZ amendment. The expansion of the ULEZ to outer London is hugely controversial in outer London at the moment. I should declare an interest, as I was a leader of a London borough council for 13 years—incidentally, a London borough council that has been under Liberal Democrat control for the last 37 years and has won the last 10 elections with a majority, so we must be doing something right there.

ULEZ is hugely controversial and is causing a lot of upset. This amendment is not about the particular proposals for its expansion; it is more about the relationship between the London boroughs and the mayor. That needs to work on a form of consensus. The mayor has the strategic authority, as you cannot deal with a subject as important as air pollution on only a borough-by-borough basis. It must of course be dealt with on a London-wide basis, in this case, so from that point of view I am wholly in agreement. However, the borough and the borough councils have to do the mechanics and implementation, and they are getting most of the heat from the objections here.

I could all too easily divert myself into talking about the shortcomings of the mayor’s present proposals, but I do not want to. I say that as someone from a council that strongly supports any measures that will genuinely reduce air pollution and tackle that issue. But the way the consultation was conducted and the way the implementation is being proposed owe everything to the mayor’s awareness of the timetable he has to meet before the next mayoral election—he wants the expansion firmly embedded in good time before May 2024—and nothing to good common sense.

This amendment is actually about the relationship between the Mayor of London and the borough councils, particularly their leaders. I was very much minded to put my name to this amendment, but I did not do so and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, knows why: I think that proposed new subsection (2) is wrong. It says that

“before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities”

within the affected area. That gives any one authority the power to veto, in effect, the whole scheme. That is simply wrong.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

With every possible respect for the noble Lord, would he accept that it would in fact allow the mayor to tailor the scheme to include those boroughs that are willing to have it and exclude those that are not? It would not veto the entire scheme for other boroughs that wished to see it implemented as the mayor had proposed.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I accept that a mayor, were he or she so minded, could act in that way. However, I have to say that the current mayor has shown no interest whatever in conceding anything to any of the boroughs, let alone to one single borough. We could get to a state in which the mayor allows one borough—I will not name one, although Bromley comes to mind, remembering the trouble we had with the introduction of the Freedom Pass—to opt out and the mayor could accept that, but I would not want to put that responsibility on some future mayor.

It would be much better if we stuck to the majority principle that we were talking about just now; the boroughs should have the right themselves to opt out of the scheme. I would hope that they would not do so, but they could have the right to opt themselves and their area out of it, but not the right to either stop it for everywhere else or rely on the benevolence of the mayor—little of which we have seen recently—to opt that borough out. So a much better way would be to reword the amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord is not going to press this to a vote tonight, although a lot of people in London think he is: much better that we come back on Report with clearer, better wording to try to achieve what we want to do.

I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, that what this amendment is actually about is the relationship between an executive Mayor of London—in a sense, a presidential system—and the borough councils, which are essentially a parliamentary system. Nobody has given enough thought, and there are many other examples, to how we match the mismatch between a presidential and parliamentary system. We have a situation now where the boroughs are all, in a sense, elected parliamentary bodies, with borough council leaders playing an increasing role through London Councils in the running of London, and a presidential-style elected mayor who has all the power vested in the mayor, with none vested in the boroughs and none, for that matter, vested in the London Assembly either. I say that with some regret after serving as an assembly member—indeed, as the leader of the Liberal Democrat group there—for eight years.

I hesitate today to ask for a reconsideration of the government of London—I am not sure I would want to go through all of that again—but that is, in essence, what this amendment is about. If we can agree a slightly different form of wording for this to come back on Report, I should be happy then to give it my support.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 176, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would change the local consents required for traffic emission road-charging schemes to be introduced, and apply these new requirements retrospectively. I reassure the Committee that this amendment is not necessary for regions outside London as it maintains the status quo. In London, the amendment as drafted could remove established devolved powers from an elected mayor and as we have discussed in Committee, this is not our intention for devolution.

In London, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 the mayor has the authority to create a new road scheme that charges users, or vary one, so long as doing so will directly or indirectly facilitate the achievement of the policies and proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. As drafted, this amendment could be in conflict with the Greater London Authority Act, and it would potentially create legal uncertainty and conflict between the mayor and the London borough councils.

The Department for Transport has not made statements in support of the ULEZ: Transport Ministers have been completely clear that this has been a matter for the mayor to decide. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been engaging and will continue to engage with MPs whose constituents may be impacted by the proposed ULEZ expansion.

Outside London, charging schemes have been introduced for addressing congestion issues, improving air quality and raising funds for investment in new transport infrastructure and improving transport quality. The Transport Act 2000 already sets out how road-charging schemes can be introduced. In combined authority areas, these powers are held between the combined authority and the local traffic authorities—that is, the constituent authorities of the CA. Therefore, outside London local authorities are already required to introduce schemes and existing legislation already delivers what this amendment seeks to achieve.

Additionally, the amendment would require the reconfirmation of a number of existing charging schemes and it would allow any local authority unilaterally to revoke them. These schemes have been introduced and agreed locally and, where they cover multiple local authorities, agreed jointly. Decisions on whether to amend or revoke these schemes would therefore also be made jointly, as the powers in the Transport Act 2000 already ensure. I nevertheless recognise how important this issue is not only to my noble friend but to many others, and not just in London. I am happy to meet with him to discuss these matters further.

Amendment 178B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, seeks to lower the threshold for amending the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from two-thirds of assembly members present and voting to a simple majority. While the amendment would undoubtedly strengthen the power of the London Assembly and mirror the voting threshold applied at earlier stages of the assembly’s consideration of the mayor’s annual budget, it must also be balanced against the benefits of the current strong mayoral model in London. I agree with my noble friend that it is crucial in any of these systems that we have strong audit and scrutiny. That is why the Bill strengthens both audit and scrutiny committees in these new authorities.

I recognise my noble friend’s interest in and experience of London governance matters and I would be pleased, as I say, to engage with him not only on his earlier amendments but these. Perhaps we might review the operation of London’s devolution settlement separately from the Committee’s consideration of the Bill, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for what was a very valuable debate and I shall briefly go through those who spoke.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, put his finger on it by saying that this is really a question that will not go away: about the balance of powers in areas that have strong regional government—combined authorities, metropolitan mayors and so forth—with the local councils, the constituent councils. As my noble friend the Minister made clear, those arrangements differ in different parts of the country, but we have to learn lessons from them and apply those lessons in an evolving way to existing structures; we cannot just dig our heels in and say that what was good in 1999 is good for ever. We have to be able to improve things; we understood that. On the question of subsection (2), I had a strong sense, listening to the noble Lord, that we were actually in violent agreement, but I am going to speak to him afterwards to discover if there is a difference between us and what can be done to reconcile our understanding of the boundary issue.

I was very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I give some credit to the Green Party here as an example of what can be achieved by a more democratic scrutiny of the mayor’s budget. Only a few weeks ago, in consideration of the mayor’s budget the Green Party put forward in the assembly a costed amendment that would have required the mayor to introduce lavatories at up to 70 London stations. It got a majority in the London assembly; it was supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats; of course, it fell. Having a majority is not enough in this sort of democracy. There is something very strange about that; however, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, was right to point out that the weakness of process and the rushing of air quality measures is provoking a backlash and cynicism among the voters. She also expressed very well the genuine and real suffering of those who face the prospect of the current proposed ULEZ scheme in London. I have to be honest: what I would expect if this amendment were passed is not that boroughs would actually block a mayoral scheme to introduce a ULEZ; they would moderate it, because they too are interested in better air quality, and so are local people. They would have their say, so it would be introduced in a slower and more manageable way, with more local consensus and better support for those who are in need of making what can be a very expensive transition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, drew on a very long experience of local government again to put her finger on the question of the democratic deficit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made it abundantly clear that the Labour Party stands four-square behind the Labour mayor’s proposal to impose a ULEZ on outer London; there was not one word of criticism.

She mentioned the estimate of 4,000 premature deaths in London. I do not dispute that figure, but it is difficult to know what it means: is a premature death 10 years before you would have died or a week before? These are difficult figures to interpret, but that figure I regard as reliable and I am not disputing it in any way. However, I want to point out is that when I was deputy chairman of Transport for London—a post that came to an end in 2016—and on the board, the figure was also 4,000. The measures are introduced—the local traffic neighbourhoods, the ULEZes—but the estimated figure never changes. So is it really doing any good?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill.

Amendment 177 proposes the preparation of a code of practice for consultation by local authorities and public bodies on contentious matters to ensure that they are impartial and not manipulative—which follows on well from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on the last amendment.

Conservatives used to criticise Ken Livingstone, as leader of the GLC, for conducting bogus consultations designed to justify whatever decisions he had already made. Unfortunately, there have been a number of serious examples of similar behaviour by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea affecting the area of the borough in which I live—I declare my interest. I will mention here just two. The first was a council scheme to turn Sloane Square into a crossroads, when two bogus consultations were held that purported to show widespread support for the scheme. The council was pressurised to hold a third consultation, conducted impartially by an independent third party, that showed that 72% of respondents were opposed to the scheme, which was then dropped.

The second was the Cadogan Estates scheme to have dedicated parking bays created outside its high-end designer shops in Sloane Street. This was taken up by the council and rebranded as a scheme to “improve the public realm”. Among the manipulative consultation materials, to give but one example, was a question on whether people wanted “more trees and planting”, which was welcomed because people generally like more trees. The result of this is that Cadogan now has permission to disfigure the street with 52 ugly “planters”—work on which has now started.

The request that the consultation be conducted impartially by an independent third party—failing which, the local residents’ associations wished to review and comment on the consultation materials in draft form—was ignored. The response of the Minister in the other place in a letter of 31 August last year to Richard Drax MP was as follows:

“On consultations by local authorities and public bodies, the Government has been clear that communities must be at the heart of the planning process. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as introduced into Parliament, will reform the process for producing plans so that it is faster and easier for communities to engage with. The Bill will increase and enhance the opportunities for involvement to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people”.


The Minister’s response does not address the problem, perhaps because the central Government and all their predecessors like to be able to hold bogus consultations just as much as local authorities and public bodies. I suggest that His Majesty’s Government be obliged to draw up a code of practice for such consultations to ensure impartiality, either by having them conducted or having the consultation materials and process pre-approved by an independent third party.

Amendment 178 seeks to amend the legislation on business improvement districts, or BIDs, so that residents have a say in their establishment, policies and management bodies. There has been widespread criticism of the undemocratic way in which BIDs are established and operate. The Government’s website says:

“There is no limit on what projects or services can be provided through a BID. The only requirement is that it should be in addition to services provided by local authorities”.


As a result, powerful local businesses can push through projects for their own commercial benefit, for which they are willing to pay. My area, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is happy to agree to them if they can be described as “improving the public realm”. Local residents may be affected by these projects—for example, streetscape, parking and traffic management—but cannot influence them.

We have recently had imposed on us two new BID schemes led by the Cadogan Estate—one for the Brompton Road, since renamed Knightsbridge, and one for the King’s Road—in which residents’ views were ignored from the outset and look likely to continue to be ignored. The Brompton Association was deliberately excluded from the BID proposal for the Brompton Road, in what seems to me a manipulative ploy and an ominous sign of things to come.

The BID legislation should be amended so that local residents of a particular ward within which a BID falls are consulted on proposals for their establishment, are represented on the BID proposal groups which prepare the business plan, participate in the vote on the establishment and are represented on BID management bodies. In addition, local planning authorities should be able to veto BID proposals if there is a significant objection from local residents, not just if they conflict with a significant policy of the local planning authority.

The response of the Minister in the other place, in the same letter that I quoted on Amendment 177, was that

“the majority of BIDs set Baseline Agreements with their local authority to demonstrate the additionality it will provide over the term of the BID. The Government encourages the use of clear agreements and the fostering of strong ongoing relationships between BID bodies and their local authorities, to make sure each is aware of their obligations towards one another and to agree changes to such agreements where appropriate. The BID itself is responsible for deciding on the mix of representatives to ensure their Governance Board is an effective decision-making body with the right skills. The legislation does not preclude local authorities from being represented on the BID board, nor residents or members of the community”.

The Minister’s written response does not answer the point. The legislation does not preclude residents from being represented on the board of a BID. However, what happens at present is that BID promoters make arrangements for their own commercial advantage and exclude resident representation, as the views of residents do not always coincide, and frequently conflict, with those of the business promoters. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I had not expected to speak in this group, but since my noble friend Lord Northbrook has referred to a number of matters in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—where I had the privilege of being deputy leader of the council for quite a period—I thought I would say just one or two things.

The current proposals for Sloane Square I have nothing to do with, I know nothing about; I ceased to be involved in the council in 2018, so I cannot speak for them. The other example my noble friend gave of what he called a “bogus consultation”, I was responsible for. Noble Lords might not be aware that this is an archaeological exercise because he has had to reach back to 2007. It is true that there were three consultation exercises, but I assure my noble friend that the first two—which supported the proposals—were not bogus at all; they were carried out in a very serious way. Indeed, the results surprised me in that there was as much support as there was. The third one that he referred to was conducted after a year of campaigning by opponents in what was quite the most unpleasant year of my life, certainly politically. It was a very long and really quite vicious campaign, all of it funded by the council so that the residents could have as much say as possible. It found against the scheme, which was not proceeded with.

Where I can find a level of agreement with my noble friend is in relation to BIDs. Here, I declare my interest in being a resident of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as he is. I recently discovered that there is a BID to be introduced in Kensington High Street that is going to include Kensington Square, which I do not live in, but which I overlook from an adjacent street. The Kensington Square residents’ association has not been consulted about this, and it is to be introduced in Thackeray Street—which is where I do more or less live. The relevant residents’ association body for that has also not been consulted, as far as I can make out.

I think that in relation to BIDs my noble friend is putting his finger on a very important point: they do involve a transfer of say—I do not say control—to local businesses, which will pay extra money and expect to get what they want for that extra money. That transfer—those expenditures—can have an affect on local residents, and they should have some involvement in the establishment of a BID. I did not imagine I would ever have to go down the memory lane of Sloane Square improvements again in my life, but it is good that my noble friend has brought back those not always pleasant memories. I am with him when it comes to business improvement districts.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, our Amendment 511 is in this group. This is to ask the Secretary of State to inform each local authority of any new responsibilities before the commencement of relevant provisions.

Clause 222 has the list of the commencement of relevant provisions, so the amendment sits under Clause 222. However, it refers to Clause 74, which proposes to give the Secretary of State significant powers to intervene in a local authority regarding capital finance, including limiting borrowing and/or directing a local authority to sell specific assets. Such an intervention would follow a review that could be triggered by an assessment against a specific financial formula, the thresholds for which are to be set by regulation after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

So my question to the Minister is: how can we assess the impact of this provision without knowing those thresholds, without an impact assessment, and with incomplete information? Unsurprisingly, local government has expressed concerns about this. I understand that the measures relate to government concerns about some councils’ approach to capital and borrowing, but we need to set this in context. The LGA has drawn attention to the fact that rising energy prices, rising inflation and national minimum wage pressures are set to add around £3.6 billion in unforeseen extra cost pressures on council budgets by 2024-25. This is on top of the £15 billion cuts to council budgets by central government over the previous decade. Councils are simultaneously managing significant spending reductions and a growing demand for services.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, on her maiden speech, but it falls particularly to me to give a welcome to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough on making his first speech in the House—and what a very good speech it was, indeed.

My noble friend became a London borough councillor on the same day that I did, back in 1990, but he was politically much more successful and advanced from that position in due course to membership of the House of Commons. He lost his seat in Peterborough, as he said, but what he failed to say, because he is too modest, is that he won the seat three times before losing it, and in very difficult, challenging circumstances because it is, of course, a marginal seat.

My noble friend has been a great success during his time in the House of Commons, and he has stood up for Brexit consistently throughout the whole of his political career. He has a hidden skill, which I was unaware of until recently: in his earlier life he was a human resources manager—indeed, he has a higher degree in human resources management. No doubt, that explains his legendary emollience and persuasiveness of character. I welcome him to the House, as we all do, and we look forward to further contributions, which I am sure will be greatly valued by noble Lords.

Turning to the Bill, I welcome the fact that this Government actually have a strategy for trying to improve regional development. This is almost revolutionary, so rare is it; we have not seen it for a very long time. To that extent, the Government deserve a great deal of congratulation. There has been far too much carping on other Benches when in fact, we should be saying well done to the Government for trying to do something for the first time in decades.

However, I regret that too much of the Government’s laudable ambition is being subverted into bureaucratic ideas about the creation of new layers of government and new mechanisms for government co-operation. This is a stale agenda. What people want—illustrated by the Brexit vote, as my noble friend referred to—is empowerment in their lives rather than simply new layers of government or new powers for existing government. Part of that empowerment means government getting out of their lives rather than telling them what to do. If we were to address those issues through this Bill, I think we would find it more fruitful in bringing that about.

I draw attention briefly to a couple of matters raised in the Built Environment Select Committee, which I now chair. The first is the register of short-term lets. We looked at this recently in a short study, and it was the unanimous conclusion of members of the committee that registration of short-term lets should be optional for local authorities in areas where it is a particular problem. We saw no merit at all in the idea of a national or compulsory register. The fact is that this is a problem, which can be severe, in particular areas; it is not widespread. It is concentrated in particular areas, including parts of London and certain parts of the country with a strong traditional tourist industry.

Noble Lords have said that the infrastructure levy must not be diverted from housing. Let us remember that the original purpose of Section 106 was to mitigate the effects of development. The concern of the Built Environment Committee is that an infrastructure levy might mean that funds are not available to mitigate the effects of a particular development in its locality because they could be spent in other parts of the local authority. We need to be careful. It is not all about affordable housing; other things matter too, including building road connections, street lights and local primary schools.

I want to express a degree of concern about street votes. I am unhappy about the notion of a free-for-all on pavement licences without any consultation with persons—I admit that I am one such—who might live above premises that could benefit from this.

As we come to Committee, I raise a particular concern about NSIPs and the giving of government permission to large-scale projects which never then advance to achieving a DCO. There is no way of terminating NSIPs, so they continue as a blight on the territory in the adjacent land even though they do not proceed to development.

Finally, I hope that if we are going to have these larger authorities, one benefit might come from them to alleviate pressure on the minicab industry, which is important in many parts of the country. We could try to transfer to larger authorities the licensing of minicabs, so that it is not necessary for firms to apply for multiple licences in quite small areas through district authorities that could apply at a higher level and achieve the same effect with less bureaucracy. I look forward to debating some of these issues in Committee and beyond.

Housing (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

That this House takes note of the report from the Built Environment Committee Meeting Housing Demand (1st Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 132).

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my registered interest as a member of the board of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation. In moving this Motion, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who chaired the committee from its inception and during the period when it was producing this report. It was published as long ago as January this year, although it seems much fresher than that. I think I speak on behalf of all members of the committee in thanking her for her work and the way in which she welded us together as an irresistible inquisitive force trying to understand the workings of the various aspects of society that come within our purlieu.

In producing this report, we started from some common ground, the first element of which is that there are too few homes for the population in this country. There are too few homes for those who want them, but also not all the homes are necessarily the right homes to meet demand in terms of size, necessary amenities and so forth; nor are they all in the right place. I think we all started with the common view that building more homes was at least a very important part of the solution to that problem.

The Government have set themselves a target of seeing 300,000 homes built per annum. It is sometimes said that the Government have promised to build 300,000 homes, but they do not build homes, or not in any significant number; the homes are to be built by the private sector. That figure is obviously an approximation and is what would I describe as a stretch target. There is nothing wrong with setting yourself a stretch target as a tool for motivating effort, provided, of course, it is understood as such. In the current year, the industry expects to be on track to build approximately 240,000 new homes. Although that figure is less than 300,000, it is none the less not to be regarded in any way as a failure.

With that common background, our report focused on the barriers to increasing the number of homes being delivered per annum and bringing it closer to that 300,000 figure. As it is such a long report, in the interests of time, I shall inevitably be selective about the items that I draw to the House’s attention, hoping that the other members of the committee I see in the Chamber will alight on other issues.

I intend to focus on three issues. One is the house- builders themselves, though in what I am about to say I do not intend any criticism of them at all. The large housebuilders—the ones that do the volumes we need—are relatively few in number. They do not have the capacity, either financial or in personnel, to ramp up the number of houses they are building every year on the scale that the Government would necessarily hope for.

There are difficulties in becoming a large housebuilder; it is an industry that has barriers to entry. One needs the land, the resources and—I will come to this in a moment—the skills necessary to negotiate the planning system in order to get the permissions that allow one to build large developments. One of our recommendations was that everything should be done to encourage more small housebuilders, to help take up the slack. We noted that the number of small housebuilders over the last two decades had declined and the share of the new-build market they were responsible for was probably at its lowest level for a very long time. One thing we want to see is more encouragement for smaller housebuilders, partly to add to the diversity of the housing stock available to members of the public looking for a new home, but also in the hope that some of the small housebuilders might, over time or even quite rapidly, become large housebuilders so that they are able to offer some competition and spur to the existing large housebuilders.

That brings us to planning. I have already mentioned the expense and complexity of obtaining planning permission. Certainly, when it comes to the smaller housebuilders, one has to take into account the fact that a substantial amount of money must be put up in advance, at risk, as one seeks planning permission. Leaving aside the cost of the land itself, which one could take an option on, the fact is that the design, the architectural work, the necessary studies, the environmental impact assessments and so forth, together with the planning fees, represent a significant upfront investment, which may never be recovered if it turns out that the application is simply doomed to fail. That is a significant deterrent and part of the barriers to entry that I mentioned, which prevent smaller house- builders offering more competition to the large ones. Overall, however, even in relation to large housebuilders, the committee found that delays in the planning system and uncertainty over planning reform had a chilling effect on housebuilding.

We also found that in a plan-led system for development, such as we have had in this country since the end of the Second World War through the Town and Country Planning Act, the system does not work—or does not work well—unless local plans are in place that are up to date and relevant to the needs of the local area and the forecast demand for homes. We also found that local plans need to be simpler, clearer and more transparent. In that regard, we look forward—as we have done for some time—to scrutinising the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and hope to see reform of local plan-making in that Bill.

In relation to planning, we were also particularly concerned about the Government’s wish to move further away from Section 106 payments in the direction of an infrastructure levy. We appreciate that if an infrastructure levy can be a simpler method of calculating the contribution expected from a developer than Section 106, that is an attraction. Our concern is not that but that Section 106 contributions must, by law, be relevant to the development taking place. Therefore, if money is paid to contribute to or provide a primary school for a large new development, the contribution is tied to that primary school and one can be reasonably confident that it will be delivered. Our understanding of the infrastructure levy, however, is that the local authority can simply take the money and it becomes part of its general funds, so the connection with the development, and therefore with providing the amenities necessary to support it, is lost. We would therefore like to see some sort of assurance in that respect.

We also noted that planning departments in local authorities up and down the country lack sufficient skills to process the applications coming to them and to assess the increasingly complicated factors loaded on to planning applications. If we are to have a plan-led system and the Government are to insist on a certain level of complexity, it is incumbent on them to ensure that there are sufficient planning officers with the right skills to process them so that development can take place.

In relation to housebuilding, it is worth moving on to skills in the construction sector as well, the point on which I shall conclude. It is fair to say that the skilled trades necessary for the traditional method of house- building have been in decline for quite a long time—well over a decade, possibly longer. That is why, long before Brexit, the phrase “the Polish plumber” had become almost standard in our language. By encouraging immigration in those skilled trades, we had been responding to a long-standing decline in local availability of those skills. That was long before Brexit. The lack of plumbers, carpenters and so forth has not been produced by Brexit; it was already there. Brexit has changed the arrangements in the use of immigration to make up the shortfall.

In this respect, it has to be asked whether constantly importing skilled trades from the European Union was a sustainable and feasible response over the long term to the problem, anyway, especially given that many of the countries from which they were coming were themselves becoming richer and had demand for that labour at home.

We therefore think it behoves the industry to consider new methods of building alongside traditional methods—and perhaps taking their place—including automation, innovation and modular housing. It struck us that modular housing has been promised for many years but has never quite taken off. The Government should be looking closely at that and trying to understand why the many words that have been spoken about it have not turned into the revolution in housebuilding we might have expected.

Many hands have gone into the making of this report. I am grateful to all the members of the committee who attended so many evidence sessions, undertook visits and made such a great contribution. I have already mentioned my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I should express thanks to our special adviser, who looked after us throughout, Professor Paul Cheshire, Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography at the LSE. I thank all the clerks and the other House staff who supported us in producing the report. I will probably break some terrible taboo in your Lordships’ House by mentioning our lead clerk by name, Dee Goddard, and giving her a special vote of thanks, because she has looked after the committee since its inception and is leaving the service of the House in a couple of weeks’ time to relocate with her family to another part of the country. I give a special word of thanks to her as I sit down and commend this report to your Lordships’ House

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comprehensive response. I apologise to the House, as I should have said when I first spoke that, in addition to the other registered interests that I declared, I am also an officer of the APPG for SME housebuilders; I should have said that, since it was clearly relevant, but it slipped my mind.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. If I may say so without giving offence, it has been a livelier and more challenging debate that I had expected when we started out. There have been many points made and much illumination cast. Many points have been made with which I could agree and some with which I do not agree. If the role of my noble friend the Minister is to respond to the points made in the debate, perhaps my role ought to be in some way to fuse together all the strands that arise from it, to create one single, coherent policy on which all of us could agree and with which we could move forward; but I fear that that would be well beyond my abilities.

I will use the couple of minutes at my disposal to focus on a single point, which struck me with great force. It was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, when he referred to the fact that, with new housing developments of any size, the financial and managerial responsibility for external amenities is increasingly being placed on the householders through a service charge.

I mentioned that I was a member of the board of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation. We have seen many historical planning permissions granted before the corporation was formed now being implemented, and this is the pattern of what is happening. These are services that the rest of us expect to be maintained and provided largely by the local authority through the council tax that we pay. They are to do with parks, street trees, grass on the verges and such things; yet these households are paying directly for the amenities as well as paying a full council tax to their local authority. I draw attention to this simply because I believe, and the noble Earl may agree, that this will not be sustainable, politically or financially, for very much longer. It may be the next scandal, like excessive ground rents, which are now largely dealt with. In this case, it will be service charges, not ground rents; I think that will be the next scandal that the Front Bench—the Government—are going to have to reckon with.

This is the only point that I pick out from the debate because I thought it needed amplifying, and I agreed so much with it. With that, I thank everybody who has participated and beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

Motion agreed.

New Homes Commitment

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise that in order to meet our net-zero commitment we need to implement the future homes standard, which comes in, I believe, in 2025. Building regulations will reflect that ambition to ensure that we build not only more homes but more sustainable homes that use heat pumps and other devices to meet that target.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation board. Does my noble friend agree that many public bodies would be willing to get on with delivering homes if they had access to the brownfield infrastructure land fund? Nearly three months into the financial year, can my noble friend say when the allocations from that fund will be announced?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, £550 million has been allocated to seven mayoral combined authorities. However, we recognise that we need to announce the availability of funding for smaller brownfield sites, which will happen very shortly.

Rent Arrears: Covid-19

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am always very happy to meet Generation Rent and hear its proposals. I point out that we continue to provide support even at this stage. We lifted the local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile of local rents in April 2020. That has provided 1.5 million claimants with around £500 more housing support per year. We have announced that local housing rates will be maintained at the increased level in cash terms in 2021-22.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, financial assistance to renters finds its way straight into the pockets of landlords, but rents have fallen during the pandemic, not least in London. Does my noble friend agree that any scheme designed for this purpose should ensure that landlords do not receive returns greater than they would have received in market circumstances?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend is right that we have seen rents reduce as a result of the pandemic. All the schemes that we have designed cover rent at the level presented by the landlord. Obviously, schemes that we have provided to support renters will reduce as a consequence of reducing rents.

Housebuilding

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have pointed to a substantial amount of money—£12 billion—of which £11.2 billion is for the affordable homes programme. In addition, we have announced a new, £7.1 billion fund, which is designed to help precisely with land acquisition and to deal with the requisite infrastructure to enable the housing that the noble Lord describes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, small and medium housebuilders who build most of the existing housing stock have practically ceased to exist in the last few decades, in part because of the cost, time and risk involved in obtaining planning permission. Does my noble friend agree that there is a case for exempting small builders developing small sites from the need for planning permission, subject only to a pre-published design code?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right that we are seeing the level of planning regulation deter small builders. It is important that, as part of our reform of the planning system, the Government take that into account and find ways to, let us say, level up the field to let the small players participate in the market and therefore deliver on the small sites the new homes that this country needs.

Covid-19: Places of Worship

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Moylan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the official guidance to address the Covid-19 pandemic issued following the Prime Minister’s remarks on Saturday 31 October, whether they will now produce the evidence that justifies the cessation of acts of public worship in places of worship.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, we have come to a critical point in the fight against Covid-19. The R rate is above one across England, and the ONS estimates that an average of one in 100 people has the virus. To protect the NHS and get the R rate below one, we must limit our interaction with others. Therefore, with great regret, while places of worship will remain open for individual prayer, communal worship cannot take place at this time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, my Question had, I thought, the merit of inviting a simple binary answer, yes or no, but that is not quite what it got. This Question is about evidence. Evidence matters to science. Clearly, my noble friend the Minister is not going to announce a reversal of government policy, but can he at least give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that if these measures are continued beyond 2 December or are reimposed in the future either nationally or locally, despite the many efforts to make places of worship Covid secure, that will not happen without the Government offering some evidence for these restrictions on acts of public worship being renewed or extended?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the focus on evidence. Following the meeting that I chaired on behalf of the Prime Minister of the Covid-19 places of worship task force, Public Health England is looking at the evidence around places of worship and proliferation of the virus. I am aware that a tremendous amount of effort has been put into ensuring that places of worship are Covid secure.