Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, on their excellent maiden speeches. We very much look forward to their future contributions.

At the beginning of the debate, the Minister admitted that the measures in the Bill could seem rather eclectic. I think that our debate has demonstrated that to be the case, but I was pleased that she promised to listen carefully to noble Lords’ contributions and concerns. Having worked with her on a number of Bills, I am certain that this will be the case, and I look forward to working with her and other noble Lords to improve the Bill as we go through a rather extensive Committee in the near future.

Listening to the debate, I think there is a general feeling that the Bill is not ambitious enough; that it is a missed opportunity. There is also the general concern that the missions, by not being on the face of the Bill, will not necessarily be properly considered as we go through it step by step, let alone be implemented when it finally becomes law. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the importance of having to join all this up. Without joining it up, what does it actually mean and what does it achieve?

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about investment. Where is the investment to back this up? Where is fiscal devolution being discussed? How can we ensure that any of these missions will actually be delivered? I do not think there is sufficient confidence in this House around any of those areas. I am sure that they will be debated at length in Committee.

In many ways, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, hit the nail on the head when he said that this is a misnamed Bill. Ultimately, it seems to be a local government and planning Bill, with a bit of levelling up tacked on to the front.

I will explore some of the themes that have come forward from the debate. First, devolution is clearly a very important part of the Bill. We have heard comparisons with Germany and the importance of having not just sufficient finance but sufficient time and commitment if we are genuinely to deliver what is required.

We have heard that the Bill proposals could be described as delegations where devolution is concerned, rather than actual devolution. This is something that we will have to look at, because that section of the Bill is very complicated. If it is to achieve what the Government want, we need to consider how it can be amended to improve it significantly. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath mentioned the fact that some of measures in this section are also conditional. We have heard concerns raised about proposals around PCCs and mayors, which I am sure we will explore in further detail.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also mentioned the fact that town and parish councils are missing in action in the Bill. I should declare an interest, as my husband is chair of our local parish council and I am sure I will be having my ear bent around that. On this issue, we really benefited from the long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. I hope that he will continue to take part as we get to Committee, because his knowledge and passion around genuine partnerships if we are to deliver will be a very important contribution.

Housing has been mentioned a lot, especially the importance of tackling the housing crisis and the missed opportunity to do so in the Bill. The need for more social housing has come up time and again, mentioned by, for example, my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—our last but certainly not least Back-Bench speaker—who talked about the importance of keeping the housing commitments. I hope the Government have listened to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about the importance of the decent homes programme, because improving our existing housing stock is just as important as building new decent, high-standard homes. He also talked about the need to address fuel poverty. While we are on poverty, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister on asking why child poverty is not included in the missions.

There has been some discussion around transport, the loss of services and particular issues around rural areas and the lack of investment in the north compared to London. As someone who lives in the north in a rural area, I have had a bit of a double whammy. Transport can be incredibly challenging in those areas.

Education and skills have been talked about. Have the Government analysed the skills that we need? There is a huge skills deficit in some parts of the country. How are we going to deliver these ambitions if we do not have people with the skills to do the work that needs to be done? At the other end of the spectrum, my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about the importance of early years provision. Right across the board we need to consider how we support families, young people and people who need to retrain.

Health was brought up over and again—the increase in health inequalities that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who I call my noble friend, talked about and, as he said, the deep fractures that Covid exposed in our health inequalities. My noble friend Lord Hain talked about the impact of huge cuts on our public services. So it is not just about health; it is right across the board.

I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said about social prescribing in order to tackle health inequalities. We need to pick that up further.

Town centres were mentioned, along with the fact that we need incentives in areas with local shops to encourage people to go back to those areas. There are clearly issues when it is easier to open a chicken shop than a yoga studio. There will need to be changes of use, so how are we going to tackle that? The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talked about that issue, and I look forward to working with him on it. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about accessible streets, which was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, gave some good examples regarding the fact that rural communities have issues. We are both Cumbrian, we live in Cumbria, and a county like that has specific needs that should be addressed.

The last issue that I will touch on is the environment. There has been an awful lot of discussion around the environment. It is missing from the Bill so we need to do a lot of work on that. It was particularly interesting when the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about embodied carbon in buildings. That is a really important issue that we just do not talk about enough but which can make a huge difference.

My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, talked about national parks and the Glover review. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone talked about the fact that disadvantaged people are further disadvantaged when they are in a poor environment. She talked about the importance of the green belt, which also needs addressing.

My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned that the majority of green jobs have been created in London. That cannot be right if we are genuinely going to level up. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about the need for the Bill to help in meeting our environmental targets. That should be fundamental and central to what we are trying to achieve here.

I shall end with a few thoughts. As my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said in her brilliant maiden speech, levelling up should be about people. If we are to achieve it with any degree of success, as noble Lords have said, we must have the long-term funding and the resources to be able to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, talked about a sustained programme of action.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said that she wants us to live in a country where the warm spaces that are having to be provided and the food banks are no longer needed. Surely that is the ambition of the Bill, and the Government need to listen to our concerns so that we can achieve it.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on a brilliant opening speech that leaves hardly anything else to be discussed.

I completely agree about the disparity between rich and poor and that that must be addressed. However, there are things that do not depend quite so much on wealth, such as health and happiness, and access to green spaces. All these things are part of what levelling up ought to include. I am quite keen to see this Government understand that health is about not only improving the NHS—which, clearly, they have given up on completely—but how people see themselves and the opportunities that they have locally. So I am looking forward to this Bill. It will be a long slog for the Minister; I am sorry about that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this probing amendment. When we look at the Bill, we need to consider what the Government mean by “levelling up” and whether the beginning of the Bill is sufficient to support the aims that were laid out in the White Paper. As we heard at Second Reading, much of what was in the White Paper is not here—including, as we have heard, the actual missions, which seems to me quite remarkable.

As we have previously discussed, the Bill does not really look like a levelling-up Bill. It looks more like a planning and devolution Bill, and planning and devolution on their own will not deliver the kinds of levelling up that our country needs. So we support this amendment for doing what needs to be done—probing exactly what the Government are intending. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded us of the words of our former Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State, and of the ambitions of the White Paper, which we need to be discussing in future amendments that we will have in Committee. That context is very important.

So how do we define levelling up? It can mean an awful lot of different things to different people. It will also take an accumulation of good understanding and good investment if we are to come close to meeting the different agendas laid out by the Government in the White Paper. For example, social infrastructure has to be equally invested in, alongside physical infrastructure, if we are to make a positive and sustainable impact.

Is levelling up a genuine policy or just a catchphrase—which is sometimes what it feels like? As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked, is this just a branding exercise? We need confidence that the Government are serious about this: if it is a genuine policy that they want to make a reality, it will need an awful lot more cash than currently seems to be on offer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about funding. The Centre for Inequality and Levelling Up is based at the University of West London. It calculated that the levelling-up funds total £20 billion, but clearer criteria for defining what constitutes a levelling-up fund are needed. The centre suggests that this should include only funding allocated after 2019, which is four years ago. Of the funds specified in June 2022 by the department, three were allocated before 2019. We really need much more clarity about the new investment that will come in from the Government to support what they are intending to achieve through this Bill.

Another thing I want to talk about is the relationship between funding and the missions. The levelling-up funds have only a tangential relationship with the 12 missions. Out of the 10 funds available, only one, the shared prosperity fund, mentions the missions directly, and the levelling-up fund itself just references the missions’ metrics.

While the Government continue to insist that areas have to bid against each other—with mounting evidence that this is an inefficient way of delivering funding—how can the Government ensure that all areas that need funding for levelling up receive adequate support with the bidding process and subsequently receive adequate funding?

Regional disparities are deeply entrenched, and the Bill seems to see devolution as a way to crack this and solve the problems. But so much needs to be done to tackle inequalities: they will not be solved just by a few missions, some of which are not even in the Bill, and the somewhat confusing devolution proposals.

What about the challenges that our NHS is currently facing, with enormous waiting lists and staff going on strike because they are so desperate? Why are the Government refusing to properly engage with staff over their deep concerns, which are leading to even further strike action? Just today, Professor Farrar has warned that health workers’ morale and resilience are very thin, and of the vulnerabilities facing our health services if we have another crisis like the pandemic.

If the Government are serious about closing one of the worst gaps of inequality—the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor that my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned—they have to properly support and fund not just the NHS but social care. How will the Bill deliver this? How does levelling up properly relate to those huge challenges? This relates to the following mission in the White Paper:

“Narrow the gap of healthy life expectancy between the areas where it is lowest and highest”.


I cannot see how that will be achieved with what we have in front of us.

I will also look very quickly at mission 3:

“Eliminate illiteracy and innumeracy by refocusing education spending on the most disadvantaged parts of the country”.


Will part of this refocusing of education spending deal with the gap between real funding per head in state and private schools? This gap is widening and letting down our state-funded pupils.

We have heard that the Bill fails to meet the aspirations of the White Paper, but the existing missions will not, as currently drafted, properly solve many of the inequalities in our society. We will be debating the existing missions and the new missions in a future group, so I will not say anything further at this stage. At the moment, we feel that the Bill is lacking in many areas and there is much work to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “missions” insert “within 10 days of this Act being passed.”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the Levelling-Up missions must be published within 10 days of Royal Assent.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to my Amendment 2 and also a number of other amendments in my name and in that of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This second group of amendments really looks at scrutiny and oversight of the Bill, on which we are concerned that there is not enough independence as it is currently set up. Amendment 2 would require that the levelling-up missions would need to be published within 10 days of Royal Assent. Obviously, as we have made quite clear previously, we would prefer that the 12 levelling-up missions were actually published within the Bill itself, but we will come to debate that later.

On the understanding that the Government are saying that they will not do that, we think that it is important that they are published as quickly as possible once the Bill has received Royal Assent and become an Act, because if it is going to achieve what the Government say that they intend to achieve, then we need to know what that is. We need the detail of those missions as soon as possible so that the Government can crack on and start actually doing something to achieve them. Our amendment suggests this should be within 10 days of Royal Assent, and I do not really understand why there should be any problem with that. If the Government know what they want to achieve from the Bill and if they say that they will look at the missions in the White Paper already, then it should not take too much work or effort to be able to publish them very quickly once the Bill has Royal Assent.

My Amendment 27 then talks about the fact that the Government need to publish a statement to confirm whether they will be renewing each mission before it ends. There are further amendments in this group from the Liberal Democrats, and also from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Lucas; we would support the other amendments in this group.

To require a statement on the Government’s progress towards the levelling-up missions strikes me as an unexceptional ask; for example, on whether the mission has been achieved, and, if not, stating what progress has been made, whether it will be renewed, what further work needs to be done to achieve the desired outcome. We need to be able to monitor and to look at progress effectively, if we are to come close to delivering on the missions, in particular because the proposed deadline is 2030, which is not very far away. We will need to crack on and see pretty quickly what progress has been made. If it is not completed by 2030, as I doubt it will be, we need to know whether it will be renewed and whether we will continue with it.

The Minister said that the Bill cannot solve all problems, when referring to the questions I asked on health and education, during which I referred to two of the missions—mission 3 and mission 8. Surely she intends to solve those missions, so I was slightly surprised that, in answering one of my questions, the answer was, “Well, we can’t do everything.” Does that mean that those missions are not actually intended to be achieved? I was slightly confused by the Minister’s response. Maybe that is why the missions are not in the Bill.

Clause 2 says that annual reports must include the Minister’s opinion on progress, a description of actions taken so far, and plans for the future. But it also allows for the Government to change missions or to decide to abandon missions. Therefore, we believe that there is an ability for them to be adapted, changed and moved on, within the legislation as currently drafted, so, again, why not put them in the Bill? As I said, 2030 is not far away, so if the Government are serious, we need to have more detail about the missions, either in the Bill now or as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asks the Minister to

“appoint an independent advisory council with representatives from each nation and region of the United Kingdom to monitor progress and report to both Houses of Parliament.”

In the opening debate, we already heard about the issue of geographical disparities; the Minister agrees with us on that issue and supports the need for it to be challenged. Surely, an independent council, which is properly represented from right across the country, can only help to support resolving some of those geographical disparities and inequalities that we all know cause so many problems for so many communities in our country.

The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Stunell, have tabled similar amendments; the former’s amendment requires an independent body to be appointed to review and report on progress. We believe that independent oversight enables good governance and good government. Clear, trusted and impartial analysis makes for far better policy, delivers far better outcomes, and can only be a good thing for our democracy. An independent body can also ensure that progress and development of the missions is being monitored and then actually achieved. There are already good examples of independent scrutiny; for example, the Office for Budget Responsibility and our own Select Committees sitting in your Lordships’ House. I am aware that the Government’s answer to concerns about scrutiny is the fact that they are establishing a Levelling Up Advisory Council. Indeed, I appreciate that this advisory council itself could provide this scrutiny, but only if the Government can demonstrate proper independence. I ask the Minister: can the Government do that, and, if so, how will they do so?

My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage has tabled a few further amendments. One says that

“a report must be published before every General Election”,

and another that the

“target dates cannot be changed to beyond the next General Election.”

These amendments are intended to prevent a Government from playing with the missions before important general elections come about; they seek to keep things on the straight and narrow. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage has also tabled an amendment asking the Minister to

“publish relevant academic advice when revising the statement.”

I quoted earlier from the University of West London. Again, some of the analysis done by our universities and academics could be extremely helpful to the Government in trying to achieve their targets.

My Amendment 46 is also important. It asks for a review to be published

“if a Minister deems there has been a significant change in the economic situation.”

Looking at what has happened since the pandemic—inflation, energy bills and the cost of living crisis—we absolutely have to have different approaches if there is a significant change in our economic situation. We talked earlier about how the first round of levelling-up funding is simply not adequate to deliver what it was designed to do because of inflation, so it is important that we keep an active watch on this.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, given the extent of government action on these priorities and the approach that has been set out to setting a clear, uncluttered and long-lasting framework for measuring the progress of levelling-up missions, I hope that I have provided noble Lords with sufficient assurance to enable them to withdraw these amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Clearly, oversight, transparency and evidence of progress—or not, as the case may be—are important to noble Lords and must be strengthened in the Bill.

Regarding information, advice and experts, the Minister said that it was unthinkable not to listen to advice from experts, internal and external. He is a very decent, honourable man, so I am not surprised that it is unthinkable to him. However, looking at the experience of local government in recent years, I gently suggest that not all his colleagues have always felt the same, which is why we feel that we must strengthen this in the Bill.

The Minister also explained that the missions can be changed, abandoned or dropped if required. That is in a number of places in Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 2 talks about the mission period, with new statements of levelling-up missions beginning no later than immediately after the end of the mission period of the old statement and the new statement replacing the old statement when it comes into effect. Clause 2 states that, if the Government consider that it is no longer appropriate to pursue a levelling-up mission, the report can say that the Government are no longer continuing with it.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that having the missions in the Bill does not necessarily tie any future Government to them doing exactly as they are written down. There is flexibility, which is important in the Bill. I support it being in there. There is probably a fair chance of us wanting to start again and bring in a new Bill ourselves—but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath for raising this very important issue and for providing an evidence base and powerful argument in support of rural communities in particular. This short but important debate has cast a focus on the confusion at the heart of levelling up, which the debate on Amendment 1 was trying to resolve: what do we mean by levelling up and spatial disparities? What do we mean by improving the lives of people who live in different parts of the country, where for some there is low pay, low skills and poor health and for others there is a lack of connectivity or a lack of opportunities? Because we have not resolved that confusion, we will, throughout the passage of the Bill, get arguments of different natures in support of communities which need levelling up, whatever we mean by it. I hope that levelling up will not mean, or be defined by the Government as, either “rural levelling up” or “urban levelling up”, or that we will level up coastal, rural or urban areas separately. The levelling-up agenda must have a clear definition—which is in the White Paper, as I keep pointing out, but is not in the Bill—about the geographical disparities across this country, be they rural, coastal or urban, that result in people’s lives and the country being poorer. The levelling-up Bill ought to address that, but it unfortunately fails to do so.

I was struck by a really good phrase used by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about levelling up: we do not want levelling-up ambitions to “blow in the political wind”. That is one of the reasons why I support having both the broad mission statements and the broad metrics for those mission statements in the Bill, so that we can say to whatever Government we have, “This is what we have agreed to, and this is what we are going to demand that you address.” Otherwise, we will come back again to the debate about the difficulties for people who live in rural areas. While noble Lords might think that West Yorkshire, where I live, is a big urban area, surprisingly, the upper Colne Valley could not be more rural; there are scattered farm settlements across the hillsides going up to the top of the Pennines. Its residents understand what it means to not have access to public transport, mobile networks or broadband connectivity.

Let us not go down the route of it being one or the other. I hope the Government will, even if I have to encourage them again, eventually closely define what they mean by “geographical disparities” and then address them through the missions and metrics that I hope we will put on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for introducing his amendment—this is a really important amendment going forward. I also thank him for mentioning the work of the Rural Services Network; its report is incredibly important in informing the approach that the Government need to take and the work they need to do to reduce the disparities faced by rural areas. The Government would do well to take notice and account of what the Rural Service Network does as they continue to move forward with their levelling-up missions.

I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 488, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage has Amendment 53 in this group. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his support for my noble friend’s amendment. I very much agree with him that the environmental emissions targets need to be included in this, if we are to have any chance of meeting what is laid out in the Environment Act.

The noble Earl also very clearly laid out many of the concerns that face both our rural and coastal communities, including that they constantly feel missed out and left behind. They will be concerned that this is what will happen to them again. It is really important that we consider this properly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, rural poverty is so often missed and underestimated; often it is not as in your face as urban poverty, and we need to ensure we take full account of it.

My noble friend’s Amendment 53

“is to probe whether the metrics are suitable for rural and coastal communities, and whether alternative metrics should be considered.”

Here is an example from the document that was published on the mission and metrics—the technical annexe. I remind noble Lords of the metric that accompanies mission 3:

“By 2030, local public transport connectivity across the country will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing.”


The metrics that will be used to assess progress in achieving that mission are

“method of travel to work by region of workplace … The other headline metric is the average journey time to centres of employment, with the data broken down by modes of transport and at lower tier local authority level in England.”

What they do not do is tell us how much public transport exists in the first place.

I live in an area where we have one bus a week—that is not one bus that comes and goes during that day, but one bus that goes to one place on one day of the week—and it gives us a couple of hours in the place it arrives before we have to come home again. I genuinely do not understand how, in the area where I live, these metrics will deliver transport connectivity that is “significantly closer” to the standards of London. I genuinely have no concept of how these metrics will achieve that.

My other concern is that the principal objective is “growing the private sector”. Again, I cannot see how growing the private sector in the area I live, or in the areas that surround it, will suddenly bring me a really good bus service. The one thing that might help is if the Government reintroduced the rural bus grant fund that they took away. That led to dozens and dozens in my area losing their services—I know this because I was a county councillor at the time—because they were simply no longer profitable. Looking at the metrics from a rural perspective is incredibly important, if we are genuinely going to drive change in this area.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

7: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The levelling-up missions must include missions which relate to—(a) pay, employment and productivity;(b) research and development;(c) public transport connectivity;(d) broadband and 4G and 5G coverage;(e) primary school attainment;(f) skills and training;(g) life expectancy;(h) wellbeing;(i) pride in place;(j) home ownership;(k) violent crime;(l) devolution.”Member's explanatory statement
This inserts the Government’s levelling-up missions into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 7 would insert levelling-up missions into the Bill. I will also support and come to a number of other amendments in this group, and I have tabled Amendment 59 on health outcomes, which I will discuss in due course.

On Monday, we heard much about the fact that, in February of last year, the Government announced their levelling up White Paper with much fanfare. I start by reminding noble Lords of what was in that White Paper and what it proposed. It set out the 12 medium-term levelling-up missions, which we will debate in this group. They look to do things such as increase pay, employment and productivity and boost well-being across the UK, all by the challenging target of 2030. Also, sitting behind those missions are what the White Paper called the “six capitals”, which were identified as

“the factors that will help drive”

the levelling-up missions. We have not really debated those, but it is important that we remind ourselves of what the White Paper proposed. These capitals are:

“Physical capital—infrastructure, machines and housing … Human capital—the skills, health and experience of the workforce … Intangible capital—innovation, ideas and patents … Financial capital—resources supporting the financing of companies … Social capital—the strength of communities, relationships and trust … Institutional capital—local leadership, capacity and capability.”


The White Paper goes on to say:

“Levelling up is about aspiring for every place … to have a rich endowment of all six capitals, so that people do not have to leave their community to live a good life.”


I am sure that every Member of this House would support that ambition and those principles.

This all underpins the new policy regime, which is based on five mutually reinforcing pillars: establishing the 12 missions; reorientating government decision-making; empowering decision-makers in local areas; transforming the government approach to data and evaluation; and creating the new Levelling Up Advisory Council. I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, because we need to remember the huge ambition contained in the White Paper and how that has been translated into the Bill we are debating in Committee. That is why we are disappointed that the measures in the Bill are not enough to meet the Government’s 12 missions for reducing regional inequality by the proposed date of 2030. For example, the Bill provides a new source of funding for councils, which will be given a fixed share of the new infrastructure levy on local developments, which we will discuss later. However, the money involved is likely to be very small as a share of overall council budget, falling far short of the Government’s ambition in the White Paper to simplify local government funding. That is why we are disappointed that the proposals, including the missions themselves, are not clearly spelled out in the Bill.

While I am discussing the subject of funding, the Government have been criticised for allocating more funds to the south than to parts of the Midlands and the north in round 2 of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. Projects in London and the south-east received £360 million, which is three times more than schemes in Yorkshire and the Humber. One reason is that competitive bidding remains a stumbling block, and we should remind ourselves that the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, described the process as a “begging bowl culture”. It pits communities against each other, discourages co-operation between areas and leads to authorities submitting bids based on government criteria rather than on genuine local needs.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the extent of the Government’s actions on what are really important priorities, I hope that this provides the noble Baroness with sufficient assurance to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a really important discussion, not just more broadly around the missions and the metrics and whether they should be in the Bill, but the debate we have had about health and health inequalities—that has been extremely important. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London’s amendment. It is a very important amendment on the issues of health inequalities getting worse. The noble Lord talked about the 19-year gap between the wealthiest and poorest communities, and I think that is very shocking. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds picked this up and talked about the serious inequalities in Yorkshire and the importance of long-term solutions and also referenced the importance of social prescribing. I absolutely agree with him that this is something that needs to be taken more seriously and more into account.

What really concerns me are the health ambitions in the White Paper. If we are to tackle what we have just been debating, they really will not cut it—they will not meet this huge challenge. We have talked about metrics, but I want to talk about metrics in the health section. One of the key metrics is that the “ambitious set of proposals” will

“go further on reducing disparities in health … in the forthcoming Health Disparities White Paper”,

but where is it? It has gone; it has been ditched. How can we have a metric on one of the most important things we need to tackle to achieve levelling up when one of the major parts of the metric is no longer in existence? I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point.

There was also a debate on housing. The important connection between quality housing and health and well-being was made very clearly and well by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, talked about the importance of increasing the supply of housing. That is absolutely right, we need to do that, but I also stress that there has been almost no social housing built in this country in the last 30 years. That is partly why we have such a problem.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the importance of both Houses of Parliament debating any further proposed missions. We need to make sure that we have oversight of what is being proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked a very important question about the means by which the Government are intending to do anything about health and life expectancies. What will actually be happening? What will be the causations to make the difference going forward? This is why, as I say, I am so concerned about the accompanying metrics not being fit for purpose.

On metrics, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, introduced her amendment to put the metrics in the Bill. We have heard in this debate and through other organisations that many people do not have any confidence that the metrics as currently set out—I have just talked about health, and I talked about transport on Monday—will actually achieve the ambitions that the missions want, or come close to it, to be honest. We talked on Monday about a number of areas that really ought to be part of the missions but are not included at all, such as the environment or child poverty. These will also be critical.

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. She says that we cannot put the missions in the Bill because it would make it unacceptably inflexible. Would it be unacceptably inflexible if we had the headline issues—the issues that need to be tackled—so that we knew what we had to deal with to meet levelling up? Perhaps this could be accompanied by something along the lines of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on any further detail being debated across both Houses. Could we not also have this being the case with the metrics, so we can ensure that everything that the Government want to bring forward to tackle levelling up is fit for purpose and will make a difference?

The Minister talked about allocation of funds; that was something I raised. She said there is not a problem with allocation because everyone can submit bids, but that is the fundamental problem. I reiterate what I said: competitive bidding remains a stumbling block. I remind her that the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, described the process as a “begging bowl culture”. This is the not the way to do allocation.

If you pit communities against each other, that does not just necessarily mean that the right community does not get the funding it needs—you stop co-operation. If we are going to succeed in this, we need areas to work closely together and support each other. So I find the Government’s continued belief that competitive bidding is the way forward very disappointing.

Finally, can I ask the Minister, having listened to today’s and Monday’s debates, whether the Government will consider revisiting the missions and metrics as they stand, with a view to coming back to the House with an improved offer? In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is really important but I should like clarification on who is collecting the data, how it is analysed and what the timescales are. That would be really helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

There may be more questions but I am coming on to some of that.

That is why my department has established a new spatial data unit, transforming the way in which the UK Government gather, store and manipulate subnational data so that it underpins transparent and open policy-making and delivers decisions. This will include improving how we collate and report on UK Government spend and outcomes, including building strong capabilities on data visualisation and insights. Working closely with other departments, the unit will consider differences between geographical areas, such as regions, counties, councils, council wards and so on, according to the needs and objectives of specific missions or policy areas. I am more than happy to have a teach-in about this, as it is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark for introducing his ever-helpful amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that he should be congratulated on his tenacity in continuing to pursue these matters. It is also good to see the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in his place, clearly still enjoying my noble friend’s speeches; he cannot keep away and it is good to have his support. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support for my noble friend’s amendments, and again for his continued pursuit, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said, of these matters. I thank him also for reminding us of something that is very close to my heart, which is the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. This seems to have completely gone by-the-by now and it is important that we remember that it makes good legislation.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

51: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Levelling-up consultantsWithin 120 days of this Act being passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to this Part.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that a Minister must publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be moving these amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The first amendment is Amendment 51, which is after Clause 5. It asks for the Minister to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to the first six clauses of the Bill. The reason for laying this amendment is that there has been quite a lot of discussion over the last few years about the amount of money being spent both by local and national government on consultants. We wanted to probe the Government on this and have a small discussion around this area.

Back in 2020, the Public Accounts Committee released a report which said that the Government were

“too quick to spend money on consultants to undertake work that could actually be better done by existing civil servants”

and that this was being done rather than developing and retaining in-house skills. Since then, any restriction on spending controls on consultants have been ditched by the Government, allowing Whitehall departments to potentially spend millions more on these external consultants. The limits were introduced under a previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2011, requiring central authorisation if contracts lasted more than nine months or exceeded £20,000. Our concern is that the value of contracts has been rising. The limit set earlier this year was £600,000, which is a huge jump. We are very concerned about this, because government spending is being tightened in other areas of public expenditure, particularly during the cost of living crisis. If the Government are increasing this extra cost of outside consultants, how can that be justified in the current crisis? However, obviously, one thing we appreciate is that during the pandemic there was additional spending in this area that could not be avoided.

In 2022, the UK public sector awarded £2.8 billion-worth of consulting contracts, according to data from the contract analyst Tussell Ltd which was published in the Financial Times. That figure was up by 75% from 2019, so even taking into consideration rising costs during the pandemic, that is still a huge jump in spending. Does the Minister agree with the Public Accounts Committee that the Government’s way forward on this should be to retain civil servants and develop their skills, and that that is a better use of government money?

I turn to the nub of the amendment, which is the published estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Clauses 1 to 6. Last week in Committee, we discussed the thorny issue of competitive funding. Our concern is that this is not the best way to fund different local authorities in their bids for levelling-up pots of money. We know that local authorities have complained about the Government’s proliferation of these competitive funding pots. Alongside this, local authorities obviously have been using more consultants. It has recently been reported that consultancy firms have raked in around £26 million from councils which are clearly cash strapped. They have lost funding from central government over the last few years, so they really do not have this money to spend. The reason they are spending it is that they are trying to prepare high-quality levelling-up funding bids, and they no longer retain much of the necessary skill set for that in house.

Considering that many of those with successful bids have lost far more in local authority funding cuts than they are going to achieve, does the Minister agree with me that the only people who seem to be turning a profit here are the consultants? We believe that the Government should change the way the funding is assessed and granted. I would be grateful if the Minister, and the wider Government, could think about how we can return skills in house—both in national government and local authorities—to stop this huge amount of cash going on external consultants.

My noble friend’s Amendment 52 relates to the practicalities of implementing a levelling-up agenda. It proposes that a Minister must publish a statement of any levelling-up directors who have been appointed and their role in implementing the levelling-up missions. We have heard for some time from the Government about the levelling-up directors and their intended appointment, but we have had very little detail or further information.

Last year, my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton tabled a series of Questions about the government appointment of regional levelling-up directors, asking what their remuneration, role and responsibilities would be. The creation of these posts was announced not long after the White Paper was published last spring. At that stage, it was said that they were to be paid £140,000 a year. Last December, my noble friend was told in response to his Question that at that stage, none had been appointed and that further details on what they might actually do were still being worked out. Put simply, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to his Question:

“Further announcements will be made in due course.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments is related to consultants and the Government’s appointment of levelling-up directors. Specifically, Amendment 51, in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. I fear that requiring local authorities to report in this way would be disproportionate and unnecessary, but let me explain why.

The new burdens doctrine, established and maintained by successive Governments, requires all Whitehall departments to justify why new duties, powers, targets and other bureaucratic burdens should be placed on local authorities, as well as how much these policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. This provision already ensures that the Government must properly consider the impact of their policies, legislation and programmes on local government and fully fund any new burdens arising.

Further, local authorities are already bound by the Local Government Transparency Code, which mandates local authorities to publish data on all expenditure over £500 in open and accessible formats. I will come back to that point in a second, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness about expenditure by central government on consultants.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify something? When he says that the Government fully fund any new burdens, does that mean that the Government are reimbursing local authorities for the cost of creating their bids?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can he also clarify the geographical area for which he is responsible?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that it would be very helpful, because it is a bit confusing at the moment to know exactly what is what. I would appreciate that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his support of Amendment 51. On Amendment 52, I am not entirely sure that I agree with the appointment of directors. The point of the amendment is to get a better understanding of exactly what is happening, what the timescales are and what is expected of them, then to be able to make a proper assessment of exactly what we think about this policy of directors. It is quite difficult to have a proper position on it if you do not know what is going on and what sort of people are likely to be getting the jobs. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could write to us around any appointments that might be in the pipeline to give us a better understanding of how it is all working and what the timescales are.

While we are on Amendment 52, the Minister said that the recruitment process was being reviewed. When he writes, it would be good to understand what that means. Has there been any process so far? Are they liaising with the sector on how recruitment might best be done and on the timescales? I know that the Minister cannot give us any further information on that today, and he may not have a lot to put in his letter, but if he could give us as much as he possibly can, so we know where we are as we move forward through the scrutiny of the Bill, it would be extremely helpful.

On Amendment 51, again I thank the Minister for agreeing to write to me with more clarification around these matters. It is extremely helpful to have that. I am pleased that he agrees with us that developing skills in-house is important and that we must not have wasteful expenditure in departments. Again, the way forward is to stop it happening and to invest more in people. I thank him for his response, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The only other point I want to make is about the right for the Government in Clause 24 to dissolve a CCA, and again the importance there of local people being consulted and being able to influence the outcome of a decision. Given that, this is an important set of amendments and I look forward to the noble Earl’s response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a few comments on my Amendment 126 before we hear the Minister’s response. I tabled this amendment because public consultation is something I feel very strongly about. I worked in consultation before I entered Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made some comments about standards of consultation, and it is incredibly important when we are talking about consultation that we know what we mean by that and that we are not just talking about stakeholder engagement, because they are very different things. I know that the Government do have minimum standards of consultation that they follow, so I wanted to make sure that that was properly on the record.

I want the results of the public consultation to be publicly available because consultation is not just about going out and talking to people. It is about listening to people and, having listened to them, it is about demonstrating the changes made in response to what the public have said during that consultation process. That is why, to me, this is critical. If you are to bring people on board with what you are trying to achieve, they need to genuinely believe that they have been part of the process in a constructive way. Even if you do not agree with them, it is important to explain why not and whether any further action has been taken.

Finally, I may have got this wrong, but I think the Minister said in his response to the previous debate that there were no further requirements around consultation because it is covered in Clause 46. I had a look at Clause 46 and it says:

“The Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation unless”


and there are few examples. The final one is if

“the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary.”

Again, that would concern me unless it was clearly demonstrated and transparent why that was no longer required, because we have seen publicly what has been said and what further action has been taken or not taken and the reasons surrounding that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that that is the approach the Government will be taking to consultation in this area.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

66: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Environmental Impact Assessment(1) The Secretary of State must publish an environmental impact assessment 120 days after laying regulations under section 7.(2) Each year thereafter, the CCA must publish an environmental impact assessment in relation to their ongoing operation.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that an environmental impact assessment must be published following the establishment of a CCA.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 66 I will speak also to a number of amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage.

Amendment 66 would require an environmental impact assessment to be published following the establishment of a CCA. We have heard in previous debates that the Bill will create a new model of combined authority through county deals, which will provide local leaders with powers to enhance local accountability, join up services and provide transparent decision-making to rejuvenate their communities. Although this is clearly an excellent ambition, previous debates have also demonstrated that there are many unknowns about how things are going to happen, particularly in a practical way, and what the impacts will be.

An environmental impact assessment would ensure that the likely environmental effects of any decisions are fully understood and then properly considered. An EIA would assess the direct and indirect impact based on a wide range of environmental factors—and it is a wide range, which is why an EIA must be considered and published. It could cover population and human health, biodiversity, land and soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and cultural heritage. There is a lot here to be thought about. It is important, particularly given that we do not believe, as others have said in the previous debates around emissions, that the environment has been properly considered as one of the missions; it is not properly built upon throughout the Bill.

Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asks the Government to define and clarify the purpose of non-constituent members under Clauses 9 and 10, which relate to the appointment of the non-constituent and associate members of a CCA respectively. Our concern is that it is not clear whether there is to be any further guidance on whether certain types of non-constituent or associate members will be prescribed by the Secretary of State or recommended in further guidance, or whether it is entirely for the CCA to determine this class of membership according to what it believes local needs to be; for example, whether an ICS or a hospital trust is invited—because a major priority is to tackle health inequalities—or whether it is felt to be important locally that the local enterprise partnership be a non-constituent member to make a link with economic growth. Clarification on that from the Minister would be very helpful.

We have concerns that Clauses 9 and 10 appear to be qualified by Clause 11, which gives significant powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to non-constituent members. These include the number of non-constituent members; the appointment, disqualification and resignation, or even removal, of non-constituent members; the appointment of a substitute member to act in place of a constituent member; the maximum number of non-constituent members; and the things that may or may not be done by a non-constituent member. There are also equivalent Secretary of State powers relating to associate members. A circumstance could be imagined where, if the Secretary of State took such powers, the outcomes could end up being the exact opposite of the localism and devolution that the Bill purports to enshrine.

That is our big concern with these clauses, and why the amendment seeks clarification and further definition relating to the role of non-constituent and associate constituent members of the CCA. It is important to understand this properly. We do not want any part of the Bill to start pulling powers back centrally when the Government appear to want the exact opposite.

Amendment 76 in my name carries on from this. It would mean that a CCA could request that regulations are introduced in relation to it. Again, it is about the control that the CCA itself has when looking at regulations and at how it needs to operate and behave effectively for its local community, rather than everything being driven centrally by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 86, from my noble friend Lady Taylor, means that an annual statement must be published to show how much funding is given to each CCA. This should include a cost-benefit analysis. We have talked a lot about funding today and last week. It is a critical central part of achieving success from these clauses and the proposed devolution for England.

Clause 14 specifies the process by which the Secretary of State may draw up regulations for the funding and costs of a CCA to be met by its constituent councils, and how that amount payable will then be determined. While the clause specifies that this has to be done with the consent of constituent councils and the CCA, it does not tell us how any additional funding that may be provided by the Secretary of State, for example through the different competitive bidding pots that exist or any grants that may be given, will be included in the accountability process for the CCA. Clarification around that would be very helpful.

We also cannot ascertain from the clause how the overview and scrutiny committee—or the general public, for that matter—would be able to determine by cost-benefit analysis just how effective, with the funding being contributed to it, the CCA is at then delivering against its objectives for the area. We believe that our amendment provides a simple, straightforward way to provide that accountability through an annually published statement.

Amendment 100 in Clause 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor, would require the Secretary of State to explain how a local government area will, in future, have access to the powers that it has lost through removal from a CCA. My noble friend referred to this earlier. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers set out in Clause 23 to change the boundary of a CCA and remove a local government area from the existing area of the CCA, they can either transfer those functions to another public authority or remove a particular function of the CCA altogether for that area. While there is provision that the relevant councils must consent to this removal, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands that requires the Secretary of State to specify how any powers or functions will be delivered in future once that membership of the CCA has been terminated. So, again, it would be very helpful if the Minister were able to explain how that would move forward.

Clause 23(8) refers to consent being required from only the county council and not from any district councils that may be constituent members. My noble friend spoke earlier about the important role that district councils should play. They should not be seen just as a stakeholder, a secondary authority that does not have a say in such matters. This would mean that, in effect, an area could be removed from the CCA with the consent of only the county council but not of the constituent district councils that make up the area of the CCA being removed from its boundary. Surely they should have some kind of say in this. Is this what the Bill is intending or is this an oversight? If it is what the Bill is intended to do, would the consent vote required in Clause 23(9) specifically exclude the votes of district council members of the CCA? This is a really important area that we need to clarify.

Amendment 129, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on the establishment and operation of CCAs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The current clause simply states that the Secretary of State,

“may give guidance about anything that could be done”

in relation to this chapter. Well, in view of the fundamental changes to the structure of local government that this chapter on CCAs is introducing, we believe that that is far too vague, and very likely to leave local government with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over it. In view of the fact that there have already been many iterations of the devolution agenda in recent years, we do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect that the Government will work with the sector in order to have, very quickly, clear and detailed guidance in relation to the establishment and the operation of CCAs as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That is why we have asked for this to happen within six months.

I turn finally to Amendment 130, which aims to probe whether the public will be informed of their CCA’s functions. With this amendment, we want to determine whether the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out the purpose and aims of the CCAs, and how they are to be established and operated; or whether that responsibility will fall to local government. If the latter is the case, will there be new burdens that will require funding in relation to the communications aspects of informing the public about the functions of a CCA? Will any such new burdens extend to any public consultation funding? This may well be required when an area decides to proceed with the establishment of a CCA. We discussed consultation a lot in the last group but one, and the Minister seemed to believe that there was going to be support for any new burdens—so, again, clarification on that would be very welcome. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I want to give very substantial support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has said. She has made several very powerful points. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those, because I am as concerned as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Taylor, are about some of these issues. Some of what I want to say I will cover in the next group, so I will try to avoid getting on to the issue of voting powers.

It really is very telling. Amendment 74, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, says:

“Within 30 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent, a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement including a definition of ‘non-constituent member’ and a description of their purpose”.


If I may be so bold, I think that is really late. I had expected that we would have this before Report. With the concept of an associate member and the concept of a non-constituent member, I really think that, before this Bill gets any further, we have to understand what the Government are thinking of with those definitions. We can all hazard a guess. I can hazard a guess. Some things have been said and occasionally written, but we have to do better than this.

On page 10 of the Bill, in Clause 11, the Secretary of State is going to make provision by regulations for a whole set of matters about membership. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, rightly identified, it is almost a whole side of the Bill which includes provisions on just about anything you could think of. I am at a loss to understand why these matters are not public at this stage in the consideration of a Bill.

Clause 11(4), “Regulations about members”, says:

“In this section ‘constituent member’, in relation to a CCA, means a member of the CCA (other than any mayor for the area of the CCA) appointed by a constituent council.”


I am sure that is correct, but that is the only definition we have. We have no definition of an associate member or a non-constituent member. Yet, as we will discover in the debate on the next set of amendments, the CCA will have discretion to give those people full votes. There is a big issue here, and I intend to take it further when we get to Report.

All I am trying to do is to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and say to the Government: here we have a number of very serious proposals that, as they stand, are unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that these explanations are helpful and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 66.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot to think about there so perhaps the Committee would bear with me, as I have an awful lot more questions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his very strong support for these amendments, which is much appreciated. As he said, we are concerned about the lack of definition, for example. Much of this is unacceptable as it stands, because there are so many unknowns. It is really complicated and confusing, with not enough information out there, and we are really trying to pin the Government down on that as we move forward.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the environment is a bit of an orphan in the Bill. I thank her for her support for my amendment; she is absolutely right to say that we could be looking to have co-ordination and efficiency of scale on environmental matters. It concerns me that this is a real missed opportunity, particularly in areas of waste and transport, as the noble Baroness mentioned. The funding rounds so far have posed more questions than answers and there is not enough opportunity to make great strides in co-operation on environmental issues. These are things that we could do so much better; maybe if the missions focused more on the environment, there would be more thought around this. Obviously, this is something that we will come back to.

We need accountability to be built into these provisions. One thing to think about on the funding is that it is regressive in many areas—and in many that need levelling up more than others. It is not necessarily working at the moment, which is why we think it needs to be looked at.

Coming to the Minister’s comments, I am very pleased that he said we need more transparency and that it is important. However, on the environment, he talked about the fact the Secretary of State has a statutory test of improving environmental well-being. I am not convinced that that is the same thing as I am trying to achieve through the environmental impact assessment. I am trying to talk about working together more effectively on things such as waste, so you have cost benefits alongside improving the environment. There could be an opportunity for the Bill to do that—and it is not exactly the same as improving environmental well-being; they are slightly different. It would be good if the Government could go away and look at how that could perhaps be built into the legislation.

The Minister also mentioned that environmental impact assessments are there for certain pieces of work, but often they are the developers’ responsibility, if they are putting in for a particular development or for planning permission and so on. It is not built into encouraging councils to work together more environmentally effectively to bring that cost benefit to everybody.

On the non-constituent and associate members, from what the Minister said I gather that non-constituents are organisations and associate members are individuals. I am glad I have got that correct. However, to come back to district councils, they are already democratically elected. In theory, if 10 district councils were within a new CCA, could you end up with just one member being represented on the CCA? You could end up with very little district council representation compared with how many different councils there are. We need clear definitions and clear structures. There is nothing about how many members we are looking at and what their powers or responsibilities are. We are concerned that there is not enough pinned-down detail. Obviously, we like things to be in the Bill, but we could have more in the Explanatory Notes or under terms and conditions on how it is going to work once it is up and running.

I also want to point out that, in my experience—perhaps it is just to do with where I have been living—not all upper and lower authorities want to collaborate, and not all lower authorities want to collaborate. You can meet stalemate pretty quickly in those circumstances. I would be interested in how that is intended to be managed and who would manage it in order to smooth things over. How is that going to be helped if it is the CCA which decides who can and cannot vote? It strikes me that that has the potential for manipulation. It would be good to see conditions built in to ensure that does not happen. Would there be any guidance on this? What if, say, the only district council member is refused voting rights? Is there any right of appeal or challenge? How is that going to be managed?

On funding and regular reporting, the Minister mentioned the Local Government Act and how the government amendment is going to bring the CCAs into scope. That is really interesting to hear, and I imagine that we will probably revisit it once we have had a chance to look at that amendment and when it comes up for debate. I thank him for drawing our attention to that.

On access to powers if an authority has left the CCA, I clearly heard what the Minister said on Clause 23, but we added this because it does not actually explain that or lay out what happens. For example, if one local authority were delivering transport itself and were then removed, would that transport delivery go to the private sector, for example? That is completely different. We are trying to understand how that would operate and what the potential implications are if it is not managed properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness. Although some of her questions can be dealt with quite easily via a letter, it might be helpful to her and other noble Lords if we had a round-table session to explore some of the broader questions in greater depth. As she rightly said, considerable ramifications emerge from some of these questions, and I think they would be usefully dealt with in a conversational format, with officials present. So, if that idea appeals to noble Lords, I would be happy to arrange it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. We would very much welcome that; it would be extremely helpful. I will finish by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, a very happy birthday.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

That is very kind.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

67: Clause 8, page 7, line 24, after second “the” insert “initial”
Member’s explanatory statement
The means that regulations can only relate to the initial constitutional arrangements.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to lose my voice at this rate. I will introduce my amendments in this group and briefly comment on those in the names of other noble Lords.

My Amendment 67 to Clause 8 means that regulations can relate only to the initial constitutional arrangements, and my Amendment 68 means that the regulations relating to the constitutional arrangements of a CCA can be made only after consultation with the CCA. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to establish constitutional arrangements, and we do not have a problem with that at all. These are defined as

“membership ... voting powers ... executive arrangements”

and

“functions of any executive body”.

The executive arrangements include government appointments, the functions by which the executive operates, the functions of the executive that might be delegated to the committee, the “review and scrutiny” of the executive, “access to information” about the executive and the disapplication of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989—plus the keeping of records. These are important aspects of establishing who will be on a CCA, where decisions will be made and what will and will not be in the public domain.

We believe that, once the Secretary of State sets up the bodies, they really ought to be allowed to get on with the job without undue interference. We believe that we should be able to trust them to exercise the significant power and money functions that will be devolved to them from the centre by this clause. So, if we trust them to do that, we should also trust them to be able to operate their own constitutional arrangements.

My Amendment 67 would insert the word “initial” to demonstrate that the Secretary of State may make provisions about the first set of constitutional arrangements only, and then the CCAs can carry on and do it themselves. Amendment 68 would further ensure that CCAs are consulted on any further regulations that would relate to their constitutional arrangements.

I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 to Clause 16, which would mean that the

“regulations can only be made with a majority of members of the constituent councils”.

If all the constituent councils are going to feel on a level footing, as it were, with the rest, it is important that they all have that say and that things can change only once there is a majority who actually wants to make that change. It is then more likely to be accepted and moved forward in a constructive manner.

I will comment on a few other amendments. The deletion of the paragraph that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has asked for in his Amendment 69

“would reduce the risk of single party control of the executive of a CCA or its committees”.

We strongly agree with the noble Lord on that. It is an important amendment, because the Secretary of State should not be able to make regulations which disapply the political proportionality rules for an executive or committee of a CCA; we believe that that is for the electorate to decide.

We also agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in his Amendment 71, which means that a constituent council can include

“a district council in a two-tier county council for an area within the CCA’s area or proposed area”.

We believe that this is one of a number of places in the Bill where district councils must be allowed to be included as constituent councils in two-tier areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has also tabled Amendments 72 and 75, which, again, reduce the risk of one-party dominance. I absolutely understand his point: if you allow voting members to resolve that non-constituent members can vote on a CCA, you could end up with the situation where this class of member is appointed specifically to boost the voting majority of one party. This comes back to us saying earlier that, if you are not careful, you could end up with a situation where things could be manipulated, even if that is not the Government’s intention. We have to be very careful about that, so we strongly support those amendments.

The amendment to Clause 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would require a referendum. I see that she is very keen on referendums today. I am not sure whether this is subject to prior legislation, but I am sure that she can enlighten me. The consultation to which we referred in our amendment in relation to setting up the CCA could carry a requirement that it also determines the nature of that CCA: for example, whether it is to be mayoral-led or indirectly elected, appointed by the CCA. In any case, it is probably good practice to consider a referendum on whether there should be a mayor and whether a CCA is indirectly elected. However, the one concern we have—I am sure that the Minister will refer to this—is the considerable cost of running any referendum; that is the sticking point for us.

Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, ensures that appointments cannot be imposed without scrutiny and without the CCA’s agreement. Again, this is around the appointment of a deputy mayor, in particular. If we assume the current system will continue as it is—that is, where deputy mayors are appointed—I would certainly agree with the noble Lord that this should not be without the scrutiny and agreement of the CCA. The question here is whether a powerful position such as that of deputy mayor should even be appointed in the first place, or whether we should undertake some kind of democratic process for these powerful positions.

Amendment 116A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to probe the circumstances in which political balance might be inappropriate. This is a very helpful amendment where the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is seeking to explore the nature of political balance in bodies that exercise joint functions. In effect, these have usually worked without political proportionality being applied, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on how this might operate going forward.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has another two amendments. Amendment 120

“would ensure that the CCA is confident that powers being delegated by the deputy mayor are appropriate.”

Sensibly, it seeks to add an extra protection, which we would support—we would not want to see any deputy mayors going rogue, for example. Amendment 122

“would ensure that the views of a majority of the CCA are fully considered”.

Again, we think this is absolutely appropriate. There are important matters that this could cover—for example, the transfer of fire and rescue powers to the chief constable, which is of course a possibility. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like first to welcome the offer from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of a meeting. I suggest that plenty of time be allowed for us to discuss some of the issues that we have been trying to get to the bottom of in our debates so far.

I have six amendments in my name, and they all derive from a first reading of the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. Going back and reading it all again, you realise you actually need to place amendments on these matters. In this group, there are Amendments 69, 72, 75, 114, 120 and 122, and they all have a common theme, which is the centralisation of power and the need for checks and balances in the decision-making process.

Amendment 69 would delete Clause 8(3)(f), which says that

“section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (duty to allocate seats to political groups) in relation to an executive of the CCA or a committee of such an executive”

is disapplied. Therefore, it will not any longer be in place. That says to me that the deletion seems to encourage single-party control of a committee structure of a CCA. I just ask the Minister whether that is wise. It seems to centralise a power to an inner group of the CCA.

There has been a lot of discussion in the last group and then this one about district councils and their rights—clearly the meeting we are going to have will address some of those issues. Amendment 72 is a probing amendment and would prevent non-constituent members of the CCA voting. I say that to draw an explanation of why a non-constituent member of a CCA should have a vote. Why should the non-constituent members of the CCA become voting members? Will they all have a vote, or will it be only some non-constituent members? There is a big issue of principle here. Is it not enough for a non-council-nominating member to be in attendance? It is a simple issue. If you are a full member, you have a vote, and if you have a vote, you must be a full member. In other words, we have to have a discussion about the rights of district councils to be full members and have full votes.

Amendment 75 then addresses the issue of associate members of a CCA having a vote at the discretion of the CCA. I would like the Minister just to explain in what circumstances an associate member would qualify for a full vote. Again, the process could encourage one-party domination, by giving a majority party the right to give a vote to an associate member of their choice—or do I misunderstand? I am very happy to have misunderstood, but I am probing to know what the intention actually is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. The main takeaway for me is that it is crystal clear that the model is very problematic and that we need a proper discussion about the role and rights of district councils, because I honestly think that the model strips them of powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that district councils are currently responsible for economic development and planning. So I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but I am sure that we will revisit these concerns in future debates on the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I rise to speak to Amendments 155 and 156 in my name. These are probing amendments because I think it is very important that the Government explain their intentions. Amendment 155 provides that non-constituent members of the combined authority are not able to vote, given their status, and Amendment 156 provides that associate members of a combined authority are not able to vote, given their status. On a previous day in Committee we addressed this issue, in part. However, the Government need to undertake some mature reflection about what is proposed here.

Giving a vote to somebody who is not a full member of a combined authority is unwise. My amendments provide that there should be no vote for anybody who is not a full member of the authority. The principle is that full members are voting members, and voting members are full members, but you cannot have full voting members when they are not full constituent members, as opposed to associate members, of the authority.

The voting structure between counties and districts as explained in the Bill would provide a route for resolving any impasse that might arise if votes were allocated on the basis of population. Of course, a county would have exactly 50% of the votes. If all the district councils voted against the county—one hopes it does not come to that—there would have to be some kind of system for a casting vote. The mayor would seem to be the way forward.

After reflecting on what we have been saying on previous days in Committee, to me it seems that district councils, which are responsible for planning and economic development matters, ought to be full members of a CCA. That seems to me to be the principle. It should not be at the discretion of the CCA, which does not have a district council member, to simply award a vote to that district council member when other district council members may not have a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on the previous day in Committee, when giving a vote to one non-constituent member or to an associate member, it does not follow that other associate or non-constituent members would have a vote.

So this is a probing amendment. It is complicated; I understand that. When in due course we reach Report, I just hope that the Government will be prepared to examine the structure they have proposed here. I have come to the conclusion that they should permit district councils within a CCA area to become full members. At that point, those full members would have a right to a full vote under their own terms of membership. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond to that, so that we can get a better feel of what we need to do on Report to bring in further clarification on this matter.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a couple of amendments in this group, one in my name and one in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. First, Amendment 73 in my noble friend’s name would mean that a non-constituent member ceases to be a member when they form part of a different CCA.

We are aware that the Local Government Association has expressed concerns about this amendment. It has said that local areas should be able to “look both ways”—in other words, be a non-constituent member of more than one authority—if they have close economic or cultural ties with more than one combined authority or devolution deal area. It has also expressed concerns about the fact that it would set a precedent, contrary to the current plans for the city of York, which is currently a non-constituent member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority but would become a member of the new York and North Yorkshire mayoral combined authority.

I want to explain the thinking behind why we tabled this amendment, which is, of course, a probing amendment. It is of course understandable that local authority non-constituent members may wish to be part of more than one CCA. However, we believe, first, that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA, to ensure that they can play a full part in decision-making for their area—as other noble Lords have just said—and that this would include any budgetary and spatial development issues, and, secondly, that therefore they could then be a non-constituent member only in a CCA that was not their primary CCA.

We believe it must surely be the case that membership of a CCA is implicitly determined by the geography of an area. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State to have a pattern of overlapping CCAs across the country, will this not complicate the structure of local government rather than simplify and declutter the picture, which the Government have said they want to achieve?

Further to this, if we then have overlapping areas that are both combined mayoral authorities, to which mayor do the people of an area represented on more than one CCA relate? Can the Minister in his response clarify whether the population of that area get a vote in both mayoral elections, which of the mayors is responsible for delivering the economic development and/or regeneration of their area, and who is accountable?

This clause is predicated on the assumption that district council members are simply co-opted, junior partners in CCAs with no voting rights and only a passing interest in sitting in on meetings that they are not actively participating in. As has been said in debates on earlier amendments, we feel that this is, frankly, an insult to district councils.

As I said, my noble friend’s amendment is intended to probe why the Government appear to have set their face so firmly against the inclusion of district councils. Instead, we believe they should be at the heart of decision-making in CCAs since, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, they have powers over planning and economic development, not to mention that they are the councils with the highest percentage of public support. We strongly believe that they should be able to be full members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments, which probes and challenges the membership of the CCA, and even existing combined authorities. It seems to me that there are three major principles that the amendments in this group are exploring; the first concerns whether the Government are determined to continue with democratic local government. There are proposals in the Bill for non-constituent members, which may be groups of businesses, rotary or chambers of trade, or trade unions, that are not elected locally, to be able to influence the spending of substantial sums of public money in their areas.

For me, the whole purpose of democracy is that those elected are those who are going to be accountable for decisions made about public funds—that seems to me to be a fundamental principle of local government. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Bill seem to be moving away from that basic principle by giving combined county authorities the ability to appoint associate members, who represent nobody but themselves, and indeed non-constituent members, who may not be members of an elected body such as a district, town or parish council. I would like to hear from the Minister the Government’s view on this and why these proposals are in the Bill.

The second principle is that of local. It seems that the Government, as perhaps were previous Governments, are intent on taking the “local” out of local government. The move to dismantle two tiers of local government and make them into unitaries moves the elected representatives away from their local area, because their wards are much larger in size. That leads me to support very much the proposals in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market about the involvement of town and parish councils within this system of combined authorities. It also leads me to support, the Committee will not be surprised to hear, the voices that have been heard across the Chamber on the important role of district councils within this system. They are the ones which, along with town and parish councils, are at the local level and they understand the economies and cultures of their areas. Those voices must be expressed in a higher or more remote tier of government.

The third principle that has been expressed today is proportionality. What we cannot allow—because, again, it is undemocratic to do so—is to move away from the convention of proportionality. We cannot accept that voices from other political backgrounds will not be given a chance to express those views within a combined authority.

I look forward to what the Minister is going to say about membership, voting arrangements and proportionality, and about the role of district, town and parish councils, because for me this is absolutely fundamental to any proposal for devolution. Devolution is a nonsense if it just results in another remote body that bears no relationship to its local area. If people cannot express their concerns or propose ideas, it is just another way of doing things to people rather than involving them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the other concerns is that such members cannot then be voted out if people do not agree with them being there?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

That is my fundamental principle. Anyone who makes decisions about public money has to be voted for; they have to be an elected member. The whole point is that they are then accountable for the decisions they make and can, quite rightly, be kicked out of office if local people do not agree with what they have done. That is the point and if you have non-elected members of these combined authorities who cannot be ejected from office for the decisions they have made, we are no longer a democratic country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am finding some of this slightly confusing, so I wonder whether the noble Earl could clarify something. Is he confirming, first, that district councils can be constituent members, and not just non-constituent members? Secondly, did he just say that all district councils will be able to be members? I would just like clarification.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It may be helpful if I cover the issue of district councils in a moment when I come to Amendments 155 and 156. I will do my best when I do so.

Amendment 127A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the requirements in relation to public consultations on proposals to change a combined county authority. We are in complete agreement that public consultation on a proposal to change a combined county authority is important. However, the amendment questions an important part of the safeguard that Clause 46 has in place to ensure that such a consultation is sufficient.

I will explain. As the provision is currently written, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation on changing a combined county authority unless three factors are met: first, that a proposal has been prepared under Clause 45; secondly, that a public consultation on the proposal has been carried out and a summary of it submitted to the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, that the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary—namely, that the consultation which has been carried out is sufficient. The amendment, as I take it, probes the process involved in the third factor. I tried my best to cover that in the letter I sent to all noble Lords who spoke in our previous Committee session.

In essence, the issue here is that the Secretary of State, in deciding whether a prior consultation has been sufficient or insufficient, has to look at several things: what the consultation consisted of; whether it followed the Cabinet Office guidance for public consultations sufficiently well; and, in that regard, whether it covered the necessary groups of people that it should cover, which is one of the principles set out in the Cabinet Office rules. So the public consultation would involve not only residents but key stakeholders, such as district councils, local businesses, public sector bodies, and voluntary and community sector organisations. A summary of those responses has to be presented to the Secretary of State when the proposal is submitted, together with any amendments that the proposing councils wish to make to the proposal in the light of the consultation. So the consideration the Secretary of State has to undertake is a combination of making sure that the principles laid down for consultations have been followed and looking at the evidence that has been presented. I hope that is of help to the noble Baroness.

I turn now to Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which have similar effects, as he explained. Amendment 155 would remove the ability of a combined authority to resolve to allow non-constituent members voting rights on certain matters. Amendment 156 would apply the same restriction to a combined authority’s associate members. Both non-constituent and associate members are non-voting members by default, but we have enabled the combined authority to give them voting rights on most matters, should they wish to do so. For example, a combined authority may have provided for there to be a non-constituent member of a neighbouring council to enable their input on matters which may have cross-boundary effects.

I listened with care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who expressed some severe reservations about this idea. However, it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—to enable their input on matters which may have an impact on businesses in the combined authority’s area.

The combined authority may wish to maximise this input by allowing both non-constituent and associate members to vote on such relevant matters. The process for doing this would be set out in the combined authority’s local constitution, with the decision being made by the authority. As I have alluded to, there is a good example of this. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, expressed the view that district councils should be allowed a seat at the table and a vote. The Government have allowed for this to happen, albeit not in the way that the noble Lord has suggested, but as a non-constituent member.

We will be coming to a later group, consisting partly of Amendment 125A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when we can perhaps discuss the issue of district councils in a little more depth. But it is also one of the topics that I suggest to noble Lords we cover in the round-table discussion which I proposed in our last Committee session, and which is now in the course of being arranged.

I should add that, very importantly, the decision by a combined authority to give any non-constituent members and/or associate members voting rights could be scrutinised by the authority’s overview and scrutiny committee to ensure due process is being followed. I suggest to the noble Lord that what we are proposing will not be without checks and balances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is another really important group of amendments to do with the extent of devolution: what are the limits that the Government are putting on that? The only areas we have explored, very important though they are, are the National Health Service, policing, transport services—buses, in particular—and general functions. I have great sympathy with all the amendments in this group, particularly those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asking where the National Health Service fits in with the notion of devolution to local areas.

As the noble Lord explored, currently the NHS does not fit in. A move was made in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority for the mayor to take the provision of health and care services—which we have not referred to so far—under his powers. That was accepted but has not made much progress. One of the biggest challenges, as has been said time and again in this Chamber in debates relating to other Bills, is the absolute importance of connecting the National Health Service and the social care system. Enabling devolution of NHS services to a mayoral combined authority would enable social care and NHS services to be properly linked. The result of no progress being made in this area is before our eyes; we have too many older people staying in hospital for too long, which harms their health, and they are not discharged into the social care service because the two are not linked. The Government have failed to do this time and again. Well, okay, devolve it—pass it on to local mayoral authorities so that we can see what progress they can make. I repeat every sympathy, and support what has been said. I do hope it will be pursued at later stages of consideration of this Bill because it is so important for the health and well-being of the people we serve.

I will also wholeheartedly support the Clauses 58 and 59 stand part notices, for the reasons that have been said. I will give the example of West Yorkshire, where it was determined that the police and crime commissioner role would be combined with that of our elected mayor. Now we no longer have an elected police and crime commissioner because that role is unelected; they are appointed by the West Yorkshire mayor. That was her right; I am not saying she has done anything wrong. But who is now called to account for failings in policing in West Yorkshire? There have been a number of examples across the country where police and crime commissioners have, for various reasons, been found wanting and have been held accountable for their actions. How does that work in a combined mayoral authority where the mayor appoints the police and crime commissioner? Does the mayor have to be held accountable for the decisions and actions of their appointed deputy? That is the only way that accountability can take place. The attempt by the Government to undermine an elected process is undemocratic. How do the Government think that local people will feel about the very important role of holding policing in the West Midlands to account when an elected police and crime commissioner there is somehow unelected? Those two big issues are very important. It is about whether we are talking about devolution to local areas or still talking about centralised systems where there is delegation to combined authorities—which leads nicely to buses.

I cannot add to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s description of what has happened to the bus services and how important they are to any hope of levelling up for many parts of the country. As she said, if you cannot get a bus in order to access employment then, for many people, it is financially impossible to do other than stay at home. Mayoral authorities need to be given the powers to control bus services, as bus services should be encompassed in mayoral authorities. In giving another local example, I should point out that it was done before the mayoral authority was set up. Nevertheless, it comes from the centre of West Yorkshire where, in my own area, we have a number of small villages where the bus services were poor and people could not get about. Fortunately, there was not only one bus a week—like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has, I think—but services were poor throughout the day. We managed to get a subsidy for what I call a small hopper bus—a 15-seater—to go around the various parts of the Spen Valley area and pick up older people, take them into town to do their shopping, collect them and go back again. After a bit, because it was so popular, it has become a self-financing bus service. With local initiatives comes success because local areas know what would probably work for their patches. That is why enabling mayoral combined authorities to have control over bus services is so vital.

Any notion of levelling up will not work without the aspect of transport. There has been too much focus on rail services, which are very important but do not feature in a lot of people’s options for transport. I repeat that my noble friend Lady Randerson made a powerful case for ensuring that mayoral combined authorities can run bus services. Without that, many people—especially in rural areas, but not only in rural areas—will find that they cannot access the services and jobs they need to if levelling up is to be anything other than a slogan.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as others have said, this has certainly been a mixed bag of amendments, but clearly they all look at the extent of devolution, the powers and the different functions involved. We have two probing amendments in this group. First, in Clause 19, my Amendment 91 probes

“whether the Government will cooperate with trade unions representing employees of CCAs.”

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her support and for her excellent speech on this matter. At the moment, Clause 19—“Integrated Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive”—does not consider the people who work for the CCAs. We believe they should be able to be part of any decision-making process. This is also why we believe it is important for the Government to co-operate with trade union representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

Has the noble Baroness given any consideration to one of the provisions here about the statement that the mayor must make on consent by the constituent councils? I think she said that it would be only if they gave their unanimous consent but, on page 51 of the Bill, subsection (4)(b) says that,

“if the mayor is unable to make that statement, the reasons why the mayor considers the order should be made even though not all of the constituent councils agree to it being made”.

So it is not even the case that all constituent councils are engaged; indeed, it does not even say that it should be a majority. It would appear that the mayor has absolute discretion to make a statement, regardless of constituent councils’ support.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely; the noble Lord is completely correct. I was trying to get across that there should be unanimous consent for anything as serious as that matter; I thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is not the logic. It takes the whole issue too far. Cabinet members will come from the elected members. That is required in the legislation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The one thing that this has not answered is the issue of the politics, looking at the West Midlands. Does the Minister not think that, if a mayor can appoint a deputy mayor to take over the PCC functions and the existing PCC is then not there, that deputy should be of the same political persuasion as the elected PCC? The people voted for someone from that party, that part of the spectrum. Should it not be specified if that is the direction that the Government are going in?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not think so. I will make it very clear: these amendments are nothing to do with the West Midlands. These amendments were in the White Paper a number of years ago and were fully consulted on. I will take the noble Baroness’s point, but that is not what normally happens. You would normally have one of your team as a deputy mayor responsible for one thing or another, as you do in London. In this case, it could be for police and crime. I do not know what West Yorkshire will do.

I would also add that Parliament’s approval is needed for a combined authority to take on any new function. PCC functions can be conferred on a combined authority mayor by secondary legislation only, which needs parliamentary approval before it can be made.

Finally in this group is Amendment 469, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson. This would confer new powers on local authorities to run their own bus services, which we believe is premature. The national bus strategy states that the Government would review whether it remains right that local authorities cannot set up new bus companies. Any consideration of change to the operation of the local bus market needs to be conducted in an orderly manner, with all views and potential impacts, positive and negative, considered. We therefore intend to wait until the review of the bus strategy comes out.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

92: Clause 19, page 16, line 11, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report setting out—(a) any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on CCAs,(b) the reasons for those differences, and(c) the extent to which economic, social and environmental well-being factors were considered in coming to decisions to confer different powers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report explaining any differences in integrated transport authority functions conferred on CCAs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all to do with transport. I am sure noble Lords will remember that one of the missions is on transport and that that mission says:

“By 2030, local public transport connectivity across the country will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing”,


and that:

“The success of this mission will be measured through indicators on commuting modal share and average journey time to centres of employment. New connectivity metrics that account for population density with distance travelled will help identify where the standards are being met.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Well, I note the noble Lord’s scepticism, which is long-standing, and can only say that I will relay his comments to the appropriate quarter.

I hope that the explanations I have given will be helpful to noble Lords opposite and that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 92. As always, I would of course welcome conversations outside the Chamber if she feels those would be useful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief as I think everyone is looking forward to the dinner break. I thank the Minister for his very thorough response to my amendments and for his offer at the end. That is extremely helpful and I appreciate it.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for supporting my amendments, which is much appreciated. I will make just one suggestion: if the Government are genuinely committed to levelling up transport in the north, could the next stage of HS2 start from the north and then work down? But at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 92 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, obviously, I completely support the argument of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond that Clause 32 and the other clauses in this group should not stand part of the Bill. She made a powerful argument, as did my noble friend Lord Stunell, about the regulations and the power that is going to be devolved to the Secretary of State through these clauses. Further, my noble friend Lady Harris amply demonstrated the shortfalls of such mergers. This is a pilot example of what happens when provision is made for a chief constable to take over the responsibilities of a fire service. According to the argument made by my noble friend and the evidence in the HMICFRS report, it is not going well. I am beginning to think that the Government despise local government and local democracy. My noble friend Lord Stunell has just suggested a retention of local government law Bill, and perhaps that is what we have to start considering.

Clause 32(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … authorising … the chief constable … to exercise fire and rescue functions”.


I know the Government have wanted to merge these two emergency services for some time, but this is being proposed without reference to local informed discussion, debate and solution. Furthermore, Clause 33(2)—this was where I got really quite concerned—states that “A request” for such a merger

“must be accompanied by a report which contains … an assessment of why”.

That is fair enough. There are two criteria: that

“it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the regulations to be made”;

“or” that

“it is in the interests of public safety”.

We are taking about emergency services, so surely you would want to consider a merger according to the first criterion: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. But you would then use the word “and” before the phrase

“in the interests of public safety”.

However, the Bill uses the word “or”, and it does so several times in these clauses. The message that sends to me is that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are far more important than public safety—even for an emergency service.

Clause 33(4) indicates that even if two-thirds—this is where the democracy bit concerns me—of the constituent members of the combined county authority oppose such a merger, the mayor could just ignore that and continue with the merger plan despite the considerable scale of opposition by involving the Secretary of State. Where is the case for merging two emergency services with very different skills? How is it going to improve public safety? As I have said, public safety seems to be a secondary requirement when considering a merger. Can the Minister let us know where to access any detailed examples, apart from the North Yorkshire model which has already been exposed as not successful, of how such mergers improve public safety? That must, after all, be key to any decision in principle that this Bill proposes.

I end with the words of my noble friend. The problems that she outlined have not been thought through properly. If the Government wish to merge two emergency services with very different backgrounds, pay structures and requirements, then we need a proper assessment prior to the Bill proposing, as it does in these clauses, that they can go ahead just by writ from the mayor and Secretary of State.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has brought her concerns forward. This is clearly a really important issue in Yorkshire, where she lives. I also think it draws to your Lordships’ attention that much in the Bill is perhaps not as straightforward as it would appear at first glance, and that things affect different areas in different ways. Perhaps the Government should look again at some parts of the Bill where there will be different impacts from those perhaps originally envisaged. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has drawn attention to one of these areas.

The noble Baroness mentioned the National Fire Chiefs Council. This is an opportunity to put on record the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the Government’s recent review of police and crime commissioners, as that puts it in the context of these clauses and our discussions about how the Bill relates to fire services and PCCs. The Government’s review looked at fire services, policing, governance and voluntary and community organisations. There were certain specifics relating to fire. The Government said that they would further look at:

“Consulting on whether to mandate the transfer of fire and rescue functions to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model across England where boundaries are coterminous, unless there is an option to transfer fire governance directly to an elected Mayor … Legislating to create operational independence for Chief Fire Officers and to clearly separate and delineate strategic and operational planning for fire and rescue … Considering options to clarify the legal entities within the PFCC model.”


They stated that

“the Government is clear that further reform of fire and rescue is required in order to respond to the recommendations from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Kerslake Review and to build on the findings from Sir Thomas Winsor’s State of Fire and Rescue Report”.

Any reform would

“focus on three key areas: people; professionalism; and governance”.

In response, the National Fire Chiefs Council said

“if fire services are governed by a Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC)”—

we already know that some already are—

“it is imperative CFOs roles are safeguarded and have the same standing as a Chief Constable. Currently, Chief Constables … act as the employer and have operational independence. The same operational positioning for CFOs is vital, together with”

a wider status sitting alongside police forces. We know that fire services are driven by risk and risk factors; they are not as demand-led as police forces, and a number of key operational, organisational and cultural differences sit between the two services. When working with them, we need different approaches; there are different functions, and a different kind of political understanding needs to come with that.

We only need to look back over the last couple of years to see the response to the pandemic and how fire services were able to adapt quickly to the frequent challenges which emerged. However, it also showed that there are some areas that need reform to ensure that the public continue to receive the outstanding response they expect. We know that the public have huge respect and support for our fire services.

We must not forget the role of the fire services to serve communities, putting them first while reducing risk and saving lives. We must not lose sight of that when making reforms, because any reform that happens will be a pretty major undertaking and will need to be resourced appropriately. If changes come from the Bill to the way fire services are managed, we must not lose resources, and they must be carried out in a consistent, joined-up manner.

There also has to be proper clarity around the political leadership. How will that operate? With appropriate political oversight, CFOs will be well placed to deliver the operational running of services, using strong data and the evidence they need. However, if we are moving in the direction that the Bill is suggesting, there must be a democratic mandate, good governance, accountability and robust political decision-making, otherwise there is a risk of undermining the community’s trust in those services, which is critical.

We also need clear lines of responsibility, and we should have national guidance and standards on this for all forces, PCCs and fire services to follow. Any strategic direction of budgets has to be properly evidence-based, with clearly defined roles for the people who are part of those services.

To conclude, one of the things we are concerned about, which came across in the earlier contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is the confusion presented by so many different models, both those which currently exist and those which will be expanded by the proposals in the Bill. So clarity going forward is critical.

I turn, very briefly, to Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State in this part of the Bill is basically being allowed to do whatever they like. The whole Bill has been pitched as devolving power, but this is centralising power, and it goes against the spirit of what we felt the Bill proposed to be. We need proper checks and balances on any powers given to PCCs and the Secretary of State, so we completely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Any Secretary of State should not be able to amend, revoke or repeal at a whim.

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

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the ability of combined county authority mayors to take on fire and rescue functions. On issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—it is very nice to see her; we miss her in the House—Clause 32 enables the mayor of a combined county authority to exercise fire and rescue functions in the same way that a mayor of a combined authority can. We have seen this already in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has taken on the police and crime commissioner role and fire and rescue functions.

This allows public safety functions to be taken as a package where there is a local desire for this—we are not imposing it—and boundaries are co-terminous. It is worth noting that this is a choice for the local area, allowing the decision to be taken at the most local level, in line with the principle of localism. We are also keen to ensure that, whenever possible, the functions of combined authorities and combined county authorities should be the same. This starts to answer the noble Baroness opposite: we are trying to simplify things; we are not trying to add different complications. We are trying to make the combined authorities and combined county authorities—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

This issue is part of a threesome that we have debated this evening: local democracy; fiscal and electoral decisions; and, now, how we hold meetings. How is it that Westminster can dictate how local councils should conduct themselves? That is the question I want to ask. I know that they deal with potholes; actually, I have a plan for potholes. Can we have migration of potholes? Do noble Lords think that would help? It seems to me that these amendments have a lot of merit; I will say why.

The first issue is travel. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised this but only in relation to going a short distance. In their wisdom, the Government have created two new unitary authorities, which start their life in April. North Yorkshire is one. If you live in Selby or are elected to represent Selby, in one part of North Yorkshire, you now have to travel 56 miles to get to a council meeting in Northallerton. That is a 112-mile round trip to get to a meeting. You have to ask yourself: is that an efficient use of anybody’s time, and does it contribute to our net-zero ambitions?

Then there is Somerset, which Members of the Committee may believe is a smaller county, but if you live at one end, in Frome, and the county hall is in Taunton, at the other end of the county, that too is 56 miles and a 112-mile round trip. That is not cost effective or efficient in anybody’s life. If you live in Yorkshire, especially North Yorkshire, and you have to go across the dales or the moors in winter to attend a meeting, you know that sometimes it is simply not possible. That is one reason.

I hope the Government will take up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of bringing forward a government amendment, either shortly or at the next stage, to deal with this. As the noble Lord said, it is about efficiency. Virtual meetings lower costs and enable more people to get involved. If we are interested in local democracy, as I am, the more people who can get involved and engaged in decision-making, the better.

My final point, well made by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, is about the engagement and involvement of people who are otherwise excluded from being councillors because of either caring responsibilities or lack of transport. If you do not have a car in North Yorkshire, I do not know how you get to Northallerton. Maybe the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, can tell us, but I think it might take a couple of days.

For all those reasons, it is really important that if we want to reinvigorate our local democracy—which is essential if we are to narrow inequalities, which is at the heart of the levelling-up process—we need more people to be engaged. If we want more people to be engaged and involved, we have to enable it by letting councils decide for themselves whether they want virtual meetings. I fully support the principle behind all these amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a really important debate. This is such an important issue, yet it could be so simply resolved. We have heard about the Government’s call for evidence, but so far we have not heard anything from them, so it will be extremely interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that, particularly following the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the freedom of information request, which were a bit disappointing to hear.

The Local Government Association was, unsurprisingly, one of the organisations that made a fairly detailed submission to the Government. It noted an enormous number of benefits gained by local councils from being able to meet virtually. It said strongly that it hoped this ability would be retained, particularly when it is locally appropriate. We have heard a lot about how appropriate it is in Yorkshire, and it is the same with me in Cumbria.

We need to remember, as has been said, the huge benefits to the democratic process that were brought by enabling councils to meet virtually. It reduced reliance on delegating decisions to officers if there was a crisis, for example, because everyone could get together very quickly. There was much more flexibility, better councillor attendance and better engagement with local residents at council meetings. We have also heard of the difficulties that disabled people often have, or those of people in rural areas who do not have a car. This managed to completely change their ability to attend meetings and take part in local democracy. As was said earlier, if we can have people attending this House virtually, why on earth can we not have the same for people at local government level?

It is also really important that the Government are not so ridiculously prescriptive about how and when councils can meet. I genuinely do not understand why there has not been any movement following the call for evidence. I can see no reason why this is not a good thing to continue with. The LGA added in its response that councils would need considerable flexibility for local determination as to how and when to utilise virtual and hybrid meetings to ensure that they realise the benefits of all the different meeting options that suit the local context. Again, that flexibility is hugely important for democracy. As I said, I find it completely baffling that this was not just automatically extended once the benefits could be seen.

We know that councils provide many different services to their communities. Their decisions obviously affect the lives of residents, so to have a system where you actively enable high levels of civic representation and where citizens’ voices are heard and taken into account in policy-making, local decision-making and planning—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, particularly referred to—is surely of benefit to the whole of our society. We need to address issues of underrepresentation, which we talked about during the passage of the Elections Bill. Encouraging participation in local democracy at every single level is more likely to encourage people to take part in elections when they come forward.

We have an amendment on this, because we think it is important. We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as hers is a really important amendment; I hope the Government will eventually come behind her. We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but if you allow virtual meetings only for planning meetings, I am not sure how much that helps parish councils, for example. I will wind up, because I know we want to break.

In our parish, virtual meetings and being able to meet remotely were an absolute godsend. I know that when we were told that was no longer possible, the parish council was not just deeply disappointed but pretty cross about it. It had enabled far more people to attend meetings, not just the councillors but the general public. Like Yorkshire, Cumbria is a very rural area. We have heard about the local authorities referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh, but even just our parish covers a pretty wide area. For people to find out what was going on in their parish was of huge benefit. People logged into the meetings who had never attended before. Again, it is such a shame to have lost that.

Along with other noble Lords who have spoken, I am honestly of the opinion that this is such a no-brainer for this Bill. I really hope that, following this debate and taking away the thoughts that have come from it, the Government will consider coming back with a similar amendment on Report so that we can just get on with this.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I remind the Committee that the Coronavirus Act 2020 contained numerous measures which were intentionally —and, in the Government’s view, rightly—time-limited as they were introduced in an emergency at great speed. The local authority remote meetings regulations arising from that Act gave local authorities the flexibility to meet remotely or in hybrid form. Since their expiry, all councils have reverted to in-person meetings and local government is back to how it operated pre-Covid and working effectively.

All three amendments in this group propose in different ways a relaxation of the rules relating to meetings held by local councils. Amendment 158, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, leans directly into the regulations that expired on 7 May 2021, using powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. In a related vein, Amendment 310, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, aims to allow planning committee meetings of local authorities to take place virtually, as well as making related provisions for public access to meetings and remote access to meeting documents. Amendment 312D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is a probing amendment on a similar theme.

I have noted the powerful contributions made in this debate but I fear that I must give my noble friends and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, a disappointing answer at this stage. The Government are of the view that physical attendance is important for delivering good governance and democratic accountability. As we in this House may recognise, there are clear benefits to democratic representatives debating and voting on matters in person rather than at the end of a video call. The nature of debate is different, and the nature of interaction is different, in a positive sense. There are benefits to the—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

These amendments do not preclude that, but give an option. Does the noble Earl not think that having that option would be a benefit?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I completely appreciate that, but I ask the noble Baroness to hear me out. There are benefits, which we would all recognise, to the side-discussions that are facilitated by being physically next to colleagues, and these are not the only considerations. It is worth my reminding the Committee that there is no restriction on in-person council meetings being filmed or webcast to allow the public to view proceedings remotely. Indeed, the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 extended full rights for the press and public to record and broadcast council meetings.

I have listened carefully to my noble friends and to noble Lords opposite, who have argued, often from first-hand perspectives, for the current legislation to be changed. I am afraid that the most that I can do at this stage is to say that we will keep the matter under review, and I undertake that we will do so.

My noble friend Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked me about the current position on the call for evidence and the government response. Conversations are continuing across government and as soon as possible after those conversations are concluded, we will publish a government response to the call for evidence, which will set out our intentions. However, for the time being, I must resist all three of these amendments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I am certainly ready to respond on behalf of my Front-Bench colleague on this group, but I notice that there are two further items that it might be appropriate for me to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to address before I speak.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have one amendment and a stand part notice in this group. One is on whether Clause 92 should stand part of the Bill, and the other is an amendment as to whether the Crown should publish a review on whether the provisions of the Act should be extended.

Clause 92 is on the neighbourhood development plans and orders, and the basic conditions that are referred to. We have put this down because we wanted to draw attention to what we considered to be a fundamental issue with neighbourhood plans. As things stand at the moment, it is not entirely clear to us what role they play in national planning policy. We know that they are explicitly addressed in the National Planning Policy Framework, but this is only in terms of process. The way it is done is not particularly clear. On the one hand, the stated rationale of neighbourhood plans is that they give communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area, and they are legally part of development plans. On the other hand, they have to conform to local planning housing allocations, if they are still going to exist, and have regard to national planning policy, but can also be overturned when they are in conflict with either of these things. That brings about a tension and, ultimately, the question of who makes decisions here. Is it communities or is it Ministers? This is not really resolved or clear at all. It would be helpful for the Minister to bring some clarity around that. We need clarity about the precise remit of neighbourhood plans.

More fundamentally, we also need a better sense of the function of neighbourhood planning within the wider planning system. It is critical that there is a balance between local and national planning, because we do not want to see communities disempowered and more control at the centre. I know that the Government have talked a lot about how the Bill is devolving power from the centre locally, but we feel that in many areas this is not actually what the Bill is achieving. We need to make sure that we do not lose the ability of communities to have a say in their own destinies and what their communities are going to look like. If you think about the last 10 years of Conservative Administrations, the Government have been tinkering away with the planning systems; we believe that has, to a certain extent, undermined the scope for effective local and neighbourhood planning. The Bill is an opportunity to put that right. As it stands at the moment, we think that in certain areas it does the opposite. It is about making sure that the Bill does level up, does give more power to communities and does not snatch any more back to the centre.

I give just one example of why we are particularly worried about this. The new national development management policies that the Bill provides for will take precedence over both local and neighbourhood plans where there is any kind of conflict. When the Minister responds, it would be good to hear that she appreciates the concerns I have just expressed and for her to give us confidence that the Bill will not undermine any kind of localism in the planning system. On the clauses that we are concerned about, such as Clause 92 and later when we get to the NDMPs, it would be good to hear that there will be more consideration of the impact on local decision-making.

Amendment 506 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage concerns

“whether the provisions of this act should be extended in relation to parish councils and town councils in England, and community councils in Wales and Scotland.”

We have had a pretty big debate about parish and town councils so I will not go into any detail on them now; I think the Minister has a fairly clear idea of why we are saying this. I do not think the Bill goes far enough to empower and involve communities in the devolution proposals that we have been debating.

I will speak briefly on some of the other amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Again, many of them are really important. I particularly want to say how much we support Amendment 160—as the noble Baroness said, this feeds back to our previous debate—on the dependant carers’ allowance for parish councillors. This is important. I do not understand why parish councils could not have been added to the list of local authorities in England that can have a scheme to provide for the payment to members if they have caring responsibilities. It could help with the expense of arranging childcare, for example, or of having someone come in to sit with an elderly relative while the carer attends a meeting. It seems a sensible, practical way of supporting councillors who have caring duties to take a greater role and encouraging people with caring responsibilities to take part in their local communities.

I also think that the noble Baroness’s Amendment 161, on neighbourhood governance, is something that we need to look at. It makes absolute sense for the Secretary of State to have to

“undertake a review of neighbourhood governance in England.”

Again, in looking at levelling up, that is about empowering communities; it is all part of the same picture, as far as I can see. The noble Baroness referred to the 2017 Taylor review. As she said, it confirmed that there is considerable confusion about what Section 8 of the 1894 Act actually means; again, we will come on to churches and what it means for them. Whether you agree with it or not, this is about updating legislation so that everybody better understands what it means. At the moment, better clarification is needed. One of the points that has been made on this by the National Association of Local Councils is that there is no current case law to resolve the question of whether that Act in fact overrides these provisions. To me, it just makes sense to have a review as it is a very old piece of legislation.

We very much support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 164 on the general power of competence. Communities need power and influence to tackle the issues that matter most to local people, allowing them to shape the delivery of public services in their area and, ultimately, to deliver the kind of community in which they want to live and be part of. Again, we think that it is an important amendment.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett said, quite rightly, that this group of amendments is important for how local democracy is supported and developed as we go forward. I hope that the Minister and the Government will look kindly on the amendments, the spirit of what they are trying to achieve and the support they are trying to give local communities and parish councils. If you are genuine about levelling up, these sorts of amendments can actually make quite a big difference in their own way. I hope that she will have time to take this back to her department to look at in more detail.

Finally, it was very good to learn that my noble friend Lord Blunkett has recognised the error of his ways in making things more centralised, and I hope that the Government will learn from his approach.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to the community of the saved. The amendments on parish councils find favour with our Front Bench. I will not go into great detail on them. I hope that, if we are quick on this group of amendments, the Government will give us a break afterwards.

On the standards proposed by Amendment 159, I say that I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when we carried out our inquiry on the state of the health of democracy in local councils. There was a quite clear gap, and our recommendations were very clear about what should be done. It is disappointing that the Government, initially at least, responded that they were not going to take any action. I hope that they will now take some action, not least because of the high-profile cases which came to light during the pandemic lockdown.

We support Amendments 160 and 161; the review of parishes is certainly well overdue. The capacity of parishes to do things was much tested during Covid. Most parishes proved up to the task, but the government system of emergency funding was denied to them; had it been available, it would have been helpful to their communities. I would have thought that the Government might want to have this reserve power in their pocket for a future occasion, even if they are convinced that they do not need to apply it immediately.

I did not know how controversial grants by parish councils would prove to be in the debate. I just add that the Church of England is not the only religious body in England, and certainly not the only religious body which supplies and helps its community and which parishes might well want to support and enable. I am quite sure that we need to get past this particular roadblock and just make parishes able to take their own decision about whether a particular body and a particular cause does or does not justify the use of taxpayers’ and parish money to carry out duties of one sort or another. The power of general competence is of course part of capacity raising, all of which is about levelling up by making parish councils effective voices in their community and enabling them to do things; it is empowerment.

The Government have focused on things which some of us think are completely misplaced or very trivial—the subject of street names springs to my mind. However, on things which are much more important and significant, they seem to have been a little blind, so I hope that they will respond to the debate in a very positive way.

On the question of Clause 92 standing part of the Bill, I hope that I do not understand the clause properly, because it seems to say that neighbourhood plans will be fine from now on, but only as long as they reach a minimum standard set by the Government in terms of housing supply.

I said in an earlier debate that neighbourhood plans had been remarkably successful in allocating more land for housing than the local plans that they superseded, on average. Obviously, of the roughly 3,000 that have been approved, not every one has provided more housing—some have provided less—but, on average, they have provided more. They are a vehicle for overcoming the terrible tension in a planning system in which the developer develops and the community opposes. They were designed to turn it around, so that the community proposes and the developer develops. That is how you get more homes; if you try to bulldoze it through the community, at whatever level, you will slow the process down. Neighbourhood planning has shown that you can speed it up and get more homes.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

166: After Clause 75, insert the following new Clause—
“Long-term empty dwellings: England - estimatesThe Secretary of State must publish an annual estimate of the number of long-term empty dwellings in England.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish an annual estimate of how many long-term empty dwellings exist.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is important as it directly relates to one of the housing missions. This mission states that more first-time homebuyers will be created in all areas and the number of non-decent rented homes will be reduced by 50%. I agree that good quality housing is the cornerstone of levelling up.

We are in a severe housing crisis, with a lack of supply of affordable homes for young people and little opportunity for families to get on to the property ladder. We therefore must make the best use we can of the properties we already have and maximise opportunities for everybody in every part of the country. There are large numbers of long-term empty houses. The Bill as it stands will not give local authorities sufficient tools to start to get a grip on the situation, so despite the Government saying they want to act, this is a missed opportunity. We have tabled amendments on both long-term empty dwellings and short-term empty lets to see what we can do to help the situation.

My Amendment 166 asks the Secretary of State to publish an annual estimate of exactly how many long-term empty dwellings exist. If we are serious about tackling the issue, we need fully to understand the extent of the problem and which areas are particularly affected.

There are a number of other amendments in my name, and in the names of my noble friends Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Blunkett. My noble friend Lady Taylor has tabled an amendment to increase the maximum premium chargeable on second homes from 100% to 300%. This is a probing amendment to look at where the figure should be set.

My Amendment 171 would allow the Secretary of State to give CCAs the power to restrict short-term holiday lets, and my Amendment 442 probes the question whether local authorities may request that the Secretary of State limit the number of short-term lets in their area. My noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendment 172A would ensure that:

“No change in existing council tax levy can be introduced without an independent economic evaluation”.


Clearly, there are complexities relating to second and unused homes. We believe that local authorities need more flexibility over council tax premiums. Surely, it must be for local authorities to decide whether or not they will charge premiums and how much these should be, depending on their local circumstances. This has been a difficult issue for local government, particularly in coastal and rural areas such as Cumbria, where I live. Locals are often priced out of the market as houses are increasingly being turned over to Airbnb or continue to be marketed as second homes. This is putting even more pressure on the housing situation. Communities can be completely hollowed out when this happens. There are villages near where I live in which the majority of houses are second homes or holiday lets. This hollows out local services and infrastructure. We lose bus services, the local school, shops and pubs, all of which are threatened when the number of people living permanently in the community diminishes.

We believe that this Bill is an opportunity to create some innovative solutions, both through the financial regime and the planning system. At the same time, we need to be aware of any unintended consequences. Loopholes exist through which properties can be pushed into the business rates category, thereby avoiding council tax. This happens too often, and we need to ensure that these loopholes are closed.

My Amendment 445 would allow regulations to be introduced to license short-term rental properties. The Labour Party believes that one way to tackle the challenge of second homes in coastal and rural areas is to introduce a licensing system that identifies genuine holiday lets, as opposed to second homes whose owners leave properties empty while pretending to rent them out to holidaymakers.

The Labour Government in Wales are planning to introduce a similar scheme, which would also allow councils to set a limit on the number of second homes. I ask the Minister whether the Government will take account of what is happening in Wales and use it to inform decision-making in England.

--- Later in debate ---

In relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I will have to take away that very sad story and ponder on it a bit further. But with those comments, I hope I can persuade noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I ought to start by saying that I am also not a vice-president of the LGA, seeing as other noble Lords seem to have made that clear. This has been a very good debate with a lot of speakers, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. One of the things that has come across is the significant recent increase in short-term lets and the fact that something does need to be done around this.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support, his amendments and his speech. He made the very important point that a registration scheme is a good first step, but we do need to make faster progress on this. As he said, a consultation to get a better balance between first homes and second homes would be a very good start. I also congratulate him on his small victory, which the Minister just announced. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made the important point of the significant impact on prices and affordability of more homes going to short-term let, and the fact that the Bill does not go far enough as it stands, as far as we are concerned. Again, I thank him for his support for our amendments.

I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his support for my Amendment 170 regarding bereavement. And, while I am on Amendment 170, I am really pleased that the Minister said that there is going to be further opportunity to look at this, and perhaps some consultation. I would be really pleased to be kept informed of any developments on this area, but it is very good that people are listening and taking account of this particular consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

168B: Clause 76, page 85, line 14, at end insert—
“(10) In the case of a billing authority which is a district council in a county for which there is a county council, the increase in council tax arising from a determination under section 11B or this section must be paid into the collection fund.(11) Except to the extent that a billing authority decides that any proportion of the amount paid into the collection fund under subsection (10) should be paid from the collection fund to one or more major precepting authorities which issue a precept to that billing authority, the amount paid to the collection fund under subsection (10) must be paid to the billing authority.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, in the case of a district council for which there is a county council, all of the income from the supplements under section 11B or 11C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be retained by the district council as it is the housing authority. The amendment allows the district council to decide to allocate some of the supplement to any of its major precepting authorities if it so chooses.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 168B seeks to ensure that, in the case of a district council for which there is a county council, all the income from the supplements under Section 11B or new Section 11C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be retained by the district council as it is the housing authority. The amendment allows the district council also to decide to allocate some of the supplement to any of its major precepting authorities if it decides to do so. I will not go into much detail about this amendment; I think what it is trying to achieve is pretty self-explanatory.

Previous days in Committee have included a lot of discussion about the important role that district councils play in delivering services to our communities. Noble Lords have talked about the fact that, in many parts of the Bill, they feel that district councils are being shut out. They will not have access to the same opportunities within the proposed combined county authorities, and they are not then going to get the support they need to continue to deliver services, including housing and planning. We believe that if the district council is the housing authority, it should be able to keep all the income from these sections of the Local Government Finance Act. It should also be in the district council’s gift to decide how that income should be used. In the previous debate, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, talked about local authorities being able to decide how funds are spent in other areas. Again, we absolutely agree that this is important.

My Amendment 169 would give the owner of a dilapidated property up to a year after acquiring the property to refurbish it before additional council tax rates are incurred. We touched in the previous group on dilapidated properties but, I suggest, from a different perspective. This is an issue that came to me when I was a Member of Parliament in the other place. Constituents would come to me because they were having financial difficulties in being able to update a dilapidated property, which sometimes they had inherited, because of the amount of council tax they were being clobbered with—to be blunt—which made it much more difficult for them to have the funds they needed to do up the property in good time. It was taking them a long time to do it up.

We know that bringing old, dilapidated buildings back into use will benefit the whole community. However, as I said, it can take a long time, depending on what is needed—for example, if there are problems with damp or you need a new roof. It can take a long time for properties to be restored to a good condition. My Amendment 169 recognises that there can be circumstances in which houses will not be occupied while work needs to be carried out. It is also designed to encourage people to bring homes back to a decent standard without being hampered by having to pay higher council tax rates, which, as I said, can impact on people being able to pay the costs of refurbishment.

The other amendments in this group, Amendment 428 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—I look forward to her introduction of the proposed new clause—and Amendment 474 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, look at the business rates system. Amendment 428 proposes to review it, and Amendment 474 proposes to review it and include consultation to look at how we can bring economic support to businesses, especially in high streets and town centres.

This issue is incredibly important. We know that business rates have had a very negative impact on many of our high streets and town centres, and I am sure we will debate that when we come to the group on high streets later in Committee. Noble Lords know that I feel very strongly that good public consultation and participation for communities is important when we are looking at these kinds of issues. We know that business rates are one of the most important taxes for local government, but they have also been blamed for the struggles of retailers, for the death of the high street and for exacerbating the country’s economic divides.

I suggest that there are three fundamental problems with business rates, which I ask the Minister to take away for further thought and discussion. First, they do not always reflect local economic realities. That became extremely clear during the pandemic, when many businesses struggled to keep going. Secondly, business rates can be far too complex; we do not need them to be that complicated. Thirdly, at the moment they actually disincentivise investment, which is crazy—they should be doing exactly the opposite.

We support these amendments, as we believe that we need a reformed system which will support towns and cities in improving their business environments, raise productivity and boost prosperity.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 474. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for allowing me to speak first. We both have the same objective in mind: that there should be a review of non-domestic business rates. The main differences between us are twofold: first, the noble Baroness’s amendment is slightly more prescriptive than mine; secondly, and more importantly, my amendment would provide for a public consultation. Those are the only two differences, really; there is nothing much more than that.

I should declare my interest as the owner of high street investment retail properties, and I am grateful for the support of noble Lords across the House who have signed my amendment. The objective of my amendment is stated in its proposed new clause: to make business rates

“fairer to businesses and to sustain economic activity and growth, especially in high streets and town centres.”

The Bill is an entirely appropriate vehicle for such a provision, since one if its major concerns is that there are empty high street retail properties and failed retail businesses both on the high street and in town centres.

I acknowledge the steps taken in the Autumn Statement to ease some of the economic burden of business rates but, if we want flourishing high streets, we need to look at the system as a whole and not rely on ad hoc changes. Those who invest in retail properties, whether they run small businesses there or otherwise, will want to know what their liabilities are—not what might happen in future—either to raise or reduce business rates or to introduce new ones. This is the one outgoing that is not negotiable. You can negotiate your employees’ wages; you can negotiate the rent; you can go to one of a number of power and energy suppliers; however, you cannot negotiate the rates.

The Government said by way of a manifesto commitment that they would reduce the overall burden of business rates. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported last year that the Government are

“forecasting that income from business rates will rise to nearly £36bn by 2027/28 (from £28.5bn in 2022/23)”—

a very significant increase that is quite contrary to that manifesto commitment.

There are numerous reasons why it is appropriate to have a review of—and, I would say, a public consultation on—non-domestic rates. Let me mention a few. The uniform business rate multiplier, which is used to calculate rate bills, is running much higher than its historical level, which was 34p; currently, it is 51p or 49.9p for small businesses. Consideration also needs to be given to the empty property rates relief; there is a question as to whether the six-month empty property rates holiday should be extended from the warehouse and industrial sectors to include retail and offices.

Then, there is the question of how often revaluations should take place for the purpose of fixing the level of rates, the suggestion being that it should be yearly. Another question is what is or is not rateable in relation to plant machinery. Finally—these are only a few of the considerations that need to be addressed—there is the question of the appeals system, which is too lengthy, not transparent and not accessible. Those are reasons why it seems essential to me that, if we are to have full and flourishing businesses and retail properties on the high street, we need to look at this one non-negotiable expense, which is running at an historical high, notwithstanding, as I said, the ad hoc reliefs granted in the Autumn Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry; I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord that, but I will make sure that I look into who, including the public, was consulted as part of that review. I will make sure that I get an answer to him and will put it in the Library.

As I said, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will introduce the transitional relief scheme for 2023. This will mean that 300,000 ratepayers seeing reductions in their rateable value at the revaluation also see an immediate fall in their bills from 1 April this year, rather than seeing those changes phased in over the life of the list. This will make the rates system much fairer and more responsive, and ensure that ratepayers benefit from the revaluation as soon as possible.

The Government also announced a supporting small businesses relief scheme, which will ensure that ratepayers losing some or all of their small business or rural rate relief as a result of the revaluation see their increases capped at a maximum of £600 in 2023-24. This is worth more than £0.5 billion over the next three years and will protect an estimated 80,000 small businesses. This is again on top of generous existing packages of statutory support provided to small businesses through the small business rates relief, which ensures that over 700,000 of our smallest businesses pay no rates at all.

The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill provides additional measures to address empty properties on the high street, such as the high street rental auctions. These measures will empower places to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use and will seek to increase co-operation between landlords and local authorities. Auctions will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, including SMEs, local businesses and community groups. A review has only recently concluded and the Government remain committed to delivering on its conclusions. The £7 billion reform package announced at the end of that review and the £13.6 billion package of support announced at the Autumn Statement 2022 will, alongside the 2023 business rates revaluation, deliver vital help to those most in need, such as our high streets, and rebalance the burden of our business rates. In the light of these explanations, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who took part in the debate. I have two specific amendments in this group, but the debate has focused mainly on business rates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, was right when he said that we need to look at the system as a whole and that business rates are not negotiable. That is part of the problem. If the Government are looking to reduce business rates, and they say that quite often, they need to look at how local authorities are funded, because so many are reliant on business rates. The debate has also demonstrated that the appeals system does not work at all. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about the need for economic dynamism for high street regeneration and said that business rates are a problem to achieving it. I completely agree with this.

When introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was right to refer to the mission to which this relates, which is about increasing pride of place. On that note, I point out that there is not currently any incentive for local authorities to improve their town centres and increase the business base, as they are subject to tariffs. This perverse system actually discourages proper investment.

Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about e-commerce’s advantage over town centre premises and said that we need a fair competition. I am sure that the Government accept that. The challenge for all of us is what to do about it—how do you make that level playing field? I do not think there are necessarily easy answers to that.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her supportive comments regarding my amendments. She asked a question on Amendment 169 around dilapidation and the grace period that councils can bring in. The Minister mentioned something along these lines. What I found, when I had constituents coming to see me who were in this position, was that you only got that reduction or grace period if the council agreed that there was an issue of dilapidation; they do not always do that. You can get people being unstuck if the council will not agree it—then that reduction does not happen, and people get stuck. That was one of the points that I was trying to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly drew attention to the fiscal devolution document that is being published for the north. I think this is really important because we do not believe that levelling up is going to be successful without fiscal devolution.

I thank the Minister for, as always, her detailed and thorough response to my amendments; it is appreciated. I will make one final comment on business rates following the noble Baroness’s response. Rather than tinkering with reliefs and temporary measures, we believe the whole system urgently needs a complete overhaul. It needs replacing with a fairer system that actually works for business. The current system, unfortunately, does not. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 168B withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I want briefly to point to what I regard as the principle behind all the discussion that we have had tonight; that is, the difference between the powers of the London mayor and the way they were established, as opposed to those of combined authority or metropolitan district council mayors being established by the Bill.

There are lessons to be learned. All through the debate on the devolution clauses in the Bill, some of us have been consistent in pointing out that mayors attracting more individual powers to themselves—by adding the roles of the police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue, for example—will end in tears, as will this. Our local democracy depends on hearing the voices of, in this case, other borough leaders—and, in the case of combined authority mayors, of leaders in those areas and others—and then coming to a decision based on what they have heard. The minute you get individuals who believe they can make a decision without reference to the views of others, trouble ensues. I urge the Minister to refrain from those aspects of the Bill that seek to accumulate power to a single person. It may look good on paper, but it will not work well in practice.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. I will concentrate on Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—and I thank him for clearly introducing both his amendments—because I want to focus on why traffic emissions are so problematic and on the issues around air quality, which basically underpin what we are talking about here.

As we have heard, the amendment proposes that a devolved authority—Transport for London, the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority—could introduce a road-charging scheme only if all local authorities with roads in scope consented to the scheme. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about concerns regarding a potential veto on this, and I agree with him on that.

For road-charging schemes already in operation, however, it occurs to me that consent would need to be retrospectively sought, which is also a concern. If consent were not granted, the local authority would have three months to end the scheme. In considering whether to grant that consent, local authorities, as the noble Lord said, would need to have regard to their duties relating to air quality as defined under the Environment Act 1995.

Noble Lords have mentioned the Greater London Authority Act 1999, under which transport is a devolved matter—in London, primarily the responsibility of the mayor and Transport for London. They have the power to make decisions relating to road-charging schemes such as the one that would be affected by the amendment. The road network does not align with borough boundaries, of course, so it is not possible to implement road-charging schemes based on which boroughs support them. That is one of the reasons why Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road-charging schemes to the mayor. The Government have said that there are no plans to review the provisions within the GLA Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that today.

The ULEZ scheme has been mentioned, and that would clearly be affected by the amendment if it went through. It is worth noting that 85% of vehicles seen driving in outer London already meet the required emissions standards and therefore would not be liable for the new charge. As I said at the beginning, though, I want to look at air quality, particularly around related illness and death from air pollution.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful. The problem has a wider resonance than the Malvern Hills Trust, although that is important. Coterminosity of local government and parliamentary boundaries is important, as is coterminosity of local government and National Health Service boundaries and, in this case, of the integrated care boards. If the Minister has any influence in other government departments, I ask her to impress on them the significance of residents who may be split between integrated care boards, like residents where I live in the Kirklees district of West Yorkshire, who are now being moved into a new Wakefield parliamentary constituency. This creates more problems than we sometimes recognise. Coterminosity and looking at the local implications of the lines we draw on a map are important and ought to be done only following detailed consultation with local people.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this to our attention. As she knows, I know the Malvern Hills area very well; it is beautiful. It is important that the Boundary Commission respects local boundaries and allows organisations such as the Malvern Hills Trust to operate as they are intended.

Does the Minister agree that one problem we have at the moment is that the Boundary Commission cannot carry out interim or minor reviews, as it simply does not have the resources to do so? That means that any kind of review could take up to 20 years to look at a problem or something that is not ideal, which is clearly not an ideal situation. Perhaps the department could look into this.

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

My Lords, Amendments 178C and 509ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, seek to enable any statutory body to amend by order its constitutional arrangements consequential on an electoral changes order made under Part 3 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. That legislation enables the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to implement by order recommendations for changes to an area’s electoral arrangements.

I am aware of the specific case at the moment where such a statutory body, the Malvern Hills Trust, considers that the new warding arrangements established by an electoral review order in respect of Malvern Hills District Council is incompatible with its constitutional and governance arrangements as provided for in several private Acts dating back to 1884. It is understandably concerned that such changes might raise questions about the ongoing legality of its constitutional and governance arrangements, and it wishes for something that it can address itself in a timely way.

I fully understand why the Malvern Hills Trust might wish to be granted powers to alter the constitutional or governance arrangements to ensure that they remain lawful and relevant to changing circumstances. However, I regret that we cannot support the amendments to the Bill. While they have the intention to resolve a specific local constitutional issue, the amendments are of general application to any statutory body affected by an electoral review carried out under Part 3 of the 2009 Act. In a practical sense, it is difficult for us to estimate how many bodies may be affected and wish to pass orders of this sort, or the impact on parliamentary time in dealing with them.

As drafted, the amendments would allow for secondary legislation to make amendments to primary legislation using the negative resolution procedure—the lower level of parliamentary scrutiny—and we do not think that this is appropriate. If the amendments were redrafted so that the orders were subject to the affirmative procedure, the potential would remain for significant impact on parliamentary business and on getting vital government business done.

More fundamentally, we cannot accept that it is right or prudent for the Bill to contain provision to allow for non-governmental bodies to be able to make orders that would amend primary legislation, as is the intention of the amendments. That must rightly be the role of government Ministers, except in exceptional circumstances, as with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

The commission is a parliamentary body accountable to the Speaker’s Committee. Such powers are appropriate in the case of the commission, given its status and vital independent role in ensuring fairness and confidence in the local government electoral system. Even if the scope of the amendment were narrowed so that any order could be made only by the Secretary of State, I am afraid that we could not accept it. While I understand that the purpose is to have a provision of general application, the concept used of the statutory body seems to be unclear. For example, does the definition of a statutory body include a local authority? On the face of it, this seems to be the case. If this is so, introducing this new provision would potentially create—

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 79 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my amendment would remove Clause 79 from the Bill, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage has given notice of her intention to oppose Clause 81 standing part of the Bill. We have also a further amendment in this group. Clause 79 concerns the power in relation to the provision of planning data, while Clause 81 concerns the power to require the use of approved planning data software in England. After Clause 83, my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s Amendment 182 would insert the following:

“The Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations which contain provision relating to local authorities after consulting with local authorities.”

We oppose these clauses standing part of the Bill and have laid an amendment to Clause 83 because local authorities should be able to decide what planning data software they use. Also, local planning authorities that have already purchased software and tools may well find in future that what they have purchased is no longer approved for use, meaning that their investment has been made redundant and they have spent money they can probably ill afford to spend again. Will the Minister ask the department to look at this again in the light of local authorities’ concerns, particularly from that financial perspective?

Clause 81 permits the use of regulations to restrict or prohibit relevant planning authorities using software not approved by the Secretary of State, as I just talked about. The other concern is the unnecessary level of bureaucracy. This also risks reducing competition in the market, and I would be surprised if that is the Government’s intention. What is the Government’s intention behind this clause?

The Local Government Association supports our position and has confirmed that local authorities would of course need to ensure that their planning data software allows them to meet any new data standard requirements. It is also right that, where new regulations relating to local authorities are introduced, it should be done only following proper consultation with local authorities that will clearly be affected by this clause. This will help to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose and that any new burdens are identified and properly addressed, and to avoid any unintended consequences during implementation. Do the Government intend to carry out any consultation before implementation? Have they already spoken to local authorities about this? If so, what was the response?

We appreciate that the Government are bound by public procurement rules. I spent much time on the then Procurement Bill as it went through this House, so I am aware that within the general procurement framework there is a specific set of rules and handbooks for technology procurement.

However, we believe that the powers in Clause 81 are just too expansive. They enable Ministers by regulation to restrict or prevent the use or creation of software that is used by planning authorities to process the planning data. Further checks should be put in place on their usage, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response in that regard.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has an amendment to Clause 23 which would require the Secretary of State to publish the results of a consultation and give reasons for any decision reached. We strongly support that amendment. It is an important consideration and consultation should be part of any decision-making in this area. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We believe the problem to be quite considerable. I do not have statistics in front of me, but I will undertake to consult the department and see whether I can put some flesh on these bones, if the noble Baroness and others would find that helpful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On that point, it would be incredibly useful to have some sort of evidence base for us to consider. Can the Minister ask the department for that?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Yes. These clauses have not just been dreamed up out of the blue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that they have not.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

We have received representations from a number of local authorities on the difficulties that they encounter and the sheer time that it takes to process information that does not conform to their systems.

As I was about to say, where the provider of information has a reasonable excuse, information cannot be refused. Planning authorities will be under a duty to accept and fully consider this information, so those with a reasonable excuse are not disadvantaged. Where information is initially refused by a planning authority, the clause provides the discretion to accept a compliant resubmission.

In summary, this clause will ensure that, by default, information received will be usable for all of the purposes to which planning authorities need it to be put. This will make the system more efficient, enabling planning authorities to work faster and focus on planning rather than data entry. That is the main point.

I turn next to Clause 81. Outdated and expensive software is one of the barriers that local authorities face to achieving more efficient ways of working in the planning process. Systems do not work with one another, forcing manual re-entry of information while locking that information away in formats that are not reusable. Clause 81 is essential for ensuring that planning authorities can benefit from the changes in this chapter through being supported by the right software, which can process standardised data.

The intent behind Clause 81 is to ensure the provision of software that is compatible with planning data requirements, so software approval requirements will follow on from the development of data standards set under Clause 78.

Our intention is to focus on exploring software that enables better availability of information and unlocks the ability to produce better tools for planning authorities. It is therefore not our intention to require the approval of all planning data software. We will continue working with planning authorities and the technology sector to determine when and where the use of this power will most benefit the planning system. In summary, this clause is essential for delivering effective, high-quality systems which the public rightly expect of government at all levels. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment 181, in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, relates to Clause 83, as he explained, and aims to make public the result of engagement between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. I need first to explain how this amendment impacts on the planning data section of the Bill. It is important to understand what is in scope of Clause 83 in relation to the devolved Administrations.

As it stands, the only matters within devolved competence that planning data regulations could apply to would be Part 6 of the Bill, on environmental outcomes reports, or EORs. As such, provisions relating to consultation with the devolved Administrations must be read alongside the wider EOR clauses.

As set out in Committee in the other place, the Government are continuing to work with the devolved Administrations to understand whether there is scope to extend the EOR powers to provide a shared framework of powers across the UK. Once those discussions have concluded, the Government will bring forward any necessary amendments to both Part 6 and Part 3 to reflect the agreed position between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I reassure my noble friend and noble Lords that, in bringing forward the new system of environmental outcomes reports, the Government are committed to respecting the devolution settlements.

In answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, our discussions at this stage are with the devolved Administrations rather than with, for example, the Scottish Parliament. I hope noble Lords will agree that we should not be required to make public the results of confidential policy discussions between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. For all these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will accept that his amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 182, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has consulted local authorities before establishing planning data regulations. Local authorities’ input on the new data requirements is of course important as we look to transition from a largely document-based planning system to one that is data-driven.

However, I reassure noble Lords that the intention of this amendment has already been built into the approach that the department has taken to design and test the new planning data requirements. As I have emphasised, the Government’s policy aim through planning data regulations is to create consistency on a national level. This includes the way local authorities process and publish planning data and will ensure that they are supported by suitable software to meet the new requirements.

Since 2019, we have been working with local authorities to test potential new requirements, such as data standards. This has provided valuable insights on the views of local authorities and the support that they will require to implement the new data requirements. We will continue this collaborative approach to establish planning data regulations.

Local authorities are the experts in the needs of their local areas, and these local views will form the basis of our national strategy around planning data, which these regulations will establish. We will continue to work collaboratively with local authorities, through running pilots and pathfinder projects, to gather our insights and design the new requirements.

I will bring another point to noble Lords’ attention. Planning data regulations under Clauses 78 and 80 will concern the form of planning data to be processed and published by local authorities. The planning information that these regulations will address will already be part of the planning system.

Given the collaborative approach that we are already taking to design the new requirements that will inform planning data regulations, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that local authorities’ views have been, and will continue to be, central to any planning data regulations that will be brought forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I can only supplement what the Bill says by saying that we do not intend to introduce any requirement for approval without the appropriate exploratory work and engagement with local authorities.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for his customarily very detailed and helpful response. We talked briefly about the evidence base behind these clauses. It would be helpful, as he suggested, to have that provided. It would also be useful to know how up to date the information in that evidence base is.

Regarding Clause 81, will the Government support the changes they are proposing to local authorities to update their software with the resources to enable them to do so? It is pretty expensive, and we know that local authorities are not exactly flush at the moment. It will be important for there to be proper funding and resources for local authorities that need to change their software.

It was good to have the further clarification that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just now that the Secretary of State would not have to approve all software. The Minister said that this is the intention. Unfortunately, as has just been said, that intention is not clear at all in the wording. I suggest that he mentions to his department and to officials that the wording, both in the Bill and in the Explanatory Notes, could perhaps be revisited to make that really clear, because many local authorities are worrying a lot about the implications of that wording. Perhaps a slight change might resolve some of the concerns.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Wilcox has now left, but she asked me to point out very politely to noble Lords that, in May 2020, the Welsh Assembly became the Senedd and they are now the Welsh Government.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Through the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I apologise for any misspeak that I may have committed. I also take on board the points she just made about costs in particular.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had some very powerful speeches in support of incorporating local nature recovery plans into the planning system. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and others such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They made powerful speeches, so I do not need to add to their arguments.

However, I want to make two points, the first of which is the importance of stitching together different strategies across different government departments. This, in essence, is what Amendment 184ZA is about—that what was agreed in the Environment Act must be incorporated where it matters: in local plans and national development management planning.

Secondly, the Environment Act currently requires local plans and local planning authorities to achieve a 10% biodiversity net gain in any planning application, but it is not that straightforward. If the applicant is unable to improve the site on which it is developing by a 10% net gain—and a recent application I had resulted in a minus 19% biodiversity figure—the next option in the cascade of biodiversity options is for the applicant to purchase a nearby greenfield site and improve the biodiversity there. If that does not work, you get to commuted sums, whereby the applicant has to provide a sum of money for the local authority to improve biodiversity somewhere else entirely. To me, that is not what biodiversity net gain should be about.

As I have declared on many occasions, I am a councillor in Kirklees. Recently, I had a major application in my ward, and the applicant was unable to pursue any of those options. The commuted sum was for somewhere else entirely, and biodiversity was depleted in the area applied for. That is why these local nature recovery strategies are so important: they put that at the heart of local planning policies and outcomes, so that applications cannot fob off a lack of biodiversity net gain into some other part of a council district.

This amendment has my wholehearted support, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report if the Government will not accede to it now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a very good debate, and there clearly is a lot of support for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We also strongly support them.

As has been discussed, the Environment Act created the local nature recovery strategies and introduced the statement of biodiversity priorities for local areas, accompanied by the habitat map, which identifies where people can contribute to enhancing biodiversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, these are not just nice to have; they are essential if we are to not simply reverse the decline but improve the situation. We know that local nature recovery strategies have the potential to really drive forward the recovery that is so badly needed. Importantly, they bring local knowledge and expertise into play. Also, as we have heard, the duty to apply the local nature recovery strategies in decision-making such as planning is too weak and will have a negative impact on their effectiveness.

My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch pointed out that the Government chose not to accept amendments tabled during the passage of the Environment Bill that would have required local authorities to take close account of local nature recovery strategy land identifications when making planning decisions. She also referred to the pledges made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Some of us who spent a lot of time considering that Bill had expectations in this area, and I am pleased that the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments so that we can debate those expectations.

The noble Baroness made it clear that the guidance for authorities on the application of the strategies is just not strong enough. As a result, despite groups mapping sites that will be essential to nature recovery in a local area, local authorities will not necessarily have to take proper notice if they do not want to. That is the fundamental problem, and we do not want lots of time and effort on the part of local nature recovery strategy groups and supporting bodies such as Natural England to be wasted, and opportunities then completely missed.

These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and supported by many noble Lords, would rightly prevent any wasted effort and enable the local nature recovery strategies to achieve their full potential. Incorporating them into local planning authorities’ development plans is surely an obvious way to go about this. We do not want them to be weak documents, sitting on a shelf somewhere and not informing proper strategic day-to-day planning decisions. We need them to make a real difference, not just a tangible one.

As we have heard, many people think that greater weight should be given in planning to local nature recovery strategies. The Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection have supported this approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, talked about our commitments at COP 26, saying that there is a gap between what we say we will do and what we actually do, and that planning plays a very important role in nature recovery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked, what are our priorities for the future? How will we meet the government targets? Surely, anything that helps deliver the local nature recovery strategies is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, certainly thought this: he made it very clear that he thinks it important that this be included.

I hope that the Minister agrees with those who have spoken today and sees the absolute sense in accepting these amendments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, a speedy recovery, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, and others, for bringing forward these amendments. There is a lot of unity in this Chamber regarding what we are seeking to achieve here, and I have listened with great interest to the debate.

On the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, this is an attempt to hard-wire nature into our planning system. Many will argue that it already is, but as has been pointed out by many others, nature continues to be depleted. Species decline is now a serious crisis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pointed out, this is not just an environmental crisis but an economic one, as the Dasgupta review so vitally illustrated.

Amendments 184ZA and 242I in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, provide a revision of the prior amendment, Amendment 184, to set out the relationship between local nature recovery strategies and development plans, to ensure that local nature recovery strategies’ objectives are reflected in development plans. These amendments would require that the Secretary of State’s guidance on how to have regard to local nature recovery strategies must include information on the degree of compliance with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday I had the privilege of walking along a body of water called Frenchman’s Creek, which—some noble Lords may know—was made famous by the novel of Daphne du Maurier. I was walking through what is one of the remains of the UK’s temperate rainforest. I was in a green space, and I was next to a blue space, which fed out into the Helford River, which went out into the channel. You could see the ocean beyond that. That is why I support Amendment 241, in particular. This amendment is all about giving everybody access to those green and blue spaces, which is a privilege I have, living in the far south-west of this nation. I was walking, but I might have been running or cycling, although I do not think I would have been wheeling. All those types of exercise are absolutely vital to everybody.

To me, the theme of this debate has been that if we really want to level up, as my noble friend Lord Stunell mentioned, health and life expectancy are fundamental to that. That is why I support Amendment 241 and many others here as well. I hope that the Government will be able to positively respond to that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very important discussion—a very long discussion—with an awful lot for the Minister to consider, both in his summing up and afterwards. It has been important because it is about how our planning system affects our health. It has also brought some specific tangible changes which could be prioritised to make a difference, and which are currently ignored in the Bill and in the National Planning Policy Framework review. This is despite the fact that there are not just missions on decent homes but missions on narrowing the gap of healthy life expectancy and on improving well-being. If this is a levelling-up Bill, these threads need to go through it. The planning section is an important area whereby we can make changes to health and well-being. I think the link to planning is particularly relevant when you look at homes, home standards and the standards of our future homes. The amendments here address these gaps. If we are genuinely going to make a difference here, we have to put people right at the centre of our planning system.

First, I will look at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I have an amendment in this group to probe the supply of healthy homes, but the debate around the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, have clearly covered what my amendment was looking to probe, in a far more effective way. As has already been said, we need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on his tenacity and refusal to give up on the fact that people’s health and well-being need to be put right at the heart of how we regulate the built environment. We should also congratulate the Town and Country Planning Association and its campaign to do the same. This is a very important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

How does the Minister see the role of town and parish councils within all this? Clearly, they will have an interest, yet they are not mentioned anywhere.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I foresee that their views would go up through the stages, and any good district council would ask for their views. Also, of course, they would probably be involved in any neighbourhood planning that is happening as well, so those plans would also move on up into it.

Amendment 200A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, addresses the provision of sites for health and social care within a joint spatial development strategy. There is already broad provision for considering these needs in a joint spatial development strategy, through new Sections 15AA(1) and (2) which the Bill will insert into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. These provisions are written deliberately broadly to enable planning authorities to consider the full range of land use and infrastructure requirements that are important to an area. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will accept that the current wording in the Bill continues to enable the consideration of issues relating to the provision of health and care services in an area.

Amendment 200, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, is intended to ensure that any joint spatial development strategy includes provision for employment sites which are of strategic importance for the economic development of an area. I can reassure my noble friend that new Section 15AA(1) already provides that a joint SDS may include policy relating to

“the development and use of land in the joint strategy area”.

This is a flexible provision that allows the planning authorities to include whatever policies they feel are necessary, with some caveats relating to those policies being of strategic importance and relating to the characteristics or circumstances of the area. For this reason, I do not think that we need a more specific provision at this point.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for the introduction to his amendments. We fully support these extremely sensible additions to this part of the Bill. We have a number of amendments in this group, so if noble Lords will bear with me, I shall go through them.

Amendment 226 requires references to climate change mitigation and adaptation, to which the noble Lord referred. It ensures that plan making is interpreted in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. My Amendment 270 further defines and prioritises adaptation and resilience in order to have greater action to deal with flood risk and overheating. One of the reasons for tabling these amendments is that we do not believe that climate change is given sufficient attention in the Bill. We need to ensure that it is taken into account, particularly within planning. People talk about mitigation, but there is not enough talk about adaptation. Particularly when it comes to planning, it is something that we need to start looking at very seriously for the long term. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his support for Amendment 270.

Looking in more detail at Amendment 270, obviously I live in an area that is highly affected by flood risk. We know that at least one in six people in England is at risk from flooding from rivers and the sea, with many more at risk from surface water flooding. I am concerned that not enough attention has been given to flooding in the Bill. The Environment Agency estimates that the number of at-risk homes will double by 2050 due to the impact of climate change because of more volatile weather patterns, more intense rainfall and, therefore, more floods.

The Government are failing to build the efficient homes, strengthened flood defences and resilient natural habitats that are necessary to adapt to rising temperatures and flood risk. We need to do much more to ensure that the planning system effectively contributes to the delivery of our emission reduction targets and that any new development produces resilient and climate-proofed places. My Amendment 226 seeks to achieve that aim by ensuring that the process of plan making is fully aligned with the commitments set out in the Climate Change Act, and also in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. It would do so by clarifying the meaning of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Bill in such a way that they are directly tied to those Acts, thereby strengthening the duty placed on plan making via a 2008 amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that ensured that all plans contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. It is important that we ensure that all existing legislation is tied together effectively when we look at the challenges of climate change.

By ensuring that there is genuine coherence between the country’s planning system and its climate commitments, the amendment would also provide the foundation for more detailed national policy on how planning can actually contribute to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and mitigate climate change as fully as possible in the forthcoming NPPF review. Is the Minister able to provide us with an update on when we might see this issue addressed in that NPPF review?

My Amendment 270 is needed to reflect the fact that the climate crisis and, in particular, the impact of flooding is having a major impact on the social and economic viability of places and the mental and physical health of individuals. As a result, securing climate resilience should be central to the levelling-up agenda. The amendment seeks to give much greater specific legal weight to climate adaptation, which has become a Cinderella issue in planning decision-making.

There are a number of gaps in the current planning and legal framework that need to be addressed. While there is general duty to have regard to climate adaptation, this applies only to plan making and not to the actual decisions that are taken on individual planning applications. The fact that decisions can be taken contrary to planning policy weakens the connection between climate objectives and climate-proofed decisions. The absence of any definition in the Planning Act of the precise meaning of adaptation and resilience is also problematic. The absence in any part of planning legislation of a link to the vital provisions of the Climate Change Act also needs to be resolved. This amendment would both define and prioritise adaptation and resilience in a way that enables greater action to deal with flood risk and overheating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

As I mentioned, this summer there will be a review of the whole framework, based on the responses already received. That will take place after the Bill has received Royal Assent. If there is any further detail I can add on the specific question about planning, I will either manage to get an answer while I am still at the Dispatch Box or write to members of the Committee. I will not make a commitment as to when that letter will be available, because we are coming back here on Thursday and that might be a little ambitious, but I will address those points separately.

Amendment 201 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley proposes that the joint spatial development strategy contribution to mitigating and adapting to climate change be made consistent with authorities’ other environmental targets, such as carbon reduction. I accept and understand the positive aims of this proposed amendment; however, new Section 15AA(2), as he mentioned, already contains requirements relating to climate change and environmental protection and improvement. In addition, the Environment Act 2021 has further strengthened the role of the planning system through mandatory biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies, setting the foundations for planning to have a more proactive role in promoting nature’s recovery.

My noble friend also asked whether the provisions in Schedule 7 will ensure that local authorities meet their share of net zero. The net-zero target in legislation applies to the Government rather than individual authorities, recognising that net zero requires action across all aspects of policy, not just those within the remit of local authorities, and will therefore have different implications across different parts of the country.

As previously mentioned, chapters 14 and 15 of the current National Planning Policy Framework already contain clear policy that promotes the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, as well as protection and improvement of the environment. The Government will carry out a fuller review of the framework following the Bill’s Royal Assent, as I said, to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible. In light of these factors, planning authorities are already bound to address these issues when setting their planning strategies and policies. Indeed, including specific references within this legislation could be counterproductive if those requirements are replaced, updated or added to with other requirements at some stage in the future. Therefore, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary and it is not one that we shall feel able to support.

Amendment 272 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, proposes that all planning permissions be subject to a new condition that requires any fencing granted by the permission to allow for free passage of hedgehogs. It would also give powers to the Secretary of State to publish guidance on design. The Government are committed to taking action to recover our threatened native species, such as hedgehogs, red squirrels, water voles and dormice. Our planning practice guidance already acknowledges the value of incorporating wildlife-supporting features into development, such as providing safe routes for hedgehogs to travel between sites. Our National Model Design Code additionally acknowledges the importance of retaining, improving and creating new natural habitats, through hedgehog highways, bee and bird bricks and bat and bird boxes.

Local planning authorities, in producing their design codes, need to ensure that nature is integrated into the design of places through the protection, enhancement and promotion of biodiversity. These small measures can have a large impact on enabling nature to thrive among developed areas, but the Government do not feel that mandating this through a standard national planning condition would be appropriate. There will be circumstances in which development proposals will not impact on hedgehog habitats. Those permissions would, if this amendment were accepted, be subject to additional and unreasonable requirements to accommodate species that are not present in that area, while creating financial burdens to comply with and discharge the condition. As a consequence, while the Government accept the positive intentions behind this amendment, it is not one that we feel able to support.

Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that opportunities for reclamation, reuse and recycling from demolition processes are considered during the assessment of planning applications. As I have already made clear, the Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system contributes to addressing climate change. For example, the national model design code encourages sustainable construction, focused on reducing embodied carbon, embedding circular economy principles to reduce waste, designing for disassembly and exploring the remodel and reuse of buildings where possible, rather than rebuilding. The implications of demolition are already something which local planning authorities may consider when assessing applications for development. They can, if necessary, grant planning permission subject to conditions.

I understand the desire to look more broadly at the implications of construction activity for climate change. That is a desire that we all share. Evidence on the impact of carbon assessment tools and how they can work effectively in practice is, however, not yet clear-cut. We have sought views on methods and actions that could provide a proportionate and effective means of undertaking a carbon impact assessment in planning, which could take demolition into account. We also intend to consult further on our approach to the measurement and reduction of embodied carbon in new buildings, and it will be important for this work to happen before we can commit to any intervention that affects the planning decision-making process. For these reasons, the Government believe this amendment is not appropriate at the present time, and thus it is not one that we feel able to support.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously I put an amendment to that amendment, which was about viability assessments for proposed developments. I see the Minister is coming to it. Thank you.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I turn next to Amendment 273A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which indeed seeks to ensure that a viability assessment is taken when considering the opportunities for reclamation, reuse and recycling from demolition through a new pre-demolition audit proposed in Amendment 273. As has already been set out in response to earlier amendments, we have committed to making sure the planning system contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible. We need to make sure that further steps we take are deliverable and effective. Building a viability assessment into any new pre-demolition audit would cut across the direction of the infrastructure levy, where we aim to reduce the use of viability assessments in the planning application process due to the uncertainty and delays they could cause.

I understand the desire to look more broadly at the implications of construction activity for climate change. That is a desire that we share, and that is why the Government have already consulted on implementing a form of carbon assessment in planning. This could take demolition into account. We will take responses to this consultation into account in designing the next steps on this. We also intend to consult further on our approach to the measurement and reduction of embodied carbon in new buildings, and it will be important for this work to happen before we can commit to making an intervention that affects the planning decision-making process. For these reasons, again, I believe this amendment is not appropriate at the present time, and thus it is not one that the Government feel able to support.

Amendment 293 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, looks to make ecological surveys mandatory in all planning applications to ensure that data on vulnerable species is robust and accurate and prevents assumptions being made about the presence or absence of species. The Government appreciate the spirit of this amendment, which was considered in the other place, and I would like to reassure this House that strong measures are already in place to promote and secure ecological conservation and enhancements where new development comes forward.

There is significant overlap with this amendment and existing legislation within the habitats regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In particular, under the habitats regulations, if a development is likely to have a significant effect on a protected site, an appropriate assessment of the impacts must be undertaken and appropriate mitigation measures need to be in place to ensure that the proposed development can take place without a harmful impact on the integrity of that protected site.

Additionally, the current biodiversity circular also reinforces the need to establish the presence or otherwise of protected species before planning permission can be granted, and we are taking steps in accordance with the principles in the Environment Act 2021 to ensure that development results in environmental improvement, rather than merely preventing harm. This includes, for example, the introduction of mandatory biodiversity net gain which will require biodiversity assessments for all relevant developments in future.

The provisions in Part 6 of the Bill relating to environmental outcome reports also put the mitigation hierarchy at the centre of the new system of assessment which will apply to relevant major projects. Indeed, the Government have just laid an amendment to clarify the way the hierarchy should work for these reports, bringing it more into line with current practice. Therefore, while the Government agree with the intentions behind this amendment, existing legislation, in combination with national policy and our proposed reforms, will safeguard the ecological value of sites, so this amendment is not one that we feel able to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I do not underestimate the serious concerns that wildfires increasingly present to local authorities and, indeed, to us all. These are matters that are spread across a number of different departments, I can say that the NPPF does apply its climate risk to all adaptation matters, including wildfires as I have said. There are issues that cross over between the Home Office and indeed Defra, and I shall do some further exploration between those departments and come back to my noble friend and the Members of the Committee in writing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Very briefly on flooding, there was no mention of flooding in the Environment Act, and it is not here—and that really worries me. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to meet to discuss how we can build in flooding mitigation and adaptation better into our legislation?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Absolutely, we are very happy to meet on all these issues.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

213A: Schedule 7, page 293, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) The local plan must include policies designed to meet the health and social care requirements of the local planning authority’s area, including the provision of facilities to provide specialist palliative care services.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), planning authorities must have regard to the requirements set out within section 21 of the Health and Care Act 2022 regarding the commissioning of certain health services.”Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would ensure that local planning authorities must consider what facilities are needed to provide the necessary health and social care facilities for their area including those with a terminal illness.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is made up of two of my amendments, Amendments 213A and 312L. The first is a probing amendment, designed to ensure that local planning authorities must consider what facilities are needed to provide the necessary health and social care facilities for their area, including for those with a terminal illness. My second amendment builds on this to ensure that local planning authorities must regularly survey the health and social care requirements for their area when considering any future development requirements.

We know that an ageing population is increasing the demand for specialist health and care services within local communities. We also know that demand for palliative and end-of-life care is rising rapidly as our population ages. In the next 25 years, the number of people aged 85 years and over in the UK will almost double. We heard some figures around the need for housing for the elderly in previous debates, so this issue covers various aspects of how we plan for the future. In areas such as mine, in Cumbria, where we have what is known as a super-ageing population, there are even more stresses on local authorities and services to provide.

Because of this ageing population, by 2045 there will be over 136,000 additional deaths per year in the UK, compared with projections for 2023. So the demand for palliative care and end-of-life services will increase, particularly due to the larger numbers of people living longer with multiple and complex health conditions. It is absolutely critical that every person at the end of their life receives the care and support they need so that they can live the end of their life in dignity.

Marie Curie has provided some very helpful information, and I thank it for its briefing on this matter. It has estimated that, if palliative care capacity does not increase in line with projected increases in mortality, as many as an additional 14,000 people may die each year without palliative care by 2030, and as many as 86,000 additional people may be in the same position by 2040. In contrast, if capacity in the palliative care system grows to reflect this ageing population, as many as 77,000 more people every year could receive the specialist palliative care they need at the end of their lives. It makes a huge difference to how people can get the support and dignity that they need, as well as support for families in that difficult time.

We know that access to medicines out of hours can be complicated and time-consuming. For example, when Marie Curie surveyed areas in its report on better out-of-hours care, it found that only 25% of areas had a pharmacy open throughout the night that was able to dispense palliative medicines, and 68% of areas had only partial availability of healthcare professionals who were able to administer palliative medicines at night. More facilities within local communities could also relive pressure on the acute sector. Reducing unplanned admissions would reduce pressure on NHS hospitals—and we know how incredibly important that is at the moment with the extra pressures that the NHS is feeling. We know that there are around 5.5 million bed days occupied by people in the last year of life, just in England. The total cost of those admissions to the NHS is more than £1.2 billion. There are huge opportunities to improve life for people and end-of-life care, as well as to support our NHS in the work that it does.

To look at the importance of reducing health disparities for end-of-life care, the introduction of the Health and Care Act 2022 created the first ever duty for the NHS to commission palliative care services in every part of England through integrated care boards. That is very welcome—we know how important they are to local communities and families. However, we need to ensure that local planning authorities identify and allocate land and sites to help health commissioners to deliver the joined-up health and care services that we need within local community settings. By 2030, one in five people in the UK will be aged over 65 and the number of people receiving palliative care services is projected to increase from 47% of all deaths to 66% over the next decade. That is almost a 20% increase.

At the same time, the nature of care need is also changing, with an increasing proportion of people dying at home or in a care home. This will again lead to growing pressure on primary care, social care and the local community. Too many people already miss out on the care and support they need towards the end of their life, particularly those from disadvantaged groups. The most recent estimate suggests that in England, up to 25%—a quarter—of those who need palliative care are not receiving it. Out-of-hours emergency department attendance increases in frequency as death approaches. It is between five and eight times higher in the month before death than at 12 months before death. It is also more common among people living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas.

Marie Curie and others have carried out research that indicates that certain groups face particular barriers in access to palliative care, including people who are living in poverty, living alone or living with dementia, as well as people with learning difficulties, those who are homeless, those who are in prison, those from minoritised ethnic groups and LGBTQ+ people. There is much to do in this area. I know it is quite a specific area to put into the Bill, but I hope that by putting these amendments forward we can have a proper debate on something that is very important to our society. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has raised a very important issue about end-of-life care and how the planning system can be encouraged to prepare for the needs that will arise in the not-too-distant future. It is an argument that we on these Benches absolutely support; I will just expand it ever so slightly by saying that whenever there is a big allocation for a housing site, local residents immediately say there will be a huge pressure on primary healthcare—GP services. Although the community infrastructure levy enables planning authorities to try to extract some funding from the levy for improvements to primary healthcare services, it is often not that possible when there are so many other big demands placed on the levy—highways infrastructure, education, outdoor play space and so on.

Often, certainly in my part of the country, where house prices and land values are lower, the levy is therefore also lower and is unable to support the development of essential provision for primary healthcare. It is an area that I guess we may want to explore when we get to discussion about the replacement of the community infrastructure levy. I thought I would raise it now, in this context, because whichever of the Front Bench team is responding may be able to give me an answer. With that, I clearly support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I will have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that her amendment is not necessary, as these important matters are already being considered and addressed through national planning policy, associated planning guidance and indeed legislation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for supporting my amendments. As the Minister said, she was right to draw attention to the many competing demands on local authorities and others, which can sometimes mean that joined-up health and care services are overlooked or pushed further down the pecking order than they should be. When we reach the groupings on the infrastructure levy, I am sure that we will discuss what we feel that money could or should be spent on and I imagine that these areas will be touched on again.

I thank the Minister for his helpful response. We referred again to the National Planning Policy Framework, which will continue to come up a lot and we will continue to say how great it would be if we could actually see it. It is welcome that the intention is for this overall strategy for communities to include health facilities, but social care and palliative care services are not always adequate in every community. We need to ensure that any future planning decisions, support for local authorities and so on provide the resources required to reflect future pressures that will be put on those services with an ageing population over the next few years.

In rural areas, social care and palliative care delivery are much more complex. They are often more expensive and need extra support and care. It would be good if the Government could take that into account when continuing to design those services, particularly for people in their own homes. It needs to be looked at. Just on that point, I should have declared an interest as vice-chair of Hospice at Home West Cumbria. It plays an extraordinary role in our community and I thank it very much for what it does. I also thank the Minister for his serious, careful response and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 213A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

225: Schedule 7, page 318, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) A local planning authority must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priorities statement in the exercise of its planning functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This means local planning authority must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priorities statement in the exercise of its planning functions.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a number of amendments in this group, and there are a number of issues that I want to visit in this group, so I apologise if this takes a few minutes.

Looking first of all at my Amendment 225 to Schedule 7, this amendment would mean that local planning authorities must have regard to the content of any relevant neighbourhood priorities statement in the exercise of their planning functions. If we turn to the Bill, we see that Section 15K introduces a new neighbourhood planning tool, the neighbourhood priorities statement. According to the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, these statements will

“allow communities to identify their key priorities for their local area, including their development preferences”,

with the intention of providing

“a simpler and more accessible way”

for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.

The provision is clearly a response to the fact that the vast majority of the 1,061 neighbourhood plans that have been made to date have emanated from the more affluent parts of the country, where people have the time and the resources to prepare and implement them, rather than from less affluent areas and more complex urban environments. But we welcome the fact that the Government are engaging with what is a real problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I listened to the noble Lord’s example of them being underwater, but my response would be that they would not be in the local plan if it was on a flood plain, and it would not have been allowed through national planning policy either. So, I cannot see that there needs to be a conflict and, as we have mentioned throughout the many hours we have spent discussing this Bill, housing numbers are critical, and I think it is correct, as it is at this time, that neighbourhood plans can add to the number of houses but they do not take away from those numbers.

Moving on to Amendment 230, also in the name of the noble Baroness, I do recognise that many communities want to use their neighbourhood plans to protect their local environment. Existing legislation and the changes within Clause 91 of this Bill already allow neighbourhood planning groups to include policies in their plans to ensure that development in areas of historical, cultural or environmental sensitivity is in keeping with the surrounding environment; therefore, this amendment is not necessary.

Moving on to Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, Clause 91 will provide more clarity about what communities can address in their neighbourhood plans. The changes in subsection 3(2C) of Clause 91 specifically will ensure that the requirements that apply to neighbourhood plans are consistent with our approach to local and strategic plans in that they must not repeat or be inconsistent with national development management policies set by the Government—I hope that is clear.

The introduction of national development management policies is designed to help plan makers produce swifter, slimmer plans by removing the need to set out generic policies concerning issues of national importance. National development management policies are likely to cover common issues already dealt with in national planning policy, such as green belt and flood risk management. National development management policies would not impinge on local policies for shaping development, nor direct what land should be allocated for particular use.

Turning to Amendment 234, also in the name of the noble Lord, the purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 92 is to ensure that neighbourhood plans complement and widen the plans framework. In particular, it means that neighbourhood plans cannot include policies that reduce the amount of housing development—as we have said—proposed in the development plan as a whole. For example, a neighbourhood plan could not include a policy that, if followed, would prevent development coming forward on a housing site allocated in a local plan. This is consistent with how the current system operates but makes it more explicit in legislation.

Turning to Amendment 233 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I fully agree with the noble Baroness that more can be done to increase the uptake of neighbourhood planning, particularly in urban and deprived areas. However, I do not agree that this amendment is necessary to achieve this goal. The Government are already taking action to increase uptake in these areas. As I have previously mentioned, new Section 15K inserted by Schedule 7 to the Bill introduces neighbourhood priorities statements, which will provide communities with a simpler and more accessible way to participate in neighbourhood planning. This new neighbourhood planning tool will be particularly beneficial to communities in urban and more deprived areas, which may not have the capacity to prepare a full neighbourhood plan at that particular time. It may also provide a stepping stone to preparing a new full neighbourhood plan.

Furthermore, noble Lords may be interested to hear that we are currently running a pilot in underrepresented areas, including Birmingham and Chorley, to test whether giving more support to neighbourhood planning groups in the early stages of the process can help to get more neighbourhood plans in place. We are seeing encouraging results from this pilot, and this will inform our thinking on future support for neighbourhood planning.

Turning to Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, while I appreciate that he is keen to see local planning authorities play a positive and supportive role in the neighbourhood planning process, existing law and government guidance already set clear requirements and expectations on their role in supporting neighbourhood planning groups and the communities they represent. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, states that a local planning authority must give such advice or assistance to neighbourhood planning groups. Furthermore, the Government’s planning guidance makes it clear that local planning authorities should fulfil their duties and take decisions as soon as possible, within statutory time periods where these apply, and should constructively engage with the community throughout the whole process.

Turning finally to Amendment 236, also in the name of the noble Lord, we agree with the need for transitional arrangements to limit any disruption to communities preparing a neighbourhood plan. As part of the Government’s recent consultation on our proposed approach to updating the National Planning Policy Framework, we set out proposed transitional arrangements for introducing changes to neighbourhood plans. We propose that neighbourhood plans submitted for examination after 30 June 2025 will be required to comply with the new legal framework. This will provide communities preparing a plan under the existing framework with a generous amount of time to get their plan in place. “Made” neighbourhood plans prepared under the current system will continue to remain in force under the reformed system until they are replaced.

With those explanations, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to withdraw her Amendment 225 and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved when they are reached.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, she has not mentioned the lovely Secretary of State.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I have not. I did listen with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on the issues of Airbnb and short-term lets. I think that was a little out of scope of this group of amendments. I do not have as much detail as I would like on this because it was in an earlier pack on short-term lets, and actually things have moved forward, so I suggest that I write and we have a meeting, which I will open to any other interested Peers at the time.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Sorry, I have been making quite extensive notes on all this. I hope I can read my own writing in a moment.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. These issues are critical to how this part of the Bill moves forward. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned that neighbourhood plans have been very successful, despite the considerable scepticism at the time that they were launched. We absolutely agree with that, but, again, it is really important that we deliver more homes in these areas. I thought that his point about neighbourhood plans awaiting sign-off, how they would interact with the new proposals and that practical way of moving forward with community groups that have started doing some really good work on this, was very important. His idea about that transition was a point very well made. I know that the Minister has taken all of this on board, and we very much appreciate that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said her amendment was an extension to my Amendment 231 about national parks and AONBs. While I absolutely support her desire to see more affordable housing in those areas, I am not sure that restricting it to just affordable housing is the way forward. You need a mixed tenure to encourage social mobility, to encourage families to move in and so forth. However, having affordable housing as a strong priority needs to be looked at.

To come back to the comments that the Minister made, I absolutely agree with her that it has been a success story, and where it has worked well it has worked really well. I was pleased that the Minister acknowledged that take-up has been low in some parts of the country, and it was very interesting to hear about the pilot schemes she talked about, in places such as Birmingham. It will be interesting to look at the outcomes. There are always lots of pilot schemes and then nothing ever happens, but, if they are successful, it would be great to see how the Government will then pick it up and run with it, and roll it out in other parts of the country. From a personal point of view, I am interested to hear more about that as we go forward.

It was good to hear more about the role of the neighbourhood priority statements, and to have it confirmed that there will be formal input into local plans and that they could operate as a preliminary plan, as a step on the way to a full plan. All of that was really good to hear.

One thing I would like to pick up a bit more is the issue of rural exception sites. It seemed that the Minister said that we do not need to have the amendments around national parks and AONBs because we have the rural exception sites, which are small sites that are used for affordable housing. I refer the Minister to concerns from the CPRE that the system is open to abuse. If this is what the Government see as the future of developing affordable housing in areas such as national parks, it is important that the opportunity for abuse is understood and that those loopholes are closed.

If noble Lords bear with me, I will refer to an example that the CPRE has put forward from Mid Sussex District Council. It is looking at a particular developer which has been seeking to persuade Mid Sussex District Council to treat two of their sites as rural exception sites for planning application purposes. In each case, the developer was offering to build at least 85% affordable homes. The problem is that neither site had been identified as appropriate for development. In neither case had this developer identified that its proposals would satisfy a local housing need, and the developer had not consulted with either the council’s housing department, the parish council or local residents. The CPRE is saying that the danger of abuse lies in the risk that, once the principle of development in rural locations has been established, a developer can then seek to exploit that fact to obtain permission for a far larger commercial development of market homes there. That is what happened in Lower Horsebridge, which is a village of 60 homes near Hailsham. The developer got permission for 32 affordable homes, and then returned with a revised application for 110 market homes, which was given planning permission.

I do not have any problem with rural exception sites; they do some really good work. However, if this is what the Government are going to rely on for that kind of development, it is really important that we look at how that loophole can be closed, so that developers cannot use them for their own advantage in that way.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage has reminded me that the localism commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has some really good recommendations about how to build community capacity around local development plans. Perhaps as we go through the Bill it would be worth looking at the work that has been done there. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, at this late hour I shall be brief. The point of this amendment is to raise with my noble friends on the Front Bench an issue which I imagine is one that the Government themselves have been aware of and wondered what precisely they should do about it. I remember a White Paper a few years back that specifically referred to it.

The issue is that, in many cases, the availability of infrastructure investment, particularly by utility companies, can significantly impair the potential for local authorities to proceed with their local plans. I freely confess that I am using Clause 93 and perhaps slightly extending its remit somewhat. This is not simply about plan-making; this is about enabling local authorities in their plan-making process to trigger a possibility for the Government to amend the structure of the regulatory environment for utility companies in order to meet the development planning intentions of their local authorities. That is probably stretching it too far but, if not by this mechanism, I hope Ministers will be able to help us to look at whether we can do this in the Bill.

There is a central issue: you want to have strategic planning—I think we all do; I will not rehearse that argument again—but that absolutely requires investment by utility companies. Many utility companies are in a position where their investment for speculative development—that is, that which has not received planning permission—is outwith their regulated pricing structure. Essentially, if they are going to do it, they will do it with additional debt, and now many of them are taking on a great deal of debt in any case—we saw in the price review that the water companies are expected to absorb a substantial amount of debt. A balance is constantly being struck between the amount which can be added to people’s domestic bills and the amount that is required for longer-term future investment.

At the moment, the utility companies are often resisting making such investments in anticipation of development. How do we overcome this? We have a particular case at the moment around Cambridge. The Greater Cambridge local plan is effectively stymied at the moment by the Environment Agency saying that there are not water resources available in our area to support it. There is a plan for a reservoir at Chatteris, but unless and until the investment in transfer networks has also taken place and there is local infrastructure to support the particular development proposals, the plan cannot go ahead.

The purpose of the amendment is, very straightforwardly, to say that, if local authorities can ask bodies of a public nature—and of course, utility companies are bodies with public functions—they should be able at the same time to require those infrastructure providers to notify their regulatory bodies about the requirements to assist with plan making and, if necessary, for the Secretary of State to then to make regulations that can change the nature of the regulator’s control of their ability to respond to the requirements of local authorities.

It is a device, I admit, but it is a device to try to tackle what I think is a current and practical problem, and I hope it might commend itself to my noble friend. I beg to move Amendment 239A.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have just a quick question. It is a really interesting amendment, and I was wondering how the noble Lord saw the role of the regulator fitting in to all of this.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I was hoping that where this occurs, the Secretary of State—not just the Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, of course, but all Secretaries of State—would consult the regulators about whether and how they can accommodate this and, if necessary, use the power here to make regulations that might impact on, for example, water, electricity or transport legislation.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thought it was a very interesting amendment, and it reminded me of when I was a very young councillor, a very long time ago now, on Southwark Council, and we were attempting to finish off the development of Burgess Park. We had all sorts of problems with the statutory undertakers of various facilities in the area in terms of getting them to do their work. I see the point he is making. We had the devil’s own job to get the various organisations to co-operate with the council. We needed to improve the park, and we were having all sorts of problems with BT, the water companies and everybody else. We really struggled. Development of the park was held up because we were not getting that co-operation. Comparatively, that is quite small scale, but it is the same sort of thing. We wanted to build a better amenity for the community, but it was held up because of less than helpful work from some of the statutory undertakers in the area.

The amendment has merit, and I hope we will get a reasonable response from the Minister. I was obviously sorry I was not in earlier, because I heard that leasehold came up. I am very disappointed that I did not get in on that. I will not miss my chance on that when it comes up again. The amendment raises an important point. I see lots of development going on in London, and the role of the regulator with the statutory undertakers is important.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as I just said when I asked for that clarification, this is a really interesting amendment. One reason I am particularly interested in it is that, not only before being elected to the other place was I a local councillor for some time, but my job was working on major infrastructure development—in my case, particularly in the energy and water industries. So I see this from both sides. There are a number of issues around investment intention and delivery, how developers work with local authorities, how they work with the regulator and how, often, it can be not as straightforward as you would expect to deliver a major infrastructure project in industries such as electricity and water, for example.

One of the reasons I asked about the role of the regulator and how that would work is that an issue we found when developing new projects—for the national grid, for example—was that if you are going to spend a lot of money on large investment projects, you need it to be signed off by the regulator, which needs to agree the need case for that particular investment. The problem is that the need case can change. A project that I was working on stopped and started over and over again for about 10 years because the national grid would apply to the regulator, Ofgem, which would say, “Yes, you need X amount of supply, go ahead and build that pipeline, get your substation sorted”, and so on. We would do all the community consultation and work with the local authority, then 12 months later the national grid would put its financials and the need case to the regulator, which would say, “Well, now this has happened, you don’t need it any more”, and everything would be put on ice.

One of the issues around planning for major infrastructure is how you stop the huge waste of money with all the stopping and starting of projects. I know that this amendment does not particularly look at that, and I know that we will come to NSIPs later in the discussion, but this amendment gives us an opportunity to start considering how we make the development of infrastructure much more efficient and how we make developers, local authorities and their investment intentions work together in a much more constructive fashion during the planning phase.

I welcome the fact that this amendment has been tabled, because these areas are not discussed enough unless you have been involved in this and seen the tripping points and how money is wasted. We talk a lot about how, if a utility provider has to spend money to do something, the money goes on bills, but if things were dealt with more efficiently in the first place, including by the regulator and in the relationship with local authorities, maybe we would save money instead.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this excellent amendment, probing how we link national planning, regional strategic planning and local planning by including planning by private companies whose role is regulated by government, poses a very interesting question. I will give a couple of practical examples.

In my area on the M62 corridor, National Highways —or Highways England, another of the forms it has taken over the years—has a plan to create a link road from the M62 to the M606. To my knowledge, that has been in the local plan for 25 years. It has prevented the development of a brownfield site because of the land that it would take and the consequences that followed from that.

It was in the latest five-year plan from National Highways for its infrastructure, and all of a sudden, having done some costings—I think that was at the heart of it—it suddenly withdrew its intention, within the five-year plan and no further, to create or even begin to plan for that important link road, which, I have to say, has very significant consequences for the whole area. That is because its purpose was to take traffic off what I think is the most congested motorway roundabout in the country, the Chain Bar roundabout at junction 26 of the M62 in West Yorkshire.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

243: Clause 95, page 102, line 35, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this section comes into force, publish a report of a review of the efficacy of Local Heritage Lists and the resources local authorities have to produce them.(6) The Secretary of State must, on the day on which this section comes into force, publish the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 243 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Amendments 244 and 246 in this group are both also in her name. I shall briefly speak to them and make some comments on some of the other amendments in this group.

My noble friend’s Amendment 243 asks the Secretary of State to

“publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value”.

Amendment 246 also refers to assets of community value—ACVs—asking for draft legislation to be published to reform the processes.

Amendment 244, which is on a slightly separate issue, is about decision-making on temporary stop notices. The amendment says that, when making a decision on the correct recipient of a temporary stop notice, the authority should have regard to the tenancy status of the occupier and their level of responsibility for any works on the property. It is pretty straightforward as to why we have laid this amendment, so I shall be brief. We believe it is really important to guard against a situation where the wrong person may be held accountable for works on a property for which they actually have no responsibility whatever. The Local Government Association was very clear that we should make this point during the debate on the Bill. We believe that other factors should be taken into account before any notice is issued, because we really need to make sure that the correct person—the person liable—is the person that has been identified. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide some information on how the Government can ensure, in future, that this is what happens, so that we do not end up with people with no responsibility suddenly having a lot of problems with sorting out works on the property in which they are living but for which they do not have responsibility.

We have laid the amendments on the assets of community value because they are very important. We believe that communities should play a key role in both the preservation and the delivery of local assets that sit outside of local authority control. We know that the Localism Act 2011 contains important powers for local communities to be able to do just this, but the problem is that there are issues around how it works. Under current rules, buildings or pieces of land which are, or have been, used to

“further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and could do so in the future”

can be nominated to be classified as an ACV by community groups or councils. But if an ACV goes up for sale, a local group that can make a decision as to whether it wants to bid for this is given only six months to gauge whether it is able to bid for it—and it is only during that six-month period that the owner is unable to sell it. After that six-month grace period elapses, they can sell assets of community value to anybody they want to. A report compiled by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in Parliament suggested that the six-month grace period was too short and that it would sideline groups in more disadvantaged communities from being able to make bids. We believe that this needs to be changed.

The Labour Party has proposed extending the time frame to 12 months. We believe that local people from every community—not just those who are wealthy and have the resources to put their bids together very quickly—should have the opportunity to take control of, possibly, pubs, historic buildings or, perhaps, football clubs that come up for sale and would otherwise just fall into disrepair. We also believe that they should have first refusal on valuable assets when they come up for sale, including the right to buy them without competition. They should also have the right to force a sale of land or buildings that have been left to fall into a state of significant disrepair. If these processes were reformed to allow and encourage every community to take advantage of it, it would do so much more for the large number of communities that are currently threatened with losing community assets but do not have the ability to put together bids to take them under community control. I urge the Minister to look carefully at how this could be improved for the benefit of all communities.

I would like to make a few comments on Amendment 245, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the results of the Historic England pilot on compensation rights. This comes under Clause 98 of the Bill, which seeks to remove compensation when a local authority has wrongly served a building preservation notice which, when it was served, prevented any additional work from progressing. We have been talking to the CLA about this, and it disagrees that this is the right way forward, as not only are there significant property rights implications but it also removes an important check on local authorities that wrongly serve building preservation notices. This can cause huge disruption and costs for the owners. We believe that compensation is key to the protection of individuals’ rights. Moreover, the many compensation provisions across the planning system are a vital part of its fairness. If mistakes happen and people suffer loss then, surely, they should be compensated. I shall not talk any further on this because I am sure that the noble Earl will go into great detail, but we appreciate his amendment. It is an important area that needs to be looked at.

My noble friend Lady Andrews has also put down some important amendments on the demolition of buildings, development rights, reduction of carbon emissions and the importance of local communities’ abilities to shape local places. Currently, most buildings can be demolished without planning permission if they are not listed and not in a conservation area. These permitted development rights for demolition have already been removed for buildings such as pubs and theatres, but there is no requirement for the buildings to be run down or beyond repair for this right to apply. We have had some very helpful briefings from the Victorian Society about its concerns on these issues, and we consider that my noble friend’s amendments are very important. I hope that the Minister can support them. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 245—a probing amendment—in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Devon. Unfortunately, my noble friend cannot be here today due to other pressing matters. I must first declare my ownership of two listed buildings and the occupation of a third. I have also acted professionally as a chartered surveyor who has surveyed many listed and unlisted buildings and structures where works were proposed. I am very grateful for the support and input of the CLA, of which I am a member, and of Historic Houses and the Listed Property Owners Club. I am particularly grateful for, as it were, an introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It was rather unexpected, because I did not think that it would necessarily be a matter that her party would relate to in those terms.

I acknowledge the importance to the nation of protecting its heritage. When the listing of buildings first came about in, I think, the 1950s, it carried with it an obligation to seek consent for works that affected the character of a listed building. It was not originally the case that effects on character meant that every alteration required consent. However, over the years, because the citations for listing and the descriptions of the matters of importance were, to put it bluntly, minimalist, that is how it has come to be operated. It has now almost become the norm for common periodic maintenance and repair to be caught by a demand for formal consent—things which, for any other unlisted building or structure, can be done without any formality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for his thorough response to these amendments. On my noble friend’s Amendment 243, I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government will continue to provide funds for assets of community value, but just providing funds does not address the problem that many communities do not have the capacity to put the bids together in the first place. That is our main concern here. It looks like we are again waiting to hear the detail—this time about what will be in the NDMPs. I guess we will be updated on this later on in the Bill, but I am sure we will return to it when we get to those particular clauses.

On Amendment 246, it is good that the Minister talked about the Government’s improvements in this area but, again, this comes back to the fact that more needs to be done to support all communities’ abilities to put together suitable bids and plans. Some communities are not able to; they do not have that ability. So it is not about the amount available—it is making sure that all communities have proper access and are able to put together suitable bids.

On the local heritage lists in Amendment 243, one of our concerns is that they do not have any standing in planning law, so there is a big gap between what has listed status and what is available to go on to local heritage lists. We think that local authorities should be able to determine that degree of protection, which they currently cannot, for buildings on their heritage lists. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that many local authorities do not even know about them, so there is an issue there that the Government could perhaps take a look at.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made some good points—he is always extremely clear about his concerns—and I am sure he will want to come back to discuss them further. My noble friend Lady Andrews made some really important points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, when he supported her. She said that there had been a long-standing failure to protect our historic environment. Our amendments work with hers quite well to try to look at the bigger picture and strengthen protections. The noble Baroness made the important point that planning departments are really strapped, so they need more help to protect buildings from demolition. Developers have a lot of money and often a lot of resources available to them, but local authorities do not have those resources or the people. If the Minister is able to look at my noble friend’s second amendment again, that would be extremely helpful—there could potentially be some way forward. He seemed to agree with much of what she said, so perhaps he could suggest a similar amendment on Report, which would be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, made a good point about certain iconic buildings that have disappeared. I am sure that all of us can think of similar buildings in our own communities that have gone, and it has really shocked people when they have been demolished unexpectedly, even when there was already an agreement that they would not be demolished.

So this is a good group of amendments, and I hope that the Minister will consider some of the arguments further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 243 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about conservation areas and permitted development rights. For residents who are fortunate enough to live in a conservation area, it is both a privilege and a responsibility. When the noble Lord was trying balance homeowners wanting to make appropriate changes—and sometimes inappropriate changes—and local planning conservation officers seeming to rule the roost over what is and is not appropriate, I asked myself, “Where were the local councillors in this mix?”. Where I am a councillor, I have conservation areas in my ward, and where there is a disagreement about what is appropriate, I ask for it to go to the planning committee. Then, it has a public airing, which is precisely what should happen. The planning conservation officer states one view and residents another, and a decision is made. One of the great purposes of planning committees is to air views, balance them out and come to a conclusion.

I also have concerns about always expecting to maintain the standards of a building that was created 100 or 200 years ago in wood and glass, when the rest of us are trying very hard to increase insulation, particularly of windows and doors. A couple of years ago, I visited a window manufacturer not too far from here which makes heritage windows from plastic. I could not tell the difference, even though I have an interest in conservation and heritage. In our regulations, we need to enable that to happen so that buildings remain appropriate for the time, while conserving the best features and personality of a townscape, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, wants to retain for people to love and enjoy in the future.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.

I just make a very brief comment about the issue of replacement windows. My concern comes from a property that I know; it is in a conservation area and the windows are basically falling to pieces. It is owned by a young couple who applied for planning permission to replace the windows with something very similar, but not like for like—they could not afford like for like. Of course, they were turned down because it did not fit under the planning regulations as they are currently set up. A couple of years on, the outcome is that the windows are falling to pieces and nothing is happening. The couple are stuck, and the windows look dreadful. That is not their fault; they cannot afford to do what the planning inspectors tell them that they have to do.

I am very pleased that these amendments have been brought forward, because they enable us to talk about these anomalies in the way that the planning legislation is currently set up. It tries to protect the look of a place, but if that means that something does not happen because the owners of the property do not have the resources or finances to be able to do it, the property starts to decline. We have the example of windows, but it can be so much more. These are quite specific planning issues, but this is something that needs to be looked at.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Lexden for so ably introducing them.

Amendment 247 would require amendments to permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to take place. Rights in relation to England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (2015/596). As we heard in the debate immediately preceding this group, heritage assets, including conservation areas, are an irreplaceable resource and it is important that we ensure that they are protected. Local authorities are required by law, in carrying out their functions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

We are committed to quality and design regardless of whether homes are delivered through a permitted development right or a planning application. We intend to consult on introducing secondary legislation so that existing permitted development rights with design or external appearance prior approvals will take into account design codes where they are in place locally. Local authorities can remove specific permitted development rights to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area by making an Article 4 direction.

As committed to in the Government’s British Energy Security Strategy, we are currently undertaking a review of the practical planning barriers that households can face when installing energy-efficiency measures. This will include replacement windows with improved glazing, including in conservation areas. While this review is under way, it would be premature to accept this amendment, as it would curtail the scope of any legislative recommendations that the review might set out in due course.

To go further on that, because I know that this area was of concern to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, the Government are fully committed to encouraging home owners to incorporate energy-efficiency measures in their properties. As part of this, we recognise the need to ensure that more historic buildings have the right energy-efficiency measures to support our zero-carbon objectives. The review of heritage and energy efficiency committed to in the British Energy Security Strategy and currently under way will enable the Government to respond to the issue in an informed and joined-up way. In addition, powers to amend permitted development rights already exist in primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government are unable to support this amendment; however, we will continue to keep permitted development rights under review.

I turn to Amendment 247A, which proposes a new clause amending Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require, in exercise of planning functions, special attention to be paid to the views of residents in conservation areas. I understand my noble friend’s concerns. However, the purpose of Section 72 is to ensure that local planning authorities are required, when making planning decisions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. It is an important, long-standing duty that protects conservation areas.

Engagement with the sector during policy development for the Bill acknowledged that the framework for protecting the historic environment works well, although there are opportunities, we acknowledge, for targeted improvements. The package of heritage reforms focuses on maintaining the strong protections for the historic environment within the new planning system and, where possible, building on the existing framework. The proposed reforms will build on the existing protections without introducing any additional restrictions on development. It would be inappropriate to extend it so that local planning authorities have to pay special attention to the views of those living in conservation areas too. It would mean the views of conservation area residents would have greater weight than those living outside the area, which we think would be unfair.

In addition, in determining planning applications, decision-makers are already required to consult with local residents, and their views are taken into account. This will not change in our reformed system, and we are also taking powers in the Bill to improve the consultation process, making it more accessible by complementing more traditional forms of engagement with digital tools. It is not considered necessary, therefore, to duplicate these arrangements by extending the Section 72 special attention duty.

Turning to Amendment 285, we agree that it is important that the most up-to-date consolidated version of the general permitted development order, which sets out all the national permitted development rights, is publicly available online. Amendments to the order are often made, as we introduce new permitted development rights or make changes to the existing rights, through amending orders. The latest consolidated version of the general permitted development order is already available on the Government’s legislation website, alongside the original version.

I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with adequate reassurances, but we are unable to support these amendments at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand that the Government have a problem here, but asylum seekers, in my view, have a right to be housed in a clean and safe environment while their asylum application is being heard. If the Government cannot do that in a speedy way, then they create for themselves a problem. But in this instance what is not acceptable, in a democracy, is for the solution to be that up to 2,000 individuals will be housed in former accommodation without the consent of the surrounding community, because it will have an impact on them. The impact can be ameliorated, but they need their voice to be heard. That, for me, is the issue. We live in a democracy, people have a right to have their voice heard, and that is the whole purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing her amendment. We agree with everything she has just said. I am also objecting to Clause 101 standing part of the Bill, because we are very concerned about the implications of this clause. We have also put down an amendment to probe whether guidance will be published on Clause 101, but our major concern is with the clause itself.

As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Clause 101 inserts new sections into the Town and Country Planning Act to provide for two new routes to apply for planning permission for the development of Crown land in England. In other words, we are talking about land where there is a Crown or Duchy interest. In the case of either route, the provisions in the clause will allow the appropriate authorities to apply for planning permission direct to the Secretary of State, rather than being subject to the same requirements and application processes as anyone else wishing to undertake development. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State must notify the local planning authority whether they intend to decide the application. If they decide to determine it themselves, they can approve it either conditionally, or unconditionally, or refuse it. They will also have to consult the local planning authority, to which the application would otherwise have been made, but the authority will have no right to veto it.

What does the policy paper that sits alongside the Bill say? It says that it is a means to

“provide a faster and more effective route for urgent and nationally important Crown development”.

That sounds all well and good, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we are also concerned about the implications of introducing such an open-ended measure. This is regarding both removing appropriate and necessary limits on the exercise of executive power and denying communities a chance to express their views about development in their area and their ability to indicate either consent or opposition.

We fully appreciate that there will be emergency situations where it is necessary to speed up the planning application process for essential development. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Nightingale hospitals during the Covid pandemic. However, the broad scope of the provisions in the clause, which do not provide for any limit on the type of development that can be approved directly by the Secretary of State, or in what circumstances, means that they could be used for a much wider range of proposals.

This could include a number of circumstances, but I would like to focus on one in particular, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The Committee will know that the Government have opened centres to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and are looking to open further such centres. I would like to thank Asylum Matters, Medical Justice, the Helen Bamber Foundation and Ripon City of Sanctuary for their helpful briefings. The Government have, as the noble Baroness said, consistently sought to avoid public scrutiny of and consultation about the construction or operation of large-scale institutional facilities for asylum accommodation.

The Home Office has previously successfully opened such facilities on ex-military sites at Coltishall in Norfolk—which is now closed, despite an attempt to reopen it—Napier in Folkestone, which is still open, and Penally in Pembrokeshire, which is now also closed. It has further made attempts, despite local opposition, to construct or operate similar facilities in Barton Stacey, Hampshire, in a facility on the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre site in Bedfordshire and, from April 2022, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, at an ex-military base in the rural village of Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire. All these projects have been the subject of intense controversy and, in the cases of Napier and Penally, legal challenge over the profound harm to people seeking asylum, as well as the lack of government consultation of local communities and the resulting impacts on community cohesion.

At both Yarl’s Wood and Linton-on-Ouse, pre-action correspondence was issued, and the developments were halted prior to judicial review. At Penally, the Secretary of State for Wales stated that he first had discussions with the Home Secretary about use of the site just nine days before it opened, and the local health board was informed three days prior. At Napier, the local council, local MP and local and district councillors wrote to the Home Office to protest that they had been given

“very little notice of the decision”

to open the barracks and that it was

“one they could not support”.

A similar lack of consultation occurred at Barton Stacey and at Yarl’s Wood. In the case of Napier, planning permission for the facility was initially secured under class Q emergency development rights for six months, subsequently extended to 12. The Secretary of State granted herself permission to use Napier Barracks for a further period of five years, without any public consultation, through the unusual procedure of using delegated legislation.

The Government’s approach has been criticised by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised concerns that the Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021 had been laid while Parliament was in recess and that “insufficient information” had been provided by the Government about these developments.

After the fact, the Home Office ran a public “consultation” on the change of use of the site. But this cannot be considered a meaningful consultation, as it took place after permission had been extended. The planning statement that was issued at this time included a commitment to complete a statement of community involvement. This has still not been published, despite the consultation closing at the end of January last year. Perhaps the Minister could give an update on that.

In a judgment handed down on 24 June last year, the High Court ruled that the decision to grant planning permission for a further five years was unlawful. The judge ruled that there was a failure to have proper regard to the public sector equality duty and that the development raised

“very obvious issues … in particular relating to … potential victimisation and harassment … and the fostering of good relations”.

Lack of consultation by the Government has had serious effects on community cohesion in places where large-scale institutional sites have been contemplated. Last April, the Government announced their intention to move towards a system of large-scale permanent asylum accommodation centres in which to place people seeking asylum who would otherwise be destitute, while they await a decision on their claim. The flagship announcement of a facility to accommodate 1,500 people seeking asylum on the ex-RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse, which we have mentioned, was made without any reference at all to the local community, the parish council, the district council, the police and crime commissioner or local police and health services. An initial justification for this was that it was part of a bigger series of announcements.

Current planning laws and, in particular, the right of local residents to be heard on decisions which affect them have proved a barrier to government attempting to institute these large-scale accommodation facilities. Our concern is that the powers provided for in this clause are to facilitate the driving through of centres regardless of their impact on the people placed in them or the local communities in which they are situated. They allow government to totally bypass local councils on asylum accommodation. This is completely the wrong approach. We believe it should be a legal requirement to consult local authorities on asylum accommodation locations.

Appropriate safeguards must be added into the clause to ensure that there are limits to the use of these powers and that minimum requirements are in place to secure some measure of consent from affected local communities. Without a firm commitment that such safeguards will be introduced at a later stage, we believe that Clause 101 must be removed from the Bill.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not participated in this Bill so far. I arrived today thinking seriously about the matter of principle in the powers given to the Government by Clause 101, and with some sympathy for the ideas behind Amendments 257B and 258ZA. I am disappointed by the way in which both noble Baronesses have spoken to them, moving away from the principle of the way in which the Government have powers to a discussion about immigration policy and the use of asylum centres. That is a much narrower issue; it will come out of this, but it gets away from the principle of the Government having undue powers for whatever reason. Moving on to something highly controversial and difficult at this stage muddies the water in a way that is unhelpful for those of us who think that Clause 101 contains undesirable powers.

The noble Baroness referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chaired during the Napier barracks statements. We have seen the Government push the envelope, in particular during the pandemic. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, will recall some of this as a former member of the committee. Things such as permitted developments were pushed out in response to the needs of the pandemic. I understand that; emergency statements needed to be taken and things needed to be done quickly.

We saw the impact of that in many ways, but most obviously in our having restaurants in the street, which was needed at the time because otherwise they would have had to close due to social distancing. We on the SLSC were content about this because there was a sunset clause built in. However, a year later it was removed by another piece of legislation. By two steps, the Government moved from one position to another with minimal scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place. That is the issue I am interested in exploring in this clause, rather than involving ourselves in discussions about immigration, which will take us back to all sorts of difficult areas that will not help the development of the argument.

The Government said in response to our concerns about making these permitted developments permanent that we were semi-killjoys, trying to stop restaurants in the street and so on, but the reality is that they were controversial for mothers with buggies, pallet truck drivers, people with limited vision and, above all, people who lived above them—all of us talk rather louder and laugh a bit more when leaving a restaurant at 11 pm having had a few glasses of wine, so people found their children being kept awake and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that the Minister understands the issues of rural economic development, as she was the very successful leader of Wiltshire County Council for many years. I hope that she is able, on behalf of the Government, to give a positive response to Amendment 268.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage: Amendment 259, which probes subsection (7), which is inserted by Clause 102; and Amendment 260, which probes the involvement of the Mayor of London under the new section. We consider Clause 102 to be relatively straightforward, in that it simply makes provisions concerning minor variations to planning permission, allowing for greater flexibility to make non-substantial changes that would not be possible at present without the submission of multiple applications by various different routes.

On that basis, we broadly welcome this change, because it will give effect to something that is long overdue, simplifying arrangements currently in place that were only ever intended as a short-term holding position. However, we have tabled Amendments 259 and 260 because there are a couple of areas of concern that we would like the Government to look at. First, current arrangements ensure that, if a variation to planning permission is sought, whether before or after completion, the circumstances of the day are considered when determining the Section 73 application. That, of course, includes the policies in place at the time and any other material considerations. However, as drafted, Clause 101(7) suggests to us—and the Minister may be able to clarify this—that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of permission would be the framework for determining applications in future. We are concerned that this would mean, for example, that if a new local plan had been adopted since the original permission, that plan—which might, for example, include more challenging environmental standards—could not be applied in deciding whether or not to grant the Section 73 application. It may well be that the Minister can clarify that for us.

Similarly, many Section 73 applications relate to the number of residential units or to floor space. Again, as drafted, we are concerned that the decision-maker would not be able to, for example, revisit the amount of affordable housing provided by the scheme, potentially creating a significant loophole. We think that local planning authorities should be able to consider up-to-date planning policy and/or guidance when determining such applications, to guard against such adverse consequences as I have just been talking about. We therefore propose that subsection (7) be removed from the clause.

Our second issue of concern relates to the powers that are devolved to the Mayor of London on strategic planning applications. As the Minister well knows, the Mayor has powers to become the decision-maker for strategic planning applications, subject to certain provisions. However, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted provides only for the Secretary of State’s call-in powers; we believe that leaves a vacuum in relation to the mayoral powers. We propose Amendment 260 to follow Clause 102(13) to ensure that the powers of the Mayor of London to call in applications in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order are still taken into account.

I shall say a very few words on the other amendments that have been discussed. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing Amendment 268 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is a very interesting amendment, and I am glad that she spoke to it. I absolutely agree with her that we should have a rural strategy. I should draw attention in my interest, in that I have recently been working with the Co-operative Party on its rural policy reviews: it is something that is very close to my heart at the moment. The Government should look closely at how they can give a bit of a leg-up to rural economic development. The Minister will know the particular challenges: there needs to be consideration and support and, as this is a levelling-up Bill, it is an opportunity to take that into account for our rural communities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, very much for his very thorough introduction. It was very interesting, because I had read the amendment and thought, “Okay, it could be about this; this is what I am thinking”, but his clarification was extremely helpful. I think that he has drawn attention to a really important anomaly in the way the current legislation works. In many ways, that brings us back to something that we have said over and over again—that it would have been better had we had a very specific planning Bill, then we could have got into the nitty-gritty of the current legislation, looked at how it could have been improved and streamlined, and any anomalies such as the noble Lord has drawn our attention to, and any contradictions, could have been properly resolved. So I say to him that we support him in what he is looking to do with his amendment and it would be a very sensible and practical thing for the Government to bring forth such an amendment on Report.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I just want to briefly say that I very strongly support the plea put in by my noble friend in relation to a rural strategy. I am also interested to understand the Minister’s response to the queries that the noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench has raised about subsection (7); it requires some further explanation. I wait to see what the Government’s amendments look like. With that, I am happy to sit down and let proceedings continue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for bringing it forward. I also thank the licensing committee and its members for their considerable work on this. Listening to the debate, one thing that comes over very clearly is that it is time to review the status and look at the current situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, we now have the change of use from office to residential space in town centres, and my noble friend talked about the many empty town centre premises. There will be a lot of change in ways that we have not seen before and new challenges, especially for the night-time economy, as has been discussed.

As I said, the agent of change principle has been with us for some years now, which, again, is why it is time to look at this. We know that it is in the National Planning Policy Framework, but what strikes me from the debate is the question of whether it is fit for purpose. I have a number of questions for the Minister following on from this. Is the agent of change principle having a meaningful impact at the moment? Does the licensing guidance reflect the principles in the NPPF itself? We need to ensure that the NPPF is fit for purpose, as well as the agent of change principle within it. The question on my mind is: will the NPPF, when we get to see it, reflect the likely focus of future planning decisions? How will it all fit together?

As my noble friend Lady Henig said, this is an opportunity to enshrine this principle in legislation. We need to make sure that we get this right—that it is fit for purpose and does what it is supposed to do: work to protect both sides. It is important that the Minister is able to assure us on that matter.

My noble friend Lady Henig also asked about the current status of the consultation that took place in 2017 on the housing White Paper in relation to this issue. Not to have heard back from that consultation in 2017, six years ago, is a bit concerning. Since then, as my noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned, we have had the pandemic and so much has changed, so is that consultation even still relevant? Perhaps the Government need to revisit that completely. I would appreciate the Minister taking that back to her department.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 266, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, tackles the important issue of the agent of change principle in planning and licensing—that is, the principle that existing businesses should not be negatively affected by restrictions on them resulting from new development in their area. National policies and guidance already provide strong support for that principle, and we will continue to make sure that authorities have the tools needed to deliver it. The Government therefore do not consider the amendment necessary.

I agree with my noble friend that preventing this happening is important to so many businesses, especially in the night-time economy, where these issues most regularly occur. That is why we amended the National Planning Policy Framework in 2018 to embed these principles, with paragraph 187 of the current framework saying:

“Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established”.


In answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Hayman of Ullock, that came after the consultation, so it was partly a response to it. The framework goes on to highlight that, where there could be “a significant adverse effect”, the onus should be put on the agent of change proposing the new development to provide suitable mitigation before it has been completed.

We are also introducing national development management policies through the Bill. In future, and subject to further appropriate consultation, these will allow us to give important national planning policy protections statutory weight in planning decisions for the first time.

We believe that the proposed requirement for a noise impact assessment to be undertaken for relevant development would duplicate existing guidance for local planning authorities. Planning practice guidance published by the department is clear that the agent of change will need to clearly identify the effects of existing businesses that may cause a nuisance to future residents or users of the development proposed.

The guidance also sets out that the agent of change is expected to define clearly any mitigation that is proposed to address any potential significant adverse effects, in order to try to prevent future complaints from new residents or users. Many local planning authorities also make this assessment of effects a part of their local lists of information required to be submitted alongside relevant planning applications. After such assessment of the effects, reasonable planning conditions can be used to make sure that any mitigation by the agent of change is completed, as agreed with the local planning authority when planning permission is granted.

Importantly, the Government agree that co-ordination between the planning and licensing regimes is crucial to protect those businesses in practice. This is why in December 2022 the Home Office published a revised version of its guidance, made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, cross-referencing the relevant section of the National Planning Policy Framework for the first time. Combined with our wider changes in the Bill, we will make sure that our policy results in better protections for these businesses and delivers on the agent of change principle in practice.

I hope I have demonstrated that the Government’s policies embed the agent of change principle and that we will continue to make sure it is reflected in planning and licensing decisions in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group that I shall speak to, but I will first make a few comments about the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I thank him for his extremely detailed and thorough introduction to what is a very complicated issue.

As we have heard, the noble Earl proposed similar amendments to the then Building Safety Bill, which the Government rejected in favour of Schedule 8 and the other leaseholder protections that were eventually included in the Act. I commend him for his continued efforts in the work he does to support leaseholders, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. They have been absolutely unassailable in not wanting to give up on this.

I am sure that the Minister will repeat some of the reasons given during the passage of the Building Safety Bill as to why the Government are unable to accept these amendments in this legislation. My recollection of the reasons given is that the amendments would require a sizeable bureaucracy to be set up to deal with the thousands of buildings that would potentially be caught, and concerns about litigation risk. However, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is absolutely right to press that something should be done for buildings that are under 11 metres and resident-owned buildings. As was said during the passage of the Building Safety Bill, part of the problem is the number of buildings. Something has to be done to help all these people. During the passage of that Bill, the Government promised that something would be done. The noble Lord, Lord Young, quoted from the debate on the building safety Statement the Government’s continued promises to help those leaseholders who have still been left out, but this has not been done.

If the Government are going to push back again on this issue, when are they actually going to address this, as they have has previously promised to do? As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, there are still significant numbers of leaseholders unprotected from often huge costs, and the situation is not resolved until everybody has proper protection. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked the very pertinent question, “Have the Government done enough?”—and then I think he answered his question, and the answer was no. The Government need to fulfil the promise made during the passage of that Bill and look at how that issue can be resolved.

It has been said that building safety remediation is very complicated. But it is not complicated at all and is actually something the Government could do very quickly and easily to improve the safety of buildings in multiple occupancy. My Amendment 504GJD states:

“Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament outlining their position on whether building regulations should require the installation of more than one staircase in large multiple-occupancy residential buildings for the purposes of fire safety”.


This has been a concern for some time, and Grenfell made issues of fire safety even more important. But the reason I want to bring this up is because the National Fire Chiefs Council has argued that second staircases should be mandatory in blocks above 18 metres in height. It states:

“In the event of a fire, a correctly designed second staircase removes the risk of a single point of failure, buying critical time for firefighting activities, and providing residents with multiple escape routes”.


It points to London Fire Brigade figures which show that from

“1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022 … 8,500 residents chose to evacuate buildings rather than stay put”.

We are really pleased that the Department for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities has been carrying out a consultation to mandate second staircases in new residential buildings above 13 metres. The consultation paper states that

“the provision of a second staircase can provide some benefits for very tall residential buildings such as added resilience for extreme events and reduced conflicts between emergency responders entering a building and those trying to escape, reducing the risk of the smoke ingress into an ‘escape’ stairwell”.

It also states that a second staircase would provide a second means of escape if one route were filled with smoke.

We welcome the fact that the department has been carrying out this consultation. It closed very recently. I would be very pleased if the Minister could give some update on when we are likely to hear the outcome and the Government’s response to the consultation, but, in the meantime, if she were inclined to accept our amendment, it would help progress.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not speaking in previous stages of the Bill: commitments elsewhere made it impossible. I shall speak briefly in support of Amendments 274 and 318 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Reading the email circulated, citing powerful support for these amendments from expert commentators, government figures, individual leaseholders and associations from across the whole world, not just the UK, the rest of us can only look on in envy at the level of support that he has generated for his amendments. I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on championing this cause and on the powerful and detailed speeches which they gave us earlier, along with the right reverend Prelate.

The approach taken in these two amendments, which are founded on the polluter pays principle, make complete sense in putting right work that was in breach of building regulations at the time across a wider range of premises and a wider range of defects. I have some sympathy with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about looking after the construction industry. The fact is that, in a way, the polluter pays principle does not quite work here because, if building works were not done in accordance with the building regulations, it is quite clear who is responsible, whereas you could argue more widely about, for example, a leak from an oil tanker being a pollution incident. But, fundamentally, what this comes down to is, if not these solutions, what do the Government propose? I look forward to hearing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments support moves that will enable self and custom build, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. It is an important sector that is not especially helped by previous legislation, but these amendments may help. I have a question. I have an example where planning consent was given, with some concessions made, by the planning department to a small number of people who wanted to build out the site as a self-build project and then failed to do so. As the site had previous planning consent on it, a new developer was able to come in and gain consent for a non self-build project. I just wonder if there is a bit of a loophole there that the Minister may have come across and that perhaps needs to be closed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing these government amendments. We have no problem at all with them. They seem fairly straightforward in what they want to achieve, but I would like to make the point that this is going to help provide only a small number of homes. I wonder what estimate the Government have made of the number of homes this will provide and what the demand is for this sort of housing. It would be quite interesting.

We are concerned about the number of houses being built, full stop, particularly since the Government abandoned their mandatory housing target. We feel that this Bill should be used to help the Government to concentrate on providing sufficient quality housing that includes both affordable-to-buy and social housing. Perhaps the Government could then bring forward an amendment on properly defining “affordable housing”; that would be a very useful amendment to see going forward.

As I said, I have absolutely no problem with this; I am quite happy to support the government amendments. However, we feel that the Government need to balance their interest in progressing this with their progress in meeting their stated target of 300,000 new homes.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and both noble Baronesses, for their comments and questions. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is perhaps this House’s foremost expert on housing matters, saving my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham who is now looking at me.

To answer for now the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the number of self-build and custom-build houses that we expect to flow from this, it is very difficult to estimate. We do think that those categories of housing have a definite place in the system. If I can enlighten myself, and her, further, I will be happy to do so. I hope she will have gained a sense that these amendments are designed to remove the barriers that have been identified in this area; certainly, we fully expect that to happen having engaged with the sector.

As regards a definition of affordable housing, I think that will have to be a long debate for another day—although we have touched on that subject before during these Committee proceedings.

As regards the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I think the instance that she cited will be addressed, in part at least, by Amendment 281CC. What we want to achieve in that amendment is that, where you have a register of self-build and custom-build applications that have not been discharged within the three-year compliance period, that demand will not dissipate after this time but will roll over. I will, however, write to her about enforcement on these particular applications and clarify that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I will come in very briefly. I certainly see the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and of the three-year review. I am not convinced that yearly after that is necessarily the right way to go; it could be a longer period between the reviews. However, I see the point he is making, and the problems it causes if things do not happen in an area.

I will leave it there, other than to say that I have always been a backer of Heathrow expansion. I want to put that on record because we have had a couple of people opposed to it. I think it would be good for the economy and that we should get on with it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment and for enabling a short debate on NSIPs, because I think it is pretty important.

I ought to say that, before I was elected to the other place, my job was to work on various national infrastructure projects, or NSIPs—when I started working on them, they were not called that, of course, but that all changed—mainly around energy and water. I remember vividly when the new regime came in, back in 2008, under the Planning Act. At the time, it was a big change but very welcome because, as people have said, projects just got stuck all the time. As well as establishing statutory timescales and a streamlined DCO process, it brought more attention to the importance of public consultation. This helps local communities to understand why a project is happening near them and can unpick some of the problems and help move projects on.

It is worth pointing out that, since the NSIP system came into force in 2010, 113 transport, energy and wastewater projects have been considered, which shows a huge difference from the system we had before. It has sped up the planning process between submitting an application and the DCO being granted. We know that in the national infrastructure strategy in 2020 the Government committed to the NSIP reform programme, which aimed to speed up timescales by up to 50% for projects entering the system from the end of this year. It is really good to see this included in the levelling-up Bill, because projects can still get horribly stuck.

One that springs to mind from personal perspective is Hinkley Point C. I think that I started working with National Grid on the connections into Hinkley Point C in 2007, and one of my jobs was to do the timeline for the project. Every six months I would add another year or two on—and so it continues. It is getting there, but it is many years behind, and the trouble is that you then have an enormous amount of extra cost. Anything that can be done to support that fast-track consenting that the Bill suggests—faster post-consent changes—is really to be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Consolidation in this area of the law is immensely complex. Frankly, we do not know the full extent of the relevant planning provisions that must be considered in any common consolidation exercise because the exercise has not been commenced.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My apologies, but if it is that complex, is it not more likely that mistakes could be made, making it even more concerning that something could just be repealed or revoked without full comprehension or sufficient time? It is quite concerning.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The noble Baroness should not be concerned, if I may suggest, as I shall go on to try to explain, because I have a little bit more to set out for the Committee. The power does not allow the changing of the terms of devolution once given effect in law, nor does it allow any changes to what planning powers can be conferred on any area as part of such a deal.

Finally on the amendment, I reiterate that in relation to the planning powers of mayors, there is no intention to remove the powers of district councils through devolution deals. I therefore hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that, as expressed, the amendment is not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

I end by saying that, while it seems like a bit of a marginal issue to raise, if we are going to create what the Secretary of State called “beautiful places”, safety is really important. If the safety of women and, therefore, of other vulnerable groups, can be planned into new design, that will be a positive approach to the future of new areas that are being created. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing her amendment and indeed for tabling it in the first place. This important issue is not talked about enough. I am aware that in the other place a PMB was brought forward on this subject at some stage, but it is something that is not considered sufficiently.

We heard some figures and stats from the noble Baroness. The consultation on the safety of women and girls found that 71% of all women in the UK had suffered some form of sexual harassment in public spaces. I wonder whether the figure is higher, because I wonder whether every woman admits to it—so it is at least that number. If I think back to my own life experience, I remember that when my daughters became teenagers I could not help myself: I started to worry about them, because I did not want to happen to them the things that had happened to me. To be in that position when there are other things that could be done is frustrating.

To me, this is an opportunity where simple things could be done if they were better understood by designers and planners, so I am completely behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. If we are improving the safety of women and girls, it is about putting positive societal values right at the heart of our planning and design—particularly urban planning, as the noble Baroness mentioned—and we know that new approaches to this could ensure that outcomes improve for women, particularly those who are working and living in urban areas.

Something that I find frustrating about this issue is that women are often made to feel entirely responsible for themselves to be safe. They are told, “Carry alarms. Don’t do this or that. Don’t go there”. It should be not just women’s responsibility but society’s responsibility to look after women and the vulnerable in that society. We need to think not just about the planning of new developments but about their delivery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, women need to feel safe. She talked about streetlights, pavements, secure walkways and the things in her amendment that would make a huge difference.

Perceptions of safety are just as important here. That is one of the reasons why the part of her amendment that says the local planning authority must prepare and publish a report, setting out the results of the review that she suggests, is important. It is only when you do that review and prepare and publish a report that you can see accurately what needs to be done.

We know that 36% of women state that they feel unsafe walking in their local area at night. The consultation that was done on safety asked women to pinpoint specific areas where they do or do not feel safe. That has highlighted common characteristics between places where people either feel safe or do not feel safe. Those statistics and other findings are highly significant, because they are then available to inform research and enable the future design and development of buildings to explicitly and specifically consider safety issues and therefore to adopt the kinds of measures that we need to allay safety fears—and much of this is in the noble Baroness’s amendment.

So what should city planners and developers consider when looking at how they can improve this situation in their areas? Clearly, there is never going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, which again is why it is important to have these reviews and reports done. Planners locally need to be able to determine what is needed in their locality and have that as their starting point.

There are some interesting findings. For example, warm light is better than harsh lighting. Light can evoke a range of feelings and has a different impact on people at different times of night and day. There are interesting ways in which things could be improved that we might not even think of straight off. We know that people put CCTV up and think it will help safety, but actually it often has the opposite effect; if there are CCTV cameras everywhere, they can make you feel unsafe. Even if that perception is not reality, it adds to the feeling of not being safe. Basically, it sends out the wrong message and so can discourage people from going into that area, even though in theory it might actually be the safest place to be.

Development can also create temporary spaces which are in a constant state of flux, and create anxiety in people. If we think about the interface between a public space and adjacent land, how does that all join together? How do you get from one to the other? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about subways, for example—underpasses. What might look fun during the day can look very different at night-time.

Again, we need to think about how buildings are designed. If you have worked in a large building, you can often feel very isolated in it. I have worked in a building where I knew that there was somebody who worked in another part of it who had, shall we say, not been too pleasant to me in the past. If I was in that building on my own, that made me feel extremely vulnerable but I did not want to leave my job. We also need to think about how car parks are lit outside workplaces, for example. This is probably going to sound a bit daft to the men, but one thing that I have always got really frustrated about—and worried about if I had to suddenly leg it, to be blunt—is when you are in area full of cobbles and you have heels on. It sounds silly but very small things can make a difference to your perception of safety when you are out at night.

Architects, developers and urban planners really need to ensure that women and girls’ experiences are involved in building safer environments. It should not just be about women; men need to contribute to the process and demonstrate that they are committed to working with women to improve building design and planning. Back in March 2021 Priti Patel, when she was the Home Secretary, said:

“Every woman should feel safe to walk on our streets without fear of harassment or violence”.


Accepting the noble Baroness’s amendment would be an excellent place to start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who is unable to be here, sadly, as he is unwell, I will be moving Amendment 289, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 386 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman.

Amendment 289 would deliver a new planning designation to protect wild spaces for nature, climate and people. We have some effective nature designations in the UK, but there is currently a gap in the protection they offer; for example, there are sites where nature is not yet in full health but is getting there or where nature is, in effect, recovering but is not protected.

These sites can vary from land on the edge of built-up areas, where nature has been allowed back in, such as community orchards, to habitats undergoing restoration to boost carbon storage, such as rewetted peatland. Wherever they are located, these recovering sites provide vital spaces for wildlife—for wild animals to feed, shelter and thrive. They are often the green spaces closest to our homes. However, the lack of planning protection for those spaces means that they are vulnerable to development pressures and other damaging land-use changes, threatening the biodiversity benefits that they provide. With nature in decline, and the crucial Environment Act target to halt the decline by 2030 needing to be met, we cannot afford for more wild spaces to be lost. The wild-belt designation proposed by Amendment 289 would protect sites with growing biodiversity value and ensure that investment of time and money over recent years to restore nature on these sites is not wasted.

The amendment allows for wild-belt sites to be identified by the Environment Act’s local nature recovery strategies and recognised in local plans. They would then be protected through the planning system by a presumption against land-use change that would hinder the recovery of nature. This would enable these sites to continue to support wild species. Existing sustainable land uses, such as nature-friendly farming or habitat restoration for carbon offsetting, would be allowed to continue. That would allow these precious sites to continue to contribute to nature’s recovery and be used to connect up other sites important for the natural world, creating lifelines for nature across the country. It would also provide more access to green and blue spaces for people, greening green belts and restoring neglected blue spaces.

In the words of the Wildlife Trust, which first came up with the wild-belt concept,

“it would help create communities where people can enjoy healthier, happier lives through on-your-doorstep access to nature and ensure we hand over our natural environment in a better state to the next generation”.

We can level up planning protection through the wild-belt designation, securing places for more abundant wildlife and more nature-filled lives for all of us. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will feel able to support the amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I have a similar amendment in this group; it requires that the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to allow local authorities to propose wild-belt designations for the purpose of improving the results of environmental outcome reports.

Amendment 289 would create a new planning designation to support land for nature’s recovery, known as wild belt. As we have heard, the Wildlife Trust first proposed this designation to enable land that is being restored or has the potential for restoration to be protected to see the nature recovery that we so desperately need to see. We want to see from this legislation that the new wild-belt designation gets taken up by the Government so that it is included in planning reforms. If you are going to protect land to allow it to be restored for nature, it has to be tied into our planning system; otherwise, it will just get unpicked in various places.

The Wildlife Trust has warned that the proposed changes to the planning system, which the Government say are to tackle the shortage of homes and support sustainable growth will, unfortunately, increase the threats to nature. It has raised concerns about the fact that we have inadequate data, which then means that the Government, local authorities and planners are not properly informed about the impact on wildlife. That leads to a bias towards development that weakens environmental protections—and I am sure that none of us wants to see that.

As my noble friend said, the trusts want to see recovery of wildlife and easy access to nature for people put right at the heart of the planning system. This wild-belt designation would secure an area against future changes to land use, so that efforts to recreate or restore natural habitat actually become more meaningful and long lasting. We also know that the RSPB has released analysis showing how the UK has missed almost all its targets in this area of conservation, including failing to protect or manage enough land for nature. We know that proposed government planning reforms include zoning land for growth where major developments could take place, renewal areas where small-scale building could occur and protected areas where there would be more stringent controls. But one thing we really need to think about is how our sites for nature join up, because nature travels.

There has been a lot of discussion for a number of years about wildlife corridors. If we are going to have these local recovery strategies for local nature through our authorities, they need to join up. The wild belt would be a good way to do this, alongside the green belt and other proposals the Government have put forward, such as the new ELM scheme. It is about bringing all this together in order to make it absolutely as meaningful as possible. Designation of land as wild belt could be a requirement for receiving public money, for example, through ELMS; it could be part of the new schemes that are coming in.

The Wildlife Trusts have proposed five principles to ensure that the planning system helps nature. They want to see a bold new designation to protect the new land that is put into recovery, which is what they are calling wild belt. So, I hope the Minister has understood why wild belt is so very important and will look to support these amendments. If they were accepted, wild-belt sites would be identified by local nature recovery strategies and actually recognised in local development plans. That would make all the difference, because then they would be protected through the planning system. If we can secure more sites and protect them, we will start to make the difference we need to make in recovering our wildlife and biodiversity.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lord Harlech agrees with me that the idea behind these amendments is absolutely right and that we all want to see an increase in nature and biodiversity, but I urge him to take a slightly jaundiced view of them. The way they are drafted and the bureaucracy involved is of concern to me. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a powerful case for designation, saying that wild belts—whatever wild belts are, because there is no definition, as I will come on to in a moment—will be protected. So were national parks; so are AONBs; so are SSSIs, since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which I took part in; but that has not stopped nature declining. The problem is that we are focusing too much on designation rather than on management. It is management of land that will increase biodiversity and wildlife.

It should be second nature to farmers to farm in a way that will benefit wildlife. Good commercial farming can work hand in hand with nature. Anyone saw the recent David Attenborough programme “Wild Isles” will have seen that, in the last episode, he gave examples of farmers on hill land and on rich grade 1 land farming for wildlife as well as commercial farming. The farmer on the commercial land has to rotate his crops on a regular basis and will therefore rotate some of the wildlife’s habitat. If a field that he has put down to wildflowers is designated, there will be bureaucracy to change that from one field to another; whether it is a slightly bigger or smaller area will involve a whole lot of bureaucracy and make the farmer’s job a whole lot harder.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

367: Clause 138, page 169, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that climate and other key environmental considerations, including the need to improve the condition of protected sites, will be included in the new EOR regime.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will not go into detail on all of them but will talk about our concerns about this part of the Bill and home in on a number of them.

Part 6 gives Ministers the power to amend or replace 17 systems of environment assessment with a new environmental outcomes regime. Changes to these technical systems will have significant environmental impacts on the ground. Environmental assessment provides the critical processes that ensure that nature, climate and heritage considerations are properly considered in the planning system and that help protect sensitive sites from damage. Given the potential for environmental harms—or benefit, of course—to arise from these changes, we believe that detailed parliamentary scrutiny is essential. We are concerned that, as drafted, Part 6 largely freezes Parliament out from shaping the process that is going to have significant impacts for net zero and for nature’s recovery.

The bulk of the detail of the environmental regime, including the outcomes that it will be built around and which actual projects it will apply to, are all going to be set by secondary legislation. In the words of the Office for Environmental Protection, the body set up by the Environment Act to scrutinise environmental policy,

“its potential environmental implications will only become fully apparent through ‘EOR regulations’”.

We believe that giving the Secretary of State Henry VIII powers to reshape all systems of environmental assessment is unsatisfactory and inappropriate, considering the climate and ecological emergency that we are living through. My amendments would require Ministers to set higher environmental ambitions in primary legislation and allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny of any subsequent EOR regulations. This would enable parliamentarians to ensure that the new processes lift rather than lower environmental standards, something that Ministers have often declared they want to see.

My Amendment 372 would ensure that the central aspect of the EOR regime—the nature of the environmental outcomes it will strive to deliver—is fully set out in primary legislation. Currently, the lack of detail in this area is such that climate is not in fact mentioned at all within the EOR scope set out in Clause 138. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. Friends of the Earth has observed that we

“are left to hope that Government will, at some later stage, include the protection of the climate as an environmental outcome”.

A consultation on the EOR published by DLUHC in March sheds little further light on this baffling omission of climate from this Part of the Bill. The consultation suggests that climate change will be inherent in the consideration of the factors listed in Clause 138 and adds that Ministers can always use secondary legislation to update it if required. Does the Minister agree that such a relaxed approach to the consideration of climate impact within environmental assessment is inappropriate in a climate emergency? My Amendment 372 clarifies that protection of the climate from the effects of human activity should be a core environmental outcome, set through primary legislation.

My Amendment 371 adds further essential details to the description of other outcomes—for example, the need for natural environment outcomes to include improvements to the condition of protected sites. Adding these core environmental aspects to the Bill will then embed them into the EOR regime right from the start and allow their detailed application to be further considered through proper scrutiny.

My Amendment 377 would strengthen the non-regression safeguard in Part 6 and ensure that the EOR regime will not be weaker than current systems of environmental assessment. The current safeguard set out in Clause 142 is far from robust, because it gives the Secretary of State the power to actually weaken standards in the EOR regulation, as long as they are satisfied that the overall level of environmental protection will not be less than before. The Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted that this “overall” wording allows for highly subjective assessments to be made by Ministers, with declines in crucial standards potentially being offset by strengthening of standards that a Minister alone feels has the same weight. For example, a Minister could balance weakened standards for the condition of protected sites with improvements in standards for environmental data collection, allowing the weakening of protected sites to proceed, to the detriment of nature. 

My Amendment 377 replaces this weak safeguard with a stricter legal test, requiring no diminution of environmental protection in any one area. This provides a higher bar to shape EOR regulations and for parliamentarians to assess them against. It also echoes the wording of the non-regression clause—Section 20—in the Environment Act 2021. This robust non-regression test should also be applied to this Bill. I hope the Minister agrees. The Government have already responded positively to one set of amendments to Part 6, and we thank them for that.

My Amendment 369 and Amendments 375 and 376 tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage highlight that, due to confused drafting, Clauses 139 and 141 would undermine the mitigation hierarchy, which is a keystone in environmental protection in the planning system. We very much welcome government Amendments 373A, 373B, 373C, 373D, 373E and 373F, which were tabled in March to address this. Will the Minister and her department look again at how this responsive approach could be extended to ensure that the EOR regime has climate considerations and that there is a robust non-regression clause built into it?

The process for scrutinising the regulations that will implement Part 6 needs to be enhanced. Currently, the Bill sees EOR regulations subject only to the affirmative procedure, which, of course, precludes amendment and almost always leads to the regulations being passed. Given the significant environmental impacts that EOR regulations will have, we believe that a more thorough and constructive form of scrutiny is required. My Amendment 388 will achieve this by requiring EOR regulations to be made under the super-affirmative procedure. This means we have an additional 60-day period for amendments and will allow for meaningful input into the detail of the new system.

It is important to highlight that a number of the environmental assessment systems that EOR could replace were originally set through primary legislation. Detailed parliamentary scrutiny and potential amendment of replacement regulations are clearly appropriate and commensurate with the need to get right the detail of vital climate and nature policies. In a letter to Peers following Second Reading, the Minister suggested that scrutiny concerns were unfounded, as the Government’s EOR powers were tightly constrained by their commitment to consultation with the public and public authorities. Public consultation is welcome, as long as it is for longer than 10 days, as I said earlier, but it does not provide a constraint on ministerial power. It is also no substitute for proper parliamentary debate.

Together, my amendments constitute a repair package for the EOR proposals. Currently, they constitute a ministerial power grab, with the Government asking us, once again, to trust they will do the right thing with the considerable powers that Part 6 confers. These amendments will provide a legislative underpinning to limit this leap of faith, embedding high environmental ambition in the Bill and enabling meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of any additional detail. I urge the Government to carefully consider the case for these improvements to Part 6 of the Bill, so that it meets the minimum scrutiny standards we expect of such significant policy changes. I beg to move.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 384. Before I start, as there has been some gap between my appearances in this Chamber due to health issues, I remind the Committee of my conservation interests as laid out in the register. My amendment is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I was very grateful to those noble Baronesses for moving some amendments in earlier stages of Committee when I was not able to because of health issues.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, my noble friend Lord Caithness made the point that no experimentation should take place within the area of a habitats directive. It is a good point, but I shall need to consult Defra in order to give him a proper response. Similarly, on any other points made by noble Lords that I have not addressed, I will look through Hansard and provide a full response in writing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough and detailed response. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and those who expressed support for my amendments and what I am trying to achieve with them. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Randall, back in his place; we wish him well.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked whether I agree with him on inaction and action. I absolutely agree.

My amendments are designed to ensure high standards and protection, including of the climate. If the Government are not relaxed about climate change, as the Minister said, I do not understand why this is not part of the Bill and cannot be included. Having said that, my main concern is the Henry VIII powers the Bill confers. We will read Hansard and consider whether we want to return to this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 367 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There is an enormous number of amendments, and I somehow did not spot it. If I had spotted it, my name would be on it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Take that back!

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 372ZA in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to which I have added my name. The noble Viscount has introduced his amendment and covered the subject fully, and I agree with all his comments.

Many in this Chamber will remember during the passage of the Agriculture and Environment Acts the debates on the importance of chalk streams, so ably led by my late noble friend Lord Chidgey. If he were here, he would certainly be taking part today. No doubt he is looking down from above on our deliberations today and wishing us well.

Chalk streams are a vital environmental resource and should be protected. Those noble Lords who watched David Attenborough on the “Wild Isles” television programme recently will know that 85%—I hope I have remembered that correctly—of the world’s chalk streams are in the UK. That does not mean that, because we have plenty, we can ignore them; quite the opposite. It means we must preserve them at all costs.

A year ago, my husband and I moved from our beloved Somerset to Hampshire, partly to be nearer our family. I have discovered, for the first time, the beauty and tranquillity of the county’s chalk streams—the crystal-clear water, the soft babbling sound of the water running over the riverbed and, often, the bright green watercress growing on the edge of the water and the riverbanks.

However, this idyllic description is not the sight that meets the eye in all parts of the country. Many chalk streams suffer from pollution, as the noble Viscount has said, making the waters discoloured and smelly. There have been numerous questions and debates about the effects of foul-smelling sewage discharging into our waterways. Many chalk streams suffer abstraction on a grand scale and the flow of the river is diminished as a result. As we all know, it is often the rate of flow of a stream that helps to keep its waters clear.

While there is currently a chalk river priority habitat in place which recognises their international rarity and biodiversity, this is not protecting them from sewage discharges. However, the chalk stream strategy also has an important part to play. Today’s announcement by the water companies that they plan to tackle the problem of sewage overflows by 2030 through massive investment in sewer upgrades is to be welcomed, but I fear it may be a little while before this is effective in protecting our precious chalk streams, especially from future development pressures.

Clause 138(c)(e) is the ideal place for this amendment to be added to achieve the desired result we are all looking for. I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this vital issue and I hope the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. All speakers have strongly supported this amendment and I agree completely with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Chalk streams are an invaluable asset and must be protected and preserved, so that future generations of children and adults can enjoy them to the full.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to see the Minister in his place because it gives him the opportunity to make me gruntled again. If he is doing the next two groups, I am beginning to think I should set him a weekly target to ensure that I am never disgruntled again with any of the things he is dealing with.

To be serious, this is a critical environmental issue. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for tabling this amendment and for his excellent introduction. I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her tribute to Lord Chidgey. He was deeply committed to this issue, and I think we should recognise that.

As we have heard, England has 85% of the world’s chalk streams, and they are at risk. They are very, very precious, and I really do not think this should be a political issue; it is something we should all be getting behind, and we should all be supporting their protection. As at the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, they are more vulnerable than other waterways. There are many reasons for that, and we have heard many during the debate: agricultural pollution; sewage pollution; the decline of native species, particularly invertebrates; the introduction of non-native invasive species; development; population growth; and the fact that we simply use and waste far too much water. On average in Britain, we use more water per head per day than most other European countries. Most pressing are the low flows and the chronic abstraction, which noble Lords have talked about. We have also had issues in recent years with not having enough rainfall to support the levels of abstraction, even though people have been given warnings about the damage that that can cause.

As noble Lords have said, we support the reform of the abstraction licensing system, which is currently allowing too much water be taken from our chalk streams. We need to look at more robust infrastructure to support that, dealing with the ongoing strain of an unpredictable climate and rising populations. We need greater investment in storage capacity, and water metering needs to be managed more and developed.

One of the recommendations of the chalk stream restoration group—it is really good that the Government are getting behind it and supporting what it is trying to do—is that chalk streams should be given overarching protection and priority status. That is the one big wish we have heard noble Lords talk about. If there is anything the Minister should take from this debate and previous debates on the Environment Act, for example, it is that the Government really must give chalk streams a status that reflects that they are not just locally precious but, as we have heard, globally unique. This amendment would provide those protections. We support it and I urge the Minister to get behind it. If the Government cannot do anything today, I urge them to bring something forward.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register. Amendment 372ZA seeks to amend the definition “environmental protection” to include specific reference to the protection of chalk streams. It was so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and I pay tribute to his and other noble Lords’ passion on this issue. I assure them that I would not stand at this Dispatch Box and in any way jeopardise the future recovery of our chalk streams. I was in one last weekend and I will be in one again this weekend, as the mayfly start to hatch.

Mention was made of the catchment-based approach— CaBA—which is a wonderful piece of partnership working, so ably led by Charles Rangeley-Wilson. I was fortunate enough to visit him in Norfolk, to see where he has reconnected with the valley bottom or river bottom chalk streams that were previously canalised for water meadows, sometimes hundreds of years ago. There are remarkable benefits, which we measure rather technically in the water framework directive, but the key indicators, such as ranunculus and fish populations, can be massively enhanced by many measures that he and others carry out. The work was led in this House by Lord Chidgey and, of course, in Hertfordshire by my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald, whom I met just a couple of weeks ago to talk about this.

There is undoubtedly some good news about chalk streams. The Mimram, which I visited in the past and which suffered from massively low flow, has seen some improvement, but there is still huge pressure on these remarkable places. I am on record talking about them as our country’s equivalent of the rainforests: these areas are, in large part, particular to England—85% of them are here—and we want to see them thrive. Some excellent points have been made.

This Government are committed to protecting chalk streams, which we defined as priority sites in the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, with a target of a 75% reduction in harmful sewage spills by 2035. In our Plan for Water, the Government also committed to reviewing the impact on chalk streams of private sewerage systems—my noble friend Lord Caithness made this point well. The pressures on them are from sewage outflows and inadequate sewage-treatment plants, farming and run-off, and serious problems due to misconnections and private sewerage systems that are not functioning properly.

I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that we will certainly address the Lottbridge Sewer—how on earth it got that name I do not know—and make sure that it is part of our consideration of chalk streams. To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I say: the riverfly project of which she is part is one of the great examples of citizen science. It sees an enormous number of people assisting the regulator—the Environment Agency—in identifying when a problem occurs, so that it can then step in.

My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned my visit to Marlborough in 2010, just after I became a Minister. I stood in a riverbed that was dry because water was being extracted from the Kennet and pumped out of the catchment to provide water for the people of Swindon. They needed water, but it should not have come out of the catchment. This really damaged a very special SPA and SSSI, but I am delighted that, through measures that the Government drove through our abstraction incentive mechanism, Thames Water then delivered water from the same catchment—the Thames—rather than the Kennet. The Kennet is now in a better, although not perfect, state. There are now huge opportunities, through private sector green finance initiatives and habitat restoration—driven by government actions, through ELMS and our Plan for Water—for chalk streams’ amazing natural environments to be restored, so that we can show the world that we lead the way on river restoration.

I certainly share my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s concern for the protection of chalk streams. I stress that the definition of “environmental protection”, for the purposes of the environmental outcomes report, has been drafted to ensure that the Secretary of State is capable of setting outcomes across the breadth of environmental concerns, very much including chalk streams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am greatly heartened by the universal tone of the speeches and contributions made.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his support. It is most unfortunate that his local chalk stream has the name it does; I do not know how easy it will be for him to change it, but I imagine there is some kind of complicated procedure for changing names—there is for roads, so there should be for rivers as well.

I am also very happy to have received support from some noble Lords whose support I am unaccustomed to receive—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Deben. To answer my noble friend’s point, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister, together with his officials, could prepare a comprehensive list of defined chalk streams, because I am sure that we have not quite caught all of them. It may never be a perfect list, but at least, as my noble friend said, it would be a pretty good and near comprehensive one.

My noble friend Lord Caithness made a strong, comprehensive speech of support, for which I am most grateful. I agree with what he said about the Environment Agency and how it conducted itself immediately after its establishment, because I had to deal with it at great length over developments in the River Tamar. I also endorse entirely what he said about the small group of determined people who work so hard to protect our beautiful chalk streams.

I was also grateful to my noble friend for riling the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, into supporting my amendment—I think riling is the right word in this context.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There was no need for riling.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

If it should be necessary for me to bring back this amendment on Report, I shall be happy to receive the noble Baroness’s support.

I am also most encouraged by the support that my noble friend the Minister has given to my amendment. I had heard from my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Heald that he and the Minister visited the Mimram together, which is one case of a chalk stream whose condition has improved, and I am grateful to the Government for the support that they have given to date. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for the support that he has given today. I think he stopped short of committing to provide the specific statutory protection that chalk streams deserve, but I am grateful for his offer to engage in “granular” consideration. I am never quite sure what “granular” means, but it is one of those words that is used more and more nowadays. Anyway, I am very happy to accept his invitation to do that.

I would like to wish my noble friend tight lines as he casts his fly again next weekend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

All sections and parts of society should be able to enjoy the natural environment, and those areas which have been designated as national parks, the Broads and AONBs have a critical role in allowing that to happen. Whether you live in inner-city Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol or Newcastle, you are not that far from a national park or an AONB. By encouraging the public to visit these areas and experience the pleasures that nature has to offer, we will see an increase in the mental and physical health of the population, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, indicated. This has to be a win-win situation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, very much for his introduction to his amendment. It thoroughly covered the issues and concerns of everybody in this Chamber. We offer our full support to what he is trying to achieve. I also have an amendment around national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, made an excellent speech. As she said, at the COP 15 negotiations in December the Government agreed to the global biodiversity framework, to effectively protect 30% of land and sea by 2030—the 30 by 30 commitment. Protected landscapes are an essential part of meeting this target. As we have heard, our outdated legislation around this and the management that flows from that legislative underpinning means that so many sites, whether in AONBs or national parks, cannot currently be considered as effectively managed for nature. The Government have accepted this in their response to the Glover landscapes review, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I live in the Lake District. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, made me think about biodiversity and the impact on nature that is local to me. She talked about river pollution, and we have a big issue with pollution in the lakes, which has come to the fore in recent times.

I would also like to talk about Forestry England, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I recently asked the Minister whether any impact assessments had been done of the effect on wildlife when swathes of the forest are cut down because of the disease that we have in the trees. If I remember rightly, his answer was that this does not happen. The number of trees being cut down in the national park near me, particularly because of larch disease, is horrifying. There are huge areas where there is nothing left at all, acres and acres. We asked locally what happens to the red squirrels and were told, “We don’t know”. I really worry about this. We need to think about how we work with, for example, Forestry England, which is making huge changes to the landscape, and how we can manage that impact on biodiversity. I am not expecting the Minister to have an answer to this now, but perhaps we can work on this more.

Therefore, we completely support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to update this outdated legislation. It must happen. We must ensure that national parks and AONBs have a greater contribution to 30 by 30, with increased benefits for people as well as climate, and to cultural heritage. The Glover review is a blueprint for more effective management of protected landscapes. We need to legislate properly to deliver it. Again, the Government have accepted this in their response. At Second Reading in January, a number of noble Lords made the case for implementing the Glover review recommendations through this Bill, in an amendment similar to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, introduced today. A follow-up letter on this to Peers from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, suggested that the general biodiversity duty created by the Environment Act could deliver it without the need to legislate. However, it has come across clearly today that most of us do not think that this is the case. Any new statutory purposes for nature recovery, climate or access to nature, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about, must be delivered through legislation. How else do we know that they will be delivered within the timescales that we need? They must be properly embedded so that a general biodiversity duty will require all authorities to give proper consideration of biodiversity at a high level and on a regular basis. The problem is that, without this being embedded in legislation, you do not get a proper sustained focus on targets to deliver those statutory purposes. That is what we need.

The amendments in this group represent an opportunity for the Government to deliver on their own promises more widely, as well as upholding the COP 15 commitments. Also, we need to revitalise our national parks and AONBs for nature. This is an opportunity for us to grab. It did not happen in the Environment Act in a way that satisfied everybody. That is something that we can look at now.

I support a number of other amendments in this group but I want to be brief because it is getting late. I offer our support to Amendment 471, so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I walk an awful lot. Living in Cumbria, I walk up the fells a lot, so I use a lot of paths. The rights of way network is one of our nation’s greatest assets. We know the benefits to health and well-being. It helps communities to connect with each other and the wider neighbourhoods. It fosters a sense of connection and pride in communities, which is one of the levelling-up missions. Amendment 471 is quite an important amendment on the levelling-up agenda. I hope that the Minister considers it carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

I would go so far as to say that, without this statutory backing, the theoretical consensus that nature-based solutions are the optimal method will remain theoretical. We really need to do this, and we need a clear legal duty to deploy them where possible. I strongly recommend this win-win method of pollution reduction. This would provide a clearer legal duty on the water companies to look at this issue and introduce these really effective ways of reducing pollution. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, apart from the Government, I have the bulk of the other amendments in this group so I thought I would go through them now. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; she is very knowledgeable and it is interesting to hear what she has to say. She brings an extra dimension to our debates on this issue, and I hope the Minister will agree with that.

Part 7 provides an opportunity to address nutrient pollution, particularly from development. There is a duty on water companies to upgrade their sewage disposal works; that is welcome, but some of our amendments are to do with the wording, because we are a bit concerned that the wording about how water companies are to deliver the required upgrades is unnecessarily prescriptive. For example, Amendments 391 and 393 look at how the Government have come to the wording of the exemptions. Amendment 391 is to new Section 96D in Clause 153, which says:

“A plant is exempt … if … it has a capacity of less than a population equivalent of 2000”,


while further down it says,

“the plant has a capacity of less than a population equivalent of 250”.

The amendments probe where those figures have come from and why they are there.

My Amendment 400 probes whether broken sewage monitoring stations are contributing to sewage discharge. We are aware that Ofwat has recently announced that water and sewerage companies will face increased penalties from 2025 for using faulty or broken equipment to measure pollution from storm overflow pipes. Obviously we welcome that announcement, but the Government and the regulators need to enforce existing legislation. My amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to monitor the situation so we would ensure that what is legislated for actually happens. The narrow focus on sewage disposal works locations also means that the upgrades will be delivered onsite, usually through the traditional engineering methodology, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, talked about—using concrete, steel and chemicals has a high carbon cost.

My Amendment 401 probes the implementation of the environmental action plan. It asks the Minister for an explanation of how that is related to Part 7 and how it all ties together.

My Amendment 402 probes the potential for rebuilding sewage works with new concrete and steel rather than creating woodlands, reed beds and wetlands. The noble Baroness went into a lot of detailed explanation about why we need both options. A prescriptive site-specific approach closes down that environmentally beneficial alternative for upgrades. Habitat restoration can be done from wetlands and riparian woodlands and you can enhance farmland through hedges—the Minister knows all this. It would be good if that were also included as an option.

We know there have been pioneering partnerships between water companies and nature organisations, including locally where I am in Cumbria, and they have demonstrated how effective habitat restoration can reduce nutrient pollution levels and achieve nutrient neutrality. Again, why not use those pioneering partnerships to drive forward best practice? Other countries have done so, such as Belgium, so there is proper evidence and information as to why that is a good way forward.

I shall be brief because we still have quite a bit to get through. I finish by reiterating our strong support for everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has said and her amendment, and I urge the Minister to consider accepting it. We also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 393ZA is in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her support in advance. I want to offer my support for all that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said. It was extremely knowledgeable and powerful, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give her a positive response.

My amendment responds to the specific ambiguities in the text of the clause in front of us. Clause 153 amends the Water Industry Act 1991, and in its new Section 96D(5) it provides that:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations specify”


which sewage treatment plants are exempt from control of nutrient discharge. That subsection (5) follows a couple of preceding subsections which detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, pointed out, that plants of a particular size are exempt in any case. As I understood it from reading the legislation, very small-scale plants might be exempted. On top of that, we have subsection (5), which says that the Secretary of State may by regulations specify any sewage treatment plant that they decide is exempt. It is exactly the same area of concern that I expressed previously: it would appear that the Secretary of State is being given a free card to decide on exemptions, additional to those written into the earlier part of the new section.

A less scrupulous water company—we all know that they have suddenly become extremely scrupulous, which is very good to hear; of course, I absolutely take what they are saying in good faith—might think it worth while pursuing an exemption for a plant to avoid the costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has alluded to the substantial costs for them if they are required to comply. That is reflected pretty fully in the concept in the same clause: that if an exemption is ever withdrawn—in other words, if you thought that you had an exempt plant but the Secretary of State decides that the exemption is withdrawn—there is a seven-year period in which to become compliant. Once the exemption is withdrawn, you have seven years to get back into compliance. That indicates the cost and difficulty somebody would face if they found themselves with a plant which they had to make compliant.

The point I am trying to make, not very articulately, is that there is a real benefit to an operator in avoiding having to put in the necessary measures which this clause prescribes. There will be voices raised and pressures brought to bear on the Secretary of State to be very relaxed, and to operate subsection (5) in addition to the statutory exemptions in the preceding subsections. One could imagine that the greatest pressure would come from somebody operating a sewage plant which had had persistent breaches in standards that they regarded as being too onerous or expensive to comply with. They would make some special pleading to the Secretary of State that they should be exempted. That is exactly the situation that ought to be strongly resisted, and which this legislation should prevent happening.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

415: Clause 176, page 222, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Designations under subsections (1) and (2) may only be made following consultation with the local community.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require designation of a high street or town centre to be consulted upon.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, before I start, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for all his work on the REUL Bill, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Chapman.

Welcome back to the levelling-up Bill. We have a large number of amendments in this first group today. They address vacant high street premises and provide us with an opportunity to consider how best we can address our declining high streets and town centres, so I beg your Lordships’ patience: there is quite a lot to say here. Recent data from the British Retail Consortium shows that shopping centre vacancies are running at nearly 19% and high street vacancies at around 14%. These are significant figures, and communities need the tools to improve the situation. There are clearly a number of reasons why this has been happening, and we cannot ignore the impact of online shopping. That was already a significant area of growth before the pandemic, which of course increased the amount of online shopping that people were doing. Vacant shops are also a symptom of a weak economy, and we have had slow economic growth for more than a decade.

That said, there are things we can do to get vacant shops into use and create the conditions for the growth of community enterprises, social enterprises and co-operatives, all of which are good business models and generally more resilient to global events; this certainly proved to be the case during the pandemic. First, I will look at a number of amendments we have tabled that specifically look at how the high street has declined. Amendment 431 probes the impact of business rates and council tax on the number of vacant high street premises. We know that business rates have become extremely problematic for many retailers and other small businesses on the high street, and we believe it is time for the Government to review business rates. I hope the Bill is an opportunity for the Minister to explore that further than we have so far.

Amendment 432 probes the impact of pedestrianisation on the number of vacant high street premises. How people feel about their high streets when they do not have traffic going up and down them is an area of real interest. Evidence shows that it makes it a nicer place to shop. Maybe if we looked at pedestrianisation within the context of vacancies and business rates, we could see how we could make improvements.

Amendment 433 probes the impact of vacant pubs on high streets. Unfortunately, a lot of public houses are closing and I know from public houses on the main street near where I live that business rates are a major problem in that area. Perhaps we can look at business rates around pubs particularly, because they have had specific challenges during the pandemic.

Amendment 434 is about the impact of access to cash and high street banks. Unfortunately, too many banks have been closing high street branches and often we also lose the cashpoint and the ability for small businesses to manage their finances effectively and efficiently. One of the problems is that banks seem to think that bringing a van and parking it in the supermarket car park every now and again is providing a sufficient service. We do not believe that to be the case; we think we need to look at how we can stop the loss of banks on the high street.

Amendment 435 probes the impact of disparity in costs between online and high street retail. We know that online shopping is having a major effect on our high streets which, again, is why we need to look at business rates. Surely the way to resolve that disparity is to see how it can be ensured that retail on the high street is not put at a disadvantage through business rates, and that online retailers are properly taxed and there is a better balance between the two.

Amendment 436 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage looks at how increasing dwell time can support regeneration. Dwell time is how long you actually spend there. We have asked for a Minister to publish a report on how leisure, culture, sport and tourism in town centres can increase dwell time for the purpose of regeneration. For example, if retail is not going to fill every shop unit, how can we use leisure, culture, sport and tourism to do so? How will that encourage more people to come into the town centre and shop more?

Looking specifically at some clauses in this part, Clause 176 sets out the arrangements for local authorities to designate where our town centres and high streets are—in other words, the places that will be in scope for premises to be subject to rental auctions, which come later under Clause 188. This is an important first step in the process. Amendment 415 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage would require any designations of high streets or town centres to be consulted upon. This is a pretty modest proposal, we believe. It just means that local communities affected by the designation of high streets and town centres would be consulted. We believe that is the right way forward; nobody knows what is or is not a high street or a town centre. Who knows better than the people who use it and live near it?

Amendment 416 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage probes the possibility of new incentives to fill empty shops. This develops that previous amendment further by including consultation with local businesses on possible incentives as to how empty shops can be filled. Again, they will know their local community well and may have some interesting ideas as to how the local situation can be improved.

Amendment 417 allows the local community to apply for a street or an area to be designated as a high street or a town centre. This builds on the previous two by adding a protection to ensure that any local community is empowered to seek that a street or an area of their choosing could be designated as a high street or town centre—in other words, giving the community the right to initiate. We believe that communities should have some say as to where their high streets are.

Amendment 437 in my name defines “local community”. To make Amendments 415 to 417 make sense, Amendment 437 defines what is considered “local” in this regard. We have specified people “in the vicinity” to add in protection from potential outside interference. This is an important point. It is about demonstrating that levelling up should not be something done to communities but is something done with them. As part of that, there need to be protections and powers for our communities; our amendments would ensure that these exist.

I will now turn to what constitutes “vacancy”. My Amendment 419 removes the Henry VIII powers for the Secretary of State to alter the circumstances of vacancy. Amendment 424 removes the Henry VIII power that allows the Secretary of State to add or remove grounds of appeal. In general, though, we think the Government have got this right. According to the Bill, vacant premises must have been vacant for a year or for 366 days in the previous two years. We think this is a sensible balance between detriment to the local community and commercial pressures. Our issue is with subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (5) reads:

“Regulations may amend this section so as to alter the circumstances in which the ‘vacancy condition’ is satisfied in relation to premises”.


Subsection (6) says:

“Those circumstances must relate to the time during which premises are or have been unoccupied”.


So, essentially, Clause 178 legislates for what “vacancy” is, but the Government want to reserve the power to change it later. The arguments for and against Henry VIII powers are well known and I am not going to repeat them again today, but I will say why this part of the Bill is inconsistent with what we think levelling up needs to be.

As we have discussed previously in Committee, levelling up should be about the devolution of resources and power. It should not be about Ministers and officials in Whitehall holding all the cards and making decisions about which town centre or high street will benefit from government investment or involvement. Amendments 419 and 424 seek to remove those Henry VIII powers and give us protection in the future.

My Amendment 421 reduces the period after which an initial letting notice would expire to 28 days. Clause 180 is the first clause in this part of the Bill which provides the detail about how the process is likely to work. It is important that the state does not act in an overbearing way and that there is a balance between private and public interests. Currently, this tilts entirely towards landlords, which can lead to long-running vacant and derelict premises blighting our communities and high streets.

Clause 180 sets out that an initial letting notice will be in force for 10 weeks and that a final letting notice can be served only while the initial notice is in force. Our view is that 10 weeks is too long. If we add on the 14 weeks of the final notice period, that makes it a 24-week process, and if the premises has already been vacant for at least a year, or 366 days in the preceding two years, that is a long period of time for it to be empty. We want the Bill to deliver swift action to bring about the change that people want in their communities, so we do not want to see such a long process. Our amendment seeks to rectify that by specifying a shorter notice period of 28 days. We think that four weeks is enough time for landlords to understand the implications of the notice, to act promptly, and to find new tenants as a last opportunity before that process then kicks into being.

In a similar vein, Amendment 423 would reduce the period before a final letting notice can be issued to two weeks. Clause 183 establishes the final notices. As I have said, these are used when a premises has laid vacant for a year or 366 days over two years and has been served its initial notice but no action has taken place and it is still lying vacant. Obviously, that has a huge impact on the local community. On the face of the Bill, final notice has to take place after eight weeks have elapsed from the serving of the initial notice, but not before the notice itself expires after 10 weeks. As I have just said, we feel that this period is too long. Amendment 423 would allow for the final letting notice to be served after two weeks have passed following the serving of the initial letting notice.

My Amendment 422 would prevent the landlord from transferring the premises between related entities while the initial letting notice is in force. Clause 181(1) prohibits landlords from entering into contracts for the building, other than for the sale of the site, without the consent of the local authority. However, the local authority, as covered in Clause 182, must grant approval, provided that the landlord has agreed a lengthy tenancy that meets the conditions. We welcome that the restrictions aim to prevent landlords from trying to escape their obligations; for example, by entering into a bogus tenancy that includes an immediate break clause. In this case, the new tenant—possibly a friend or family member—might be a tenant for a day, and they could then execute a break clause and vacate the premises, and the clock can restart. It is right that the Government are looking to close these kinds of loopholes. However, the purpose of this amendment is to probe whether the clause still leaves a gap where a landlord might seek to pass ownership of a premises to a friend or family member, or perhaps a related company, in order to establish new ownership and restart the clock, when in reality nothing has changed. The amendment may not be the best way to close such a loophole, but I tabled it for the Minister to consider the matter and see whether a better way could be created.

My Amendment 427 requires the Secretary of State to lay any regulations under this clause before Parliament within 90 days. It reflects our belief that it is important to get as much of the Bill as possible on to the statute book in good time. We support rental auctions so that landlords can use their properties, or other groups can seek to, and we want the powers to have teeth so that they are not easily circumvented and are usable.

My Amendment 429 would exempt from compensation damage that is caused when the authority or its agent needs to force access to a site following the failure to allow such access by the landlord. If Clause 201 is used proactively by local authorities and communities, it will of course mean that it is disruptive: it is meant to be. I have no doubt that there will be cases where some landlords think that the best course of action is to ignore the process entirely, especially if they are based a long way away from the communities where the premises are situated. There have to be powers for the local authority to enter premises, and we fully support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are simplifying the issue of the high street. I have listened a number of times to what has been said about business rates, and I have explained how much the Government are putting in to supporting properties in the high street through the revaluation process, et cetera. The Government provide rate relief to help property owners all the time, but the issue of empty properties in the high street is much more complex than that, so there are a number of things we want to address, and one of them is what we are doing in this Bill.

I was saying that I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because I would like some further information from the Department for Transport.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which covered an important part of the levelling-up agenda. I am just thinking about the Minister’s comments. A number of times she said that it was not appropriate to accept the amendment at the moment because it pre-empted the findings of the consultation that was going on. I have said this before, but I think it would be helpful if legislation were brought forward after consultation, rather than during or before it, because that consultation could then inform the legislation. It just seems a bit backwards, as if it is around the wrong way.

Also, there are the levelling-up funds, the towns fund and various other funding pots, but they do not necessarily always go to the most needy or provide the long-term support that is needed. It is how we provide that long-term change that is important. Too often there are sticking plasters with bits of pots of money.

Workington is obviously a town near me; I used to be the Member of Parliament for Workington in the other place. An industry report by planning consultancy Marrons showed that Workington was near the bottom of the 360 provincial towns that it looked at. It has had some funding recently, for example from the levelling-up fund, and we are of course grateful for that, but the money is going to be spent on improving key routes, bringing in new cycling routes and building a new café. Well, that is lovely, but it will not solve the fact that Debenhams and Laura Ashley have gone. If people find they do not need to come into the town centre because those key shops have now closed, they are more likely to go somewhere else to shop. We really need to look at this in a much broader way. Again, that is why business rates are so very important and they are one of the main sticking points.

Again, on the issues around corporate landlords and pension funds, I absolutely agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said on those. We are pleased that the Government are looking to do something about empty shop units. As an example from where I used to live, two shops next door to each other are owned by the same landlady and have been empty for over 20 years, purely and simply because when her shops failed she did not want to let them out to anybody else. So the fact that the Government are trying to do something about this is important, but it has to be done with the support of local authorities and the local community and it has to be done in a way that genuinely makes a difference. It is also important, as other noble Lords have said, that we do not end up with exploitable loopholes or unintended consequences but do have proper oversight. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 415 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 440A in my name. This amendment is intended to draw attention to a recommendation by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its report on the Bill. Part 11, of which Clause 207 forms part, gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the provision of information on transactions and other dealings in land if the Secretary of State considers

“that the information would be useful”

to identify the owners of the land and those with the right

“to control or influence … the owner of a relevant interest in land”.

Clause 207(1) states that these regulations may also provide for

“the sharing of such information with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.

Clause 207(3), to which my amendment is directed, addresses the risk, which is understandable, that there may be an inaccuracy or omission in the information that is provided, arising from the sharing or publication of this information. It states:

“No civil liability is to arise from the sharing or publication of information under regulations under this section by reason of any inaccuracy or omission in the information as provided further to a requirement imposed under section 204 or 205”.


The question then is: who needs this protection? As the Constitution Committee understood it, the intention of this clause is to give that protection to the persons to whom that information has been provided by the Secretary of State. That is because they are the people who will be required by the regulations to share or publish that information. It is obviously desirable that they should have that protection against civil liability if the information that they have been required to share or publish by reason of these regulations is misleading or inaccurate.

It is on that understanding that the suggestion was made by the committee that Clause 207(3) should be more tightly defined in the interests of legal certainty. The suggestion is that it should make it clear that our understanding is correct. That would be achieved if the words

“as respects those persons to whom the information is provided”

were inserted into the clause. As the clause stands, it might be thought to extend the protection further down the line as the information is shared more widely by persons who are doing this not because they are required to do it by the regulations but for some other reason, which may be unrelated to the regulations themselves. However, if it is the intention that the protection should extend that far, the committee suggests that the wording of this provision should be looked at again to make this clear.

I hope this explanation for the amendment may be helpful. It is intended to assist the Government and make it absolutely plain how far the protection the subsection is intended to give should extend.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. We have heard that Part 11 sets out a framework for creating powers to require disclosure of certain relevant information relating to ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information. Of course, if this is implemented, it is another significant layer of disclosure around land ownership and control in England and Wales, supplementing the information that is currently held or is going to be held in a number of public registries. It appears that the Government’s ultimate goal here is to ensure transparency around land ownership and control in England and Wales. We would support this aim.

My Amendment 440 probes the retrospective application of this section. As drafted, the provisions could require the disclosure of information relating to events prior to the enactment of the Bill. Clause 206(4) says:

“Regulations under section 204 or 205 may relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this Part”.


This amendment probes the benefits of doing this retrospective application and what the Government are aiming to achieve through this.

My second amendment, Amendment 439, probes how local communities can request land ownership information. It would be really helpful if the Minister could provide a bit more information for us to understand how communities are expected to access this information and how that fits in with the role of the Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the government amendments. Amendments 438A, 438B, 438C, 438D and so on insert clauses before Clause 204. They

“recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes”.

Do these provisions apply to government agencies, such as Homes England, as well? If conditions are attached, they can get in the way when regeneration schemes are being considered. It would be good to have some clarification on that point.

We would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in what he is trying to achieve in Amendment 440A. If the Minister could either provide clarification to the noble and learned Lord or look at tightening up the wording, as he suggests, that would be extremely helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in response to Amendment 439 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I confirm that it will be in the public interest for some of the information that is collected to be published. For example, we intend to publish data on arrangements such as option agreements that developers and others have over land. However, there is some information that we will not be able to publish, so we need to strike the balance between transparency, legitimate privacy, confidentiality and practical or security considerations. Therefore, some information will be shared only

“with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.

At this stage, I want to answer a couple of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She asked why we need beneficial ownership. We believe that the property market in England and Wales should be fair and transparent. A lack of transparency can make it hard to identify rogue landlords, the owners of empty properties and those liable under the Building Safety Act, and it can leave the market vulnerable to criminal activity. We believe that this will deter individuals from using complex structures to obscure ownership of property, and it will provide criminal offences and sanctions for failure to comply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chartered surveyor—I was one for some 35 years; I resigned when I left private practice—and my comments now, which will be brief, are entirely my own.

Why do the Government want to interfere with an independent professional body? I do not believe that architects, civil engineers, solicitors, doctors, nurses or any of the other many noble professions have this sword of Damocles hanging above their professional organisations as is proposed here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Lytton have mentioned the worldwide influence of the RICS. I was slightly involved with it many years ago; it is extensive and has done ground-breaking work across the world in bringing together the numerous different property-related organisations in the advisory field to try to create common standards internationally. This is the stuff of soft power; it has a royal warrant.

I accept that the RICS has had its own internal issues—pretty serious ones—but it instigated robust, independent reviews and accepted all recommendations. Why does His Majesty’s Government want this power? It is inappropriate. As we have heard, the Bill has all the characteristics of a hybrid Bill anyway, so what on earth is this clause doing in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hayter for her very detailed and clear explanation of the concerns felt by a number of noble Lords about why this clause is in the Bill at all. I thank the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, for their very detailed knowledge and perspective from their professional point of view; that was extremely helpful and I think this is a very important debate.

I added my name to the clause stand part notice because we are also extremely concerned by the wording of Clause 213 as currently drafted. As we have heard, it provides a power for the Secretary of State to instigate a review of RICS at any time and with very few limits in terms of scope, rationale or process. At the same time, it fails to set out any related statutory protections for RICS or for the chartered surveying profession more broadly. Our concerns stem from the fact that this seems a very significant step for a Government to take—to actually create powers to instigate reviews of an independent, member-funded institution, which does not itself, as we heard, exercise any statutory powers. Noble Lords have said they are concerned that this could risk creating a perception of RICS’s inability to act independently and in the public interest. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it has nothing to do with either levelling up or regeneration and could set a highly unusual precedent for any other royal chartered body in the future.

We have heard about the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the previous review mentioned by my noble friend. She went into the detail of what the independent reviews have said. Also, recommendation 14 of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, required an independent review of RICS to take place every five years. My noble friend said that it has agreed to do that even more frequently, every three years, so I do not really understand what the Government’s concerns are. It strikes me that, despite the concerns the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, laid out about recent issues within RICS, it has taken concerns raised extremely seriously, has accepted the recommendations in this report and is amending the RICS charter and by-laws to reflect the recommendations in full, subject to the approval of the Privy Council.

So my first question to the Minister is: why do the Government feel the need to interfere in this process? RICS itself, having accepted the recommendations in the review, is looking to ensure that it is held accountable in a transparent, orderly and appropriate manner, so I genuinely do not understand why the Government feel they need to legislate, as other noble Lords have said. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could properly explain.

I also found it very concerning to hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter that there do not seem to have been any recent meetings between RICS and the Government. Can the Minister confirm that and explain what meetings have been held to discuss this and when? It does seem quite an extraordinary step. We support either the removal or the amendment of this clause so that it aligns with the wording of recommendation 14 of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, if it is going to stay in here. Surely the regulation of professions should be overseen by independent governance and decision-making that uphold the public interest and also guard against any risk of improper interference. Can the Minister explain why this clause is in the Bill? Will he also comment on the suggestion of hybridity, because this is extremely concerning?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the discussions my noble friend Lady Scott and I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, prior to this debate. I appreciate that they and others have hesitations and reservations around this clause; however, I hope I can persuade the Committee that those reservations should not be given weight.

The Government consider that Clause 213 should remain in the Bill because retaining the Secretary of State’s power in legislation to initiate reviews demonstrates that the Government are committed to supporting RICS in regaining and retaining its reputation after some very serious public failings in 2018-19. The clause also gives the Secretary of State discretion to set specific matters for the independent reviewer to consider that are connected to its governance and effectiveness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that there was no rationale for this. The provision is to ensure that a review could specifically include issues that become a public concern, such as providing leadership to the market for the benefit of consumers, rather than always seeking to satisfy members.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that she viewed the clause as interfering with an independent, free-standing institution. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a similar point. While the clause clarifies the Secretary of State’s power to initiate a review, it would create no power to intervene in the workings of RICS, so I disagree with the premise that Clause 213 interferes with the independence of RICS. Indeed, the clause is clear in clarifying the independence of any proposed reviewer and, with regard to the review itself, mandates only the remit and a requirement to publish, and not, for instance, how the review is undertaken.

I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the power conferred by the clause is strictly limited. The Secretary of State would be required by the clause to publish the independent reviewer’s report but, as he mentioned, the Government are not legislating to act on the review’s outcomes or the independent reviewer’s report, because we cannot, as he said, pre-empt any findings or recommendations. Should the Government require any legislative powers to enact any of the recommendations from a review, we will need to return to Parliament for permission. Once again, this approach will ensure RICS’s ability to operate independently from government while strengthening its accountability to Parliament. The noble Earl asked whether any report would be made directly to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The answer is no: the report would be independent and the Secretary of State is simply required to publish it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that there would be no reason for the Secretary of State to establish an inquiry under the terms of this clause. RICS is uniquely influential across construction sectors and their links with financial service markets. It is the sole body for bestowing chartered surveyor status in the UK and its reputation took a big hit as a result of the failings of 2018-19, which, given its unique role in these matters, is a very serious issue. We cannot and should not gloss over those failings. Historically, RICS took a very limited view of providing leadership to the market for the public good, being constrained by its internal practices and policies, such as on EWS1 forms, and this contributed to difficulties for leaseholders in selling their flats.

My noble friend Lord Caithness said that the Government do not need this power: he asked what the point was of including the clause. In this clause, we are setting out the scope of any review, and this should act as a reassurance as to the limits of what the Secretary of State is empowered to do. I say again: RICS’s independence of working is not in question. At the same time, the Government are signalling the importance we attach to RICS in protecting consumer interests through its guidance and standards, as well as the regulatory functions it undertakes across the market, improving and managing the built environment and land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I concur with and support entirely the comments made by my noble friend Lord Stunell and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the amendments in this miscellany transferring the building safety regulator from the Health and Safety Executive. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a very clear reason why this change is being made in the Bill—indeed, why it is being made at all.

I want to focus my comments on Amendment 467F. It is a good job I am speaking after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, because it was not at all clear to me that that is what it is about. That is the problem with this group of government amendments; as I said earlier, a miscellany of issues has been put together because this is a levelling-up Bill and we can throw anything in. My guess was that it came from the Schools Bill, but reading the amendment without any explanation, it was not clear at all, so I have a few questions to put to the Minister.

First, can she assure us that the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford are accurate and this is entirely about schools with religious foundations, because that is not clear? In fact, I have a series of questions so that I can understand what the Government are seeking to achieve. Having been a school governor for very many years, I know that it is important that land use for schools is clear—whether they are part of a trust or a local authority—because otherwise future changes are very difficult. I speak from the heart in that regard.

This amendment puts forward four conditions that must occur. The heading of the new paragraph is “Compulsory transfer to trustees”, which is what first made me think that this perhaps needs more questioning. The idea is that a local authority has some premises, and an academy or trust has some, and they can do a swap. As this is to be a compulsory swap, what local consultation will there be and will it be a democratic decision? The implication is that it will not be a democratic decision of the local authority; it will be a compulsory land—or premises—swap. That is one issue on which I would like an answer. The second is, what if the premises to be exchanged are in a different location? If a school becomes located in a different part of the borough, what will that mean for the provision of school places within that council area? Would planning consent be required for schools to be relocated? Who will pay local authorities’ costs for the transfer? What if one set of premises was of higher value than the one that a school is taking over? How does that work? There is a series of questions to be answered. The Government had directed local authorities to sell their assets to help fund local services. What if the set of premises had been earmarked for sale for the benefit of the local authority? How does that work?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked similar questions to mine, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford explained that it is all about religious foundation schools. That is not clear in the Bill, and there is no Explanatory Memorandum. Apparently, there was one in respect of the Schools Bill; well, that is not very helpful to us.

Having just resigned as a governor of a voluntary controlled school which had a lot of land issues when it became an academy because of land ownerships and trusts, I really do want answers to this series of questions. As far as I am concerned, the building safety regulator and the compulsory transfer of land to trustees are two major issues that should not have been put in this Bill. They are nothing to do with levelling up.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by commenting on the amendments on building safety. I will not repeat the points that other noble Lords have made. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, went thoroughly into the reasons why there are concerns about these amendments, as did the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, so there is no need for me to repeat the detail; the concerns have been raised extremely clearly.

I want to ask just one thing. This provision seeks to transfer powers to the Health and Safety Executive, so that it will become the building safety regulator. When we left EU REACH, the chemicals regulation system, we raised a lot of concerns about the Government’s proposal that the HSE become the regulator for the UK REACH. The concerns were about the skills and resource levels of the HSE in taking on these new responsibilities. If the Government now intend to give the HSE yet another very large responsibility, how is the department being set up to manage all these increased responsibilities that the Government keep putting on its shoulders?

I was quite interested that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that one of the amendments extended the scope of the Bill to allow the others in. I congratulate the Government on finding anything that was out of scope of the Bill—it is quite an achievement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What I can assure the noble Lord of is that, if we do have to go down this route, both Houses of Parliament will have a say in that. I am sure that we will have long debates on it. The noble Lord also asked about accountability to the House. As I have said, the powers will be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure that the House is given full and proper opportunity to scrutinise any proposals if they come in due course.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 31st report of this Session. I reassure noble Lords that the powers that we are seeking to take in Amendment 467D are intended to allow us to change only the home of the building safety regulator, as created by the Building Safety Act. There is no intention or plan for fundamental policy change in that.

Moving on, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked whether Amendment 467F was entirely about schools with religious foundations. There are also non-religious schools that have these charitable site trustees. We are not talking about academy trusts here: we are talking just about the charitable site trustees. They are mainly religious, but there are others that are not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked whether the trust required proceeds from the original premises to fund—no, I am sorry, this is something that I asked. It might be interesting to the noble Baroness that, if the trust required proceeds from the original premises to fund new schools, I was concerned about that. It has been made clear to me that capital funds come from local authorities where there is a need to provide sufficient school places, so I hope that will also put the noble Baroness’s mind at rest.

I was asked where the local authority fits into this. It will be in no worse a position than if the same schools had relocated as maintained schools or as foundation and voluntary schools, where the local authority would be obliged to provide the new site and transfer it to the trustees. Land would be held for the purposes of the academy, with appropriate protections for public value, including that the land could ultimately return to the authority if in future it is no longer needed for a school, so the local authority is protected on that.

The noble Baroness also asked whether it is a compulsory swap and what local consultation there would be for the local authority on the swap. It would be a compulsory swap only if the trustees are being asked to surrender their interest in the current site in exchange. We would expect such arrangements to occur only after the usual processes for relocating a school, which would include consultation and a consideration of the impact of moving places from one site to the other. All those issues would have been looked at.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked whether—I cannot read this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Just send it to me.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It was about giving the HSE some other responsibility.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I asked about resources.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

473: After Clause 214, insert the following new Clause—
“Regional mutual banks(1) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament, within 3 months of the date of the passing of this Act, on existing barriers to the establishment of regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom.(2) The report must consider—(a) current capital adequacy requirements,(b) other limiting features of the current regime,(c) regional mutual bank structures in jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom and the adoption and adaptation to the United Kingdom of best practice, and(d) the use of dormant assets as seed capital for the establishment of such regional mutual banks.”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I shall move this amendment on his behalf.

One particular problem that has dogged us for decades is the lack of funding, including sufficient credit facilities, to our critical SME community. We know that SMEs are considered to be the backbone of the economy, the largest private employer, the large companies of tomorrow and so on, but despite this, the funds have never really flowed through from our traditional financial services sector to support SME activity and rightful ambition. The British Business Bank put it perfectly in its March 2022 report:

“Historically, SMEs are underserved by the finance sector, and often don't have the same characteristics that banks and other lenders like about large corporations. This includes lengthy credit histories, detailed audits and financial accounts, and a large portfolio of assets for collateral on debts. For start-ups, whose business models are unproven and yet to be deemed creditworthy, these problems are even more pronounced”.


This is not a universal problem experienced by SMEs around the world. It is done differently elsewhere. In Germany, for example, in 2021 SME funding was more than €600 billion; in the UK in the same period, it was just £57 billion. Even when all the necessary adjustments are applied, it is not a great picture, nor a growth picture. It is hardly surprising then that we are seeing a post-Covid trend of SMEs moving away from the traditional financial services sector. Again, the British Business Bank has noted:

“After the end of the coronavirus loans facility in March 2021, an interesting trend to emerge was that SMEs began to move away from large banks for their finance needs. Instead, challenger and specialist banks made up 51% of lending in 2021, compared with 32% in 2020”.


When it comes to the regional dimension, it just gets worse for SMEs, with those in London receiving over 70% of equity investment, with just 30% for the rest of the UK. This is obviously not great news for the economy, but it also results in lower levels of community and differing levels of well-being. How can we level up this country if we do not urgently address this issue of the extreme and unacceptable regional funding differentials for our SMEs? Although a perennial problem, it is raised now because there are two important pieces of legislation that provide an opportunity to do something about it: the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which has been going through your Lordships’ House; and the levelling-up Bill which is before us. I think a critical need for regional mutual banks is an essential part of the solution.

The clear intention of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is threefold: first, to dramatically increase financial inclusion for our SME businesses; secondly, to develop an effective patient capital ecosystem across the UK; thirdly, to reignite the positive reality of friendly societies and mutuals. The amendment would force the consideration of current capital adequacy requirements. Are they fit for what we want across all potential financial service models?

It is also essential that such potential sources of regional finance are seen very much against the backdrop of digital transformation. Such banks need a physical presence in all our communities, with business bankers ready to support customers at each growth stage. Benefits must also encompass full digital functionality, alongside the physical. If got right, such banks could bring to bear another element of the financial and digital inclusion story, with the financial inclusion potentially driving the digital.

None of this is about lowering thresholds for SME finance. If we support SMEs by increasing the range and number of regional mutual banks, then the banks will do what they do best and SMEs will thrive, as will the communities and the towns and cities in which they are based. Through this single intervention, one of the fundamental planks on which levelling up will come will have been effectively laid.

As we build our way out of Covid, there could barely be a better moment to consider the benefits of regional mutual banks, built in our great communities with close customer connections and, crucially, with an interest and a stake in all those future economic, social, individual and organisational stories of success. We need regional flows of finance to enable and empower more, and more regionally diverse, SMEs. Regional mutual banks can be an essential part of delivering this, and the Government should look very carefully at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and consider including it within their levelling-up brief. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this country used to have many regional mutual banks. One still remains, in name anyway: the Yorkshire Bank. That is a testimony, I think, to its importance within the great county of Yorkshire. What has been a sad reflection of what has happened in the country in terms of banking is that it is now dominated by the five great big banking consortiums. That is partly why the presence of so-called high street banks in our towns and small towns across the country are disappearing, to the detriment of many people who live there and certainly many businesses there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 473, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament—within three months of the day on which this Bill is passed—on the existing barriers to the establishment of regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom. I want to make it clear that the Government are supportive of the choice provided by mutual institutions in financial services. They recognise the contribution that these member-owned, democratically controlled institutions make to the local communities they serve and to the wider economy.

However, regional mutual banks are still in the process of establishing themselves here in the United Kingdom, with some now in the process of obtaining their banking licences. It is, therefore, too early to report on the current regime and any possible limitations of this for regional mutual banks. I know that my noble friend Lord Holmes was interested in how regional mutual banks have performed in other jurisdictions and how we could use these examples to consider the UK’s own capital adequacy requirements. In this instance, international comparisons may not be the most helpful to make. The UK is inherently a different jurisdiction, with different legislative and regulatory frameworks from those in the US, Europe or elsewhere.

Abroad, some regional mutual banks have been in existence for centuries and have been able to build up their capital base through retained earnings. In the UK, regional mutual banks are not yet established and are continuing to progress within the UK’s legislative framework. However, the Treasury is continuing to engage with the mutuals sector and other industry members to assess how the Government can best support the growth of mutuals going forward. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on behalf of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond—to feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister very much for her response. I suddenly thought that I probably should have declared my interests as a member of the Co-operative Party and as someone who believes very strongly in the benefits of the mutual model. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will read Hansard very carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 473 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. She has made a powerful case for ground source heat network trials, so I will not pursue that, except to note that the case is clearly much more overwhelming than the weak to non-existent case for the hydrogen trial the Government seem to want to pursue.

I will speak to Amendment 478, which has full cross-party and non-party support, and which the Green Party would have attached its name to had there been space. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with his Amendment 504GJE, is on to an important and crucial point. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, I was going to refer noble Lords to the CPRE report, which is due out in about nine hours’ time, so we are pre-empting that a little. I also reference something that shows where we could have been—the Primrose Hill solar village in Huddersfield, which was built nearly two decades ago. Driven by pioneering local Green councillor Andrew Cooper, 79 affordable homes were built there on a brownfield site. For two decades the people there have been benefiting from the kind of housing we should have been building everywhere in the country, all of the time. That it is in a very deprived area of Huddersfield, classic levelling-up territory, demonstrates how much people have suffered because of the policy failures of the past two decades.

Rather than repeating what other people have said, I want to make a few additional points. The number of households that are retrofitting solar panels has reached its highest level in more than seven years. More than 50,000 installed them between January and March, which shows how much people want solar panels. They are going for it, but through the much more expensive, difficult and complicated method of retrofitting, rather than buying a new home that already has them on the roof, which is what Amendment 478 would provide for.

I will cross-reference certain points rather than go through everything. My honourable friend in the other place, Caroline Lucas, had a Westminster Hall debate on 22 March on rooftop solar for homes. The point was made that about two-thirds of what is currently fitted is ground mounted. It is nonsensical that we are using up ground for that. Earlier today, your Lordship’s House debated the land use strategy and the establishment of a land use commission. Surely, such as commission would be saying that there are so many things we could be doing with that land that we should not be using it for that until every roof—certainly every new roof—has solar panels fitted to it.

I want to pick up on some points that might be made in opposition to this amendment, perhaps pre-empting the Minister. Yes, it could add cost to a new property, but there would also be an estimated saving of between £974 and £1,150 per year per home. Taking into account the cost-of-living crisis, the cost would be rapidly recovered by the people living in these homes.

We want to talk about having affordable housing, and part of affordability is being able to afford to run the home on a year-to-year basis into the future. Plus, we are in a climate emergency, the world is not meeting its carbon targets, and this is one obvious way that Britain should be making a further contribution.

In the debate in the other place, it was suggested that there are other ways of doing this, and that maybe solar panels are not the answer. Of course, this amendment refers to the appropriate housing; it is not saying every single house but, more than that, solar panels do not preclude also having ground source or air source heat pumps. In fact, the combination of those two things is absolutely valuable.

There has been talk of global supply challenges, but the right political will would ensure that it is possible to source these materials outside China, where the bulk of the current issues—particularly human rights—regarding solar panels lie. There is also the question of sourcing silicon, but there are alternatives to that and breakthroughs are being made all the time. It has been suggested this may stifle innovation somehow. This is not just about delivering the basic fabric of a building that should be there; it does not mean that we cannot do many additional things as well, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has so clearly suggested.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for introducing this group of amendments and her amendment in particular. We strongly support amendments that aim to increase renewable energy sources. This is a levelling-up Bill. One of the missions laid out in the White Paper is to increase well-being. When we think about the cost of energy at the moment, surely having well-heated homes has to be a measure of well-being in society. By supporting these amendments, we can make steps towards meeting that mission. As the noble Baroness said in the introduction to her amendment, it is simple but sensible. We completely agree.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is again really important. There is such huge potential for solar panels on commercial buildings that we completely miss. The thing that sprung to mind when I read his amendment was those colossal warehouses that can be seen along the motorways when driving along. They are in completely open space, and surely there is huge potential for putting solar panels on their roofs.

We know that, by 2050, the United Kingdom has a target to cut emissions of CO₂ by 80%, but we also know that the Government are way off achieving that target. Again, as the noble Baroness said, it is really good that the Government are beginning to realise the importance and potential of solar power, following on from the Skidmore review, but as she also said, what we need is action—to make the potential of solar power a reality. If new-build homes had solar panels and the ability to store energy in batteries—which is, of course, something that we have to develop further—as a country we would clearly benefit from a fairly significant reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide. To me, it seems completely obvious: the more energy we harness from the sun, the less we need to get from fossil fuels.

Solar panels mean that, for certain parts of the year, households can enjoy being completely self-powered. This would of course bring a significant reduction to their energy bills, helping to meet that mission of well-being—yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, there is no target for this yet. If you are going genuinely to deliver and make a difference, you need to set targets.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

479: After Clause 214, insert the following new Clause—
“Interaction with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023Within 90 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the interaction of this Act with any Act of Parliament resulting from the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the interaction of this Act with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have the only amendment in this group. I will be brief because it is pretty straightforward and I hope I can have a reasonably straightforward response from the Minister as there is no complexity around this.

Amendment 479 asks the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the interaction of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, or Act as it will be. I asked about this in the REUL Bill discussions that we had. It is really around the Water Resources (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, which are included in the list in the REUL Bill. The reason I want to raise this here is because, as it affects environmental impact assessments, I feel we need to put on the record the fact that it will interact with the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill because this is proposing extensive powers for a new system of environmental impact assessments to replace the current regulations which include the water resources regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill creates the powers for the Government to amend retained EU law and will remove the special status of retained EU law in the UK. On 17 May, the House agreed a government amendment to replace the previously proposed sunset of retained EU law in the Bill with a list of retained EU law for revocation at the end of 2023. This provides clarity to the House and certainty for business by making it clear which legislation will be revoked. Powers in the Bill that allow us to continue to amend retained EU law remain, so further regulation can be revoked or reformed in the future. This will mean that we still fully take back control of our laws and end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law by the end of 2023.

As noble Lords will be aware, the REUL Bill had Third Reading in this House this afternoon. Given that both Bills are still passing through Parliament, the Government are working through what the interactions are between them. I do not think it appropriate to amend the Bill in this way, but I will commit to writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, by the end of this year to set out the interaction between the two Bills. I hope that is helpful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful response. He has completely taken on board the point that I am trying to make, and I appreciate that. A letter explaining exactly how it will all work together by the end of the year will be extremely helpful. I thank the Minister very much, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 479 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, before we begin Report, I want to make some points to draw the House’s attention to our concerns about the Government’s approach to the proper and timely legislative scrutiny of this Bill.

First, when we received the Bill into this House and prepared for Second Reading back in January, I and others were surprised to see that it contained three chapters that had not been scrutinised in the other place but had been added in after it had moved on to here. Then, following our debate in Committee, ahead of Report and with no prior warning, the Government added in a whole new schedule—nine pages in length—along with further amendments on childminding provisions, and altered the Long Title to reflect this.

I know that the Minister understands my concerns, and I thank her for arranging a meeting at short notice last week to discuss this. Can she now confirm, as we agreed in that meeting, that Committee rules will be used for the debate on the childcare amendments and any amendments to them on Report, and that, if deemed necessary, amendments will be accepted at Third Reading on this part of the Bill alone?

Finally, on Friday evening I had an email from the department apologising for the late tabling of further amendments, apparently to allow substantive discussions with the devolved Administrations prior to tabling as they relate to the devolution settlement and securing legislative consent for the Bill. Late discussions with the devolved Administrations unfortunately seem to have become a regular occurrence, but it would have been helpful if we had been made aware and alerted to any impact on timings in advance.

To be quite clear, I hold the Minister in the highest regard, I am not complaining about her as a Minister and we very much appreciated her apology. However, it greatly concerns me that the department has shown a lack of respect for the need to have proper legislative scrutiny from both Houses if we are to secure legislation of the expected highest standards.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I fully endorse the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It is most unfortunate and not the responsibility of the Minister at all. She has been considerate and helpful with her time and that of her officials throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. Nevertheless, three chapters were added to an already very large Bill after it left the House of Commons, and then more than 150 amendments were tabled last week—some, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, late on Friday. Then we find that a whole new schedule on childminding has been added and is so out of scope that the Bill’s Long Title has had to be altered.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is very important legislation to be considered by this House, is already being brought into a bit of disrepute by the addition of chapters, a new section altogether and amendments. I am sure the Minister feels as uncomfortable as we do about the way that this has been dealt with, but I wish to express my concern, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock..

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “Parliament” insert “within 30 days of the passing of this Act”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the statement to be laid within 30 days, meaning the statement could not be laid any later than the deadline for the statement detailing the application process for round three of the Levelling Up Fund which would, under a new Clause after Clause 5 also proposed by Baroness Hayman of Ullock, also have to be laid within 30 days of the Act being passed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, all regarding the funding for the levelling-up proposals that the Government have been working on for some time. One of the reasons I have brought this back at this stage is that I was not satisfied with the responses we received in Committee. Since we debated this matter in Committee —I think we started Committee back in February/ March; we seem to have been doing this Bill for a long time—the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee produced a report in May, Funding for Levelling Up. It expresses a number of concerns about the inadequacies of the Government’s method of delivering funding for levelling up, the allocation process and the extent to which different funds are compatible with the needs of communities in the short and long term. The committee also believes it creates several obstacles to delivering success in this area.

One concern that the committee raised in its report is about the lack of data available from DLUHC. DLUHC has conceded that it does not have sufficient data in relation to Whitehall departmental expenditure on the full range of levelling-up funds or on combined authority income or expenditure. Our concern is about how DLUHC can make significant policy decisions in relation to priority areas or funding allocations or even on the measurement of success or failure of this policy of levelling up. How can it achieve its objectives or measure those objectives if it is not given adequate data to support those tasks?

The White Paper commits DLUHC to reducing the requirements to access competitive funding and simplifying the funding landscape, so we are pleased that the department has recently announced measures to simplify the funding landscape for local authorities. However, this must be seen in conjunction with the fact that local authority revenue funding has reduced significantly since 2020.

Levelling-up funds generally do not replace grant funding because, first, they are capital not revenue and, secondly, they cover specific projects rather than necessarily covering the priorities of the local authorities.

We talked quite a bit in Committee about our concerns over metrics. There was questionable use of metrics in the first round, with additional metrics in the second round to make it easier. We feel that the management of the fund has ultimately contributed to diminished perceptions of trust and transparency, with this mismanagement leaving the Government open to criticism that they have not based funding decisions on need or, indeed, on merit.

The investment zone policy, for example, was reopened and reframed after it was reported that over 100 applications had been submitted for its first iteration. The problem is that, if there is a change in the approach and a reframing after submissions have been made, it means that the local authorities have wasted a significant amount of resources. We are concerned about that, and it raises further questions about the transparency of the process that DLUHC has been applying to such funding initiatives.

Funding the implementation of the levelling-up policy is clearly complex and challenging; we recognise that. Further parts of the report say that DLUHC does not know which pots of money across government contribute to levelling up, and nor does DLUHC appear to have oversight of how these objectives can be delivered strategically through—importantly—departmental co-ordination.

As a result, the Government’s current approach is characterised by one-off, short-term initiatives, which we think will be insufficient if the geographic, economic, social and health inequalities are to be reduced and, ultimately, overcome. To change this, we believe the policy requires a long-term, substantive strategy and funding approach: things that it currently lacks. Without this, levelling up risks joining a number of other short- term government initiatives.

In light of the committee report’s findings, I would ask the Minister and noble Lords to support my amendments in this group, which ask that the third round of the levelling-up fund takes place in both a timely manner and as part of a reformed process. If the Minister is unable to do so, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this matter, because we believe that proper use of the levelling-up fund and other funding is one of the key drivers as to whether the ambitions in this Bill will actually be achieved.

Very briefly, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has an amendment in this group regarding an issue that has come up in the negotiations between the Department for Transport and the Isles of Scilly Council and the steamship company. I will let my noble friend explain the detail of his amendment and his deeply held concerns. I want to assure him that we very much support his position. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and work with him to find a solution going forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that introduction. It is my job to speak to Amendment 11 in my name. It has a rather odd objective, which might not be clear from the text: I am trying to help the Government to honour their very welcome commitment to a levelling-up grant of about £48 million which they have offered to the Isles of Scilly Council to supply new vessels for the journey to the mainland. Unfortunately—we discussed this in Committee—new information came to light last week which prompted me to put this amendment down.

As I said, the department offered £48 million to the council on the basis that the council would have control of the fares, the timetable and the freight costs, and would put out to tender the operation of building a ship and the service. Noble Lords will probably be interested to know that Transport Focus did some market research earlier this year, which showed almost unanimous support from the 2,500 islanders for the idea of having a competition to get the most efficient and best value for money service, rather than just continuing with the existing operator, which has been there for many years. Many people think that it needs to be subject to competition.

The operator, the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company, asked whether it could have half of the £48 million without competing in a tender because, it said, it was a very good company. Ministers rejected that, thank goodness, in a very robust way. I could quote from the letter of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, but I do not think I need to. She and her colleagues are being very supportive of the concept of levelling up to get the best possible deal for the fares and the service quality for passengers and freight for the people who live on the Isles of Scilly.

The trouble is that the existing operator has now announced that it wants to go ahead and finance its own ship, without saying what the fares or the timetable will be. Will it run in the winter, for example? If you are going to raise £48 million or so in the private sector, that will of course put the fares up—but the operator will not tell us what the fares are going to be. Over the weekend, we have done a few calculations of what the fares might be and compared them with those for journeys of a similar distance from the mainland of Scotland to Islay, which some noble Lords will probably know. It is actually quite frightening, so perhaps I might offer a few examples.

Since 2012, which is 11 years ago, the fares to Scilly have gone up by 47%—I repeat, 47%—and, when compared with those for Islay, the difference is getting more and more. It was seven times different; it is now going to be 12 times different. I will quote just one figure. In 2027, which is in four years’ time, a return fare for a passenger to and from Scilly, with no car, will probably be about £204—£204 for one person to get to the Isles of Scilly and back. Think of taking a family there. If there was a husband, wife and two kids they would be almost broke before they got there. It is lovely when you get there—I love it—but the equivalent fare if you are going to Islay is £16.

I was very pleased to hear from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, who wrote to me and said:

“I am concerned about the potential impact on fares and freight charges”


from the steamship company

“and the consequential impact for islanders”.

The department offered £48 million to fund the new vessels, but it cannot really go ahead and give the money, even on a tendering basis, if somebody else is trying to build a ferry at the same time and operate the same route. If it does manage it, the fares will be, as I said, over £100 for a single, and that is all contrary to the Minister’s wish to see levelling up applied to the Isles of Scilly.

In this amendment, I have attempted to come up with an idea that would frustrate any other operator trying to compete with what the Government are so generously offering, in their £48 million for what the islanders need, to ensure that the harbour authorities and the council would not be able to give this company permissions—there are plenty of permissions that we all know.

I am sure that the wording is wrong, as the Minister will probably tell me quite soon. But this is an attempt not to save the Government from themselves but to save their wonderful commitment to the Isles of Scilly from being debunked, irritated or cancelled, for very good reasons—Treasury rules and everything. If the Minister is interested in keeping this going—I hope she is—I would be very pleased to sit down and talk with her at some time before Third Reading. If that were possible, one of us could come up with an amendment, at Third Reading, that would hopefully work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think the House prefers not to have any amendments at Third Reading.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, and the Minister for her, as always, very thorough response. However, I do not think that she has been able to demonstrate categorically that any future funding rounds are going to be properly tied to the delivery of the missions. The Government seem to have taken a bit of a scattergun approach to this, if I can put it like that. As I have already said, the Government’s approach is categorised by one-off, short-term initiatives which are insufficient if the geographic, economic, social and health inequalities are to be reduced and ultimately overcome, which is what the Bill aims to do.

To me, as I said before, getting the funding allocations correct, getting the analysis of the results of previous allocations of funding correct, and having that information and data at our fingertips to be able to properly target the funding to ensure that we get the outcomes we want, is critical to the success of the Bill. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but I have been informed by the clerks that my Amendment 17 is consequential on my Amendment 1. So I thank the Minister, but I am not satisfied with the Government’s future approach, so I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support a number of amendments in this group. I absolutely endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in identifying disparities that should be taken into account when we assess the impact of this levelling-up Bill, and taking action as a consequence seems to make logical sense. I particularly support the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Carrington, and the amendments that they have tabled on rural proofing. I share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in having cantered round this course so many times before without having had a satisfactory conclusion.

This is no way a reflection on the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, but because the responsibility for rural proofing currently lies with Defra, its influence within government as a whole is very limited. Yet it is essential that the whole of government engages in the rural-proofing agenda, which is why it is important that this item is discussed and considered within the Bill, so that it is seen as a government responsibility to deliver rural proofing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, a number of proofings have been done on the Bill. I will ask for those and make sure that they are brought forward. It is not about giving money; it is about knowing where money is required in rural areas to make life better for people, as well as making sure that policies are rural-proofed. If we find out through that rural-proofing that some policies are not delivering as well as they could for rural areas, we have to do something about it, and that is what the Government are doing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, if the policies have been rural-proofed, what happened to the metrics? Clearly, they have not been rural-proofed. I raised public transport, which I think needs looking at.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group on a range of issues. We have had some of these debates before. As far as the independent Levelling Up Advisory Council is concerned, we had that debate in Committee. We are now five months on, and we asked then for there to be greater transparency around its work and the advice that it gives, but we have not yet seen it. I hope my noble friend the Minister might take away from this debate that, when it comes to the point of issuing a report on the levelling-up missions, it will include—as is done for the Budget, for example, by the OBR—an independent assessment by the advisory council for the purposes of transparency. For it to work wholly within government and never see the light of day does not strike me as terribly independent, so I hope we see that change.

The point about public transport and rural-proofing was well made. The idea that the metric on public transport is how close one gets to the way that public transport works in London is hardly a basis for comparison or for the measurement of public transport connectivity in rural areas, but hey ho. The point is a good one: getting it into the metrics is potentially more important than including it in the reporting process. That is exactly why parliamentary scrutiny of the statements is important, not just parliamentary scrutiny of the reports of the missions after the passage of time.

None the less, I take my noble friend’s point about the flaw in my argument, which is a very simple one. We spent a lot of time debating the statement on the levelling-up missions, because the missions were published before the Bill was received. We spent a lot of time debating what is in them and what the alternatives might be; so far, so good.

In the next Parliament, we will no doubt have a new statement on the levelling-up missions at some point. It will be very interesting to see that and, following the points made by my noble friends and opposition Front-Benchers, in Committee and today on Report, I hope that there will be opportunities for debate when the statement is laid. That is especially true of and relevant in the other place. If there are objections and a desire for a debate, I hope that the Ministers will accept and understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

Devolution to the lowest common denominator must be the answer because it means that the electorate have the last say and can therefore make the difference in how that money is spent. It will help to deliver levelling up. I support the amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say that we also welcome these amendments and that I support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Hope of Craighead, as well as to my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lady O’Neill, in addition to noble Lords opposite.

The levelling-up missions have been set by the UK Government but outcomes are a shared interest for the whole of the UK. We fully recognise that some of the missions cover areas where public services are devolved. The purpose of the missions is not to alter existing areas of responsibility but rather to align and co-ordinate how different areas of government work towards a common goal. As I have mentioned, work is already under way between officials in the UK Government and devolved Administrations to explore collaborative work on various missions.

However, what I want to stress is the point well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about working together across the union. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to align policy, and towards a goal shared by everyone: to reduce geographic disparities across all of the UK. These amendments provide further assurance of that commitment by making it explicit and binding in the Bill.

To pick up a further point raised by the noble and learned Lord, we are taking specific action in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including putting local voices at the heart of decision-making through the UK shared prosperity fund, launching an innovation accelerator in Glasgow City Region and establishing a UK national academy to provide a first-class education to all children in the UK.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose spoke about establishing a framework. My best response to that is that one of the benefits of devolution is that it allows local places to take tailored approaches to tackling common challenges, enabling experimentation and innovation. We want to do more to bring together evidence and insights from across the UK, learning from our different approaches and experiences, so that we can improve our collective evidence base about what works and what does not work in different contexts. That, to my mind, is a win-win and it could be described as a desire to establish, over time, a framework that works for everybody. Ultimately, working together to improve our collective evidence base will help us all deliver better outcomes for people across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

17: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Levelling Up Fund: round three(1) Within 30 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before each House of Parliament detailing the application process for round three of the Levelling Up Fund, including criteria for applications.(2) The Secretary of State must take steps to simplify the application process and reduce the requirements, and resources necessary, for applications.(3) The Secretary of State may not introduce additional criteria for applications after the publication of the statement being laid under subsection (1).(4) Within 60 days of the statement being laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a statement before each House of Parliament listing the allocations of the third round of the Levelling Up Fund and explaining how each allocation supports the delivery of the levelling-up missions.(5) In determining the allocations, the Secretary of State must only make allocations which support the delivery of the levelling-up missions with a long-term and strategic vision.(6) The Secretary of State must not make allocations which are based on political and electoral motivations. (7) A Minister of the Crown must provide feedback on unsuccessful applications.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the third round of the Levelling Up Fund takes place in a timely manner and as part of a reformed process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

18: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Capital spending: impact assessmentWithin 60 days of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish an assessment of the impact of the requirement that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities seeks consent from His Majesty’s Treasury for all capital spending, on the delivery of Part One of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe reports that DLUHC require Treasury consent for all capital spending.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a short group with just my Amendment 18 in it. I have laid this amendment to probe the reports that the department, DLUHC, now requires Treasury consent for its capital spending. In February this year, the Financial Times published an article stating that DLUHC had been “banned” by the Treasury

“from making spending decisions on new capital projects … after concerns were raised about the ministry’s ability to deliver value for money”.

Lee Rowley MP, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DLUHC, confirmed to the House of Commons that the department was now

“working within a new delegation approach”

that involved

“Treasury sign-off on capital spend.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/23; col. 1028.]

Furthermore, in March it was reported that DLUHC had not managed to spend even 10% of the levelling-up fund since its launch in 2020. This media report closely followed news in the Financial Times that

“DLUHC intends to spend £2.42bn less on capital projects in 2022-23 than originally planned”.


This sum includes £1 billion in unspent money from the affordable homes programme, while two government officials the article quoted said that the level of underspend “was unusually high”. Can the Minister give an explanation as to what the ban on capital spend sign-off means for the future of levelling-up projects? It is apparent that the Treasury must have serious concerns regarding the department’s ability to monitor and deliver as it now has to work with the Treasury to seek all necessary approvals.

The department has also acknowledged that it lacks data of sufficient quality about government departments’ expenditure on the full range of levelling-up funds. It also lacks data on combined authority income and expenditure. Can the Minister say how DLUHC intends to measure the success or failure of its levelling-up policies, initiatives and objectives? DLUHC’s solution to the lack of data appears to be the creation of the spatial data unit, the SDU. Having said that, it is unclear exactly what data will be produced and by when. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on this.

The delay and lack of information regarding what the SDU is working on, what the unit intends to produce and when these datasets will be available are clearly unsatisfactory. Does the Minister think that this is a good use of public resources? For levelling up to be a success, it requires a long-term strategy with a long-term funding plan backed by data, and this is currently not the case. For the Treasury to take the step of coming in and removing DLUHC’s ability to sign off on capital expenditure is extremely concerning.

My amendment seeks fundamentally to understand what impact this will have on the delivery of future DLUHC-funded projects, particularly future funding under the levelling-up policy. I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 is a new probing amendment, because we all assumed that, if the Government are committed to levelling up and understand, as they will, that it is dependent on long-term capital investment, that would therefore be available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, quoted the Financial Times, and I too did a bit of research on what capital was around. The Financial Times raised this issue earlier this year, reporting that John Glen, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—perhaps he still is—has

“now stepped in to prevent DLUHC from signing off spending on any new capital projects, because of concerns about whether the department is delivering value for money. Such interventions are typically reserved for departments about which the Treasury has particular financial concerns”.

The Financial Times report went on to say:

“The decision to rein in Gove’s expenditure, taken last week, means that any new capital spending decision ‘however small, must now be referred to HMT before approval and the department is not allowed to make any decisions itself’”.


It is a fairly damning indictment of the spending already undertaken by DLUHC if that is the Treasury’s view of its value for money. As I said at the start, levelling up depends on capital investment. It is difficult to interpret the Government’s—the Treasury’s—decision to have tight controls on capital spending as anything other than putting a big brake on levelling-up funding, to the detriment of communities that are desperate for investment.

A House of Commons Select Committee also reported on levelling-up funds, which we referred to in debates on earlier groups today. It made the salient point that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is apparently not able to demonstrate how the funding fulfils the aims of the White Paper for sustained investment to tackle long-standing inequality—these are the points that I have made today and throughout the debates on the Bill. That was a cross-party committee. The National Audit Office also published a report, making a similar, stark plea to the department to urgently increase the capacity to assess and manage levelling-up funds.

So here we are, with a significant Bill carrying one of the Government’s key objectives, set out in a detailed report, and before it has really got going the Treasury is saying, “Well, you can’t spend anything without us first checking and signing it off”. We also have researched reports from the House of Commons Select Committee and the National Audit Office, both pointing to funding not being spent in perhaps the best possible way.

So the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has posed an important question. We ought to hear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to continue to invest significant sums in levelling up because, without that, levelling up will not occur. You can tell that from the White Paper, which I keep pointing to—it has done its job. Unless there is investment, levelling up will not happen. If the Treasury is putting a big brake on it, how are we going to level up? Perhaps the Minister can give us some pointers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to officials publishing an assessment of the impact of the requirement that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities seeks consent from His Majesty’s Treasury for all capital spending on the delivery of Part 1 of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Noble Lords will be aware that the department is working within a new delegation approach, which involves Treasury sign-off on new capital spend. However, there has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and no change to our policy objectives. It is reported that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities requires approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for new capital projects, but this will not impact the levelling-up agenda. The recent change relates only to new projects; there is no change to the decision-making framework for existing capital programmes and no change to the department’s budgets. Moreover, noble Lords will be aware that, in the usual course of departmental business, the majority of programmes would require HMT approval in any case, so there is little change with this new capital spending approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what implications the new spending control would have on the levelling-up agenda. The amendment to capital delegations referred to in press coverage has absolutely no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. The Government’s central mission remains to level up every part of the UK by spreading opportunity, empowering local leaders and improving public services. There has been no dilution of levelling up. There have been no changes to the size of DLUHC budgets, both capital and revenue, or to its policy objectives; neither does this impact how large programmes already agreed are being delivered—for example, the towns fund or the levelling-up fund.

I hope this gives the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, enough reassurance that she will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments in this debate and the Minister for her response. Although I am not absolutely and entirely convinced by everything she said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

25: Clause 7, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult, and have regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England regarding the boundaries of a CCA when making regulations under subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State has a duty to consult the Boundary Commission in regard to the boundaries of a CCA.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, as do other noble Lords. I shall talk your Lordships’ House through why I felt we needed to put these amendments down.

First, let us look at my Amendments 25, 27 and 53. Our concerns are around the fact that the Government seem to view devolution settlements as evolutionary. Although we do not necessarily object to them refining these agreements over time, our concern is that, if they are going to refine them and the settlements are going to evolve, clearly they need to be changed both for the benefit of and with the consent of the local communities that will be affected by any changes. If we look at what is in this part of the Bill and what it does, we see that it adjusts the mechanisms affecting when changes to combined authorities can be made. With my amendments, I am trying to ensure that due process is applied at all times to such changes.

I want to look at one particular area of concern, which involves a change that could be immediate and will be able to be exercised through these powers if they are put into statute: the potential addition of Warwickshire to the West Midlands combined authority. This could be done shortly ahead of the next election for the mayor of the region in May next year. Our concern is that it could happen shortly ahead of an election without proper agreement with the community and wider authorities. Because of that, I have tabled Amendments 25, 27 and 53.

My Amendment 25 states:

“The Secretary of State must consult, and have regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England regarding the boundaries of a CCA when making regulations under subsection (1)”.


My Amendment 27 says the same—it is just placed in a further, appropriate part of the Bill—whereas, if noble Lords look at my Amendment 53, they will see that it looks at another part of the Bill and aims to ensure that

“the Secretary of State has consulted, and had regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England”.

I know that we have discussed this issue. I thanked the Minister for her time either last week or the week before—I cannot remember when—when we discussed it previously. However, because the Boundary Commission has a responsibility to review parliamentary constituencies —I know that the argument from officials was that my amendment does not necessarily apply in this case because it looks just at county or district boundaries that already exist and are already agreed, for example— we feel that, because of the potential implications of boundaries being expanded by a mayor to suit their next election, this is something that should be supplemented. There should be this additional role for the Boundary Commission in such cases so that there cannot be any questions, concerns or even accusations of gerrymandering where that may not be the case; we just think that it would add an extra layer of security and transparency to any changes in this area.

My Amendment 35, which is also in this group, would insert a new clause:

“Mayors for CCA Areas: boundaries”.


The amendment says:

“Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, a Minister … must publish a report of a consultation on the boundaries of each Mayor for a CCA Area … The report must also include a criteria which must be fulfilled for any future expansions of boundaries”.


Also, and this comes back to the point I have just made:

“The criteria must include that the extension is not being made for political advantage”.


This is something that we are concerned about.

We are trying to really stress the point here that any additions and changes to boundaries should not be motivated or be able to be motivated by any political purpose. We know that concerns have been raised that this may be the case in the West Midlands, for example. It is extremely important that the Government heed these concerns in order that people can have the greatest confidence possible in any changes to boundaries and powers that will be brought in with the proposed legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has Amendments 37 to 39 in this group. They all look to do a similar thing: to remove Clauses 40 to 42 to avoid confusion about the number of different mayoral titles that are possible. I genuinely think he has a bit of a point here. I find that many members of the general public get confused about what councillors do and what we all do. When I was a Member of Parliament—other noble Lords may have had the same experience—I was told to go and sort my councillors out. There is not necessarily a huge amount of understanding about local government and government structures. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do here to make it as simple as possible.

I now want to look at Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt, my Amendment 53, as I mentioned earlier, and Amendment 53A, the new amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt to which I have added my name. I will leave my noble friend to go into the detail of this, but we strongly support what he is trying to achieve with this amendment and strongly support his concerns here.

I hope that I have been clear to the Minister about exactly what our concerns are. I think that they could be resolved with discussion, but these are genuine concerns about the way the boundaries may potentially be manipulated and we think that the Government should take them very seriously. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend said, I have two amendments. Amendment 52

“would prevent the Secretary of State making amendments to the membership of a combined authority in a 12 month period running up to a mayoral election, which could have the effect of altering the prospects of a sitting or proposed mayor being elected or re-elected”.

Amendment 53A puts some

“additional requirements which must be satisfied before local government areas are added to an existing Combined Authority within nine months of Royal Assent”.

Obviously, it is late and noble Lords wish to prepare for tomorrow, so I am not going to speak at length, as I could do on this. I just want to make two or three points. This is all about the Government’s deplorable efforts basically to gerrymander the boundary of the West Midlands Combined Authority. So much does the current Tory incumbent, Andy Street, suspect defeat in ten months’ time that he has conspired with Michael Gove to shoehorn Warwickshire, a shire county, into the metropolitan combined authority. If this happened to Wiltshire, for instance, I know exactly what the noble Baroness would be thinking. The sole purpose, of course, is to try to improve his fortunes at the 2024 election. He has similar designs on some of the other shire counties in the West Midlands. He will not be stopping there; he wants to be police commissioner as well, and we will come on to that later.

This is being done over the next 12 weeks, so there is scant time for consultation, and no time for full consideration of the impact on the district council and certainly not on the public, who I doubt wish to have their lives run from Birmingham. Nor do I think it will be successful, because the most likely outcome is a Labour mayor running Warwickshire and the West Midlands. Noble Lords might think that I would welcome that, but I have principled objections to using legislation in this way—basically, to protect a sole political incumbent. I particularly object to this happening without the agreement of the existing constituent members of the combined authority. For me, such power vested in one person damages our democracy, undermines the trust on which the combined authority was established and surely risks threatening its future success.

One of the things I find the most objectionable is the haste in which this is being done. A paper going to Warwickshire County Council’s cabinet meeting tomorrow indicates this. The council has to rush into a governance review, followed by publication of a scheme that would contain details of the proposed expanded area of the West Midlands Combined Authority; its proposed membership, voting and other constitutional arrangements; its proposed functions; the way it will be funded; and any property, rights and liabilities that would be transferred to the extended combined authority.

A public consultation has to be undertaken. If the Secretary of State then decides to proceed, an order will have to be made which would expand the area of the combined authority and provide for the election of a mayor. This all has to be done incredibly quickly. Ministers have told the county council that it must be in a position to do all that and submit an application in early October. Allowing for August and the summer break, what sort of consultation is likely by early October? I suggest, a very scanty one.

In this paper, the council openly admits that it may require consideration of urgent decisions being made during the process; in other words, the consultation is a sham, because the decision has already been made. So much is unknown, not least the financial consequences; so the cabinet paper airily says that what this means financially for Warwickshire in the context of the current West Midlands devolution deal and the being-discussed West Midlands deeper devolution deal would need to be worked up in negotiation with the Government. So that will not be sorted out any time soon, and the public in Warwickshire will have no idea at all about the financial implications; nor will the non-metropolitan district councils in Warwickshire have any idea what it means for them, or of the financial consequences.

The paper that I have read is mistaken. It says in paragraph 2.7:

“A change in membership status to ‘constituent member’ for Warwickshire County Council”


—in other words, Warwickshire coming in means it becomes a constituent member of the combined authority—

“would also have implications for the five District and Borough Councils in the County who would automatically be admitted as constituent members”

of the combined authority. The paper goes on to say:

“It is recognised that the level of financial contribution as a constituent member could be challenging for the District and Borough Councils and if levied at the current ‘constituent member’ level would mean Warwickshire Councils as a whole contributing a disproportionate amount compared to other members”.


Well, that would be a matter of concern. I am sure that this, if successful, would have financial consequences for the non-metropolitan district councils. But the paper is wrong. Again, in paragraph 4.16, it says that district councils will be constituent members of the combined authority.

I take the Minister back to our debates on district councils. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made it clear that

“the combined county authority is a new institutional model made up of upper-tier local authorities only. Only two-tier county councils and unitary councils can be constituent members of a CCA”.—[Official Report, 27/2/23; col. 111.]

I suspect that this error was made in the rush to produce all this paper, but a district council in Warwickshire would be left very uncertain about what all this means.

We can see a proud, independent and delightful county, Warwickshire—I am a member of Warwickshire County Cricket Club—being more and more absorbed into the West Midlands Combined Authority, where urban interests are bound to dominate. Do the people of Warwickshire really want this? Do other shire counties and the people in them want it? I very much doubt it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 25, 27, 35 and 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, regard the boundaries and memberships of CCAs and combined authorities. The Bill includes our intended criteria for establishing and changing boundaries of CCAs and CAs in Clauses 44, 46, 62 and 63.

Proposals to change the area of a combined county area are generated locally in line with our principle of locally led devolution. The process to propose a boundary change must include a public consultation being undertaken. The Secretary of State has to assess any such proposals, including the results of the consultation, against a set of statutory tests and will consent to making the requisite secondary legislation only if they are content that the statutory tests are met. The legislation is therefore subject to a triple lock of agreement from the Secretary of State, the consent of the local area and parliamentary approval. I think it is important that we look at that as a triple lock.

Any proposal from the local area has to demonstrate that it will improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of the people who live and work in the area, suitably reflecting their identities and the interests of local communities, and will deliver effective and convenient local government. As such, the expansion of a CCA or CA cannot be pursued for political advantage. It must benefit the local area.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I want to ask for clarification. The test is to carry out a consultation. When the Secretary of State takes that consultation with the local community into account, can he make a decision against what the majority of that community voted for?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is more complex than that. It is not a referendum but a consultation. Therefore, there will be many views for, against, in the middle and all over the place, but he will obviously have to take account of views. If everyone said they did not want something, I am sure the Secretary of State would take note of that; it is part of those tests.

The main focus of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which the noble Baroness brought up, is a rolling programme of electoral reviews of local authorities; this is where its skills and experience mainly lie. It would not be appropriate to consult it on the proposed boundaries of CCAs and CAs. The requirement for public consultation and statutory tests for regulations provide, we believe, sufficient protection that further consultation is unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

Amendments 37 to 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to remove Clauses 40 to 42, which set out the process to allow the mayor of a CCA to change to a locally appropriate title that resonates with local stakeholders. Some areas are reluctant to adopt a mayor governance model as they feel the word “mayor” would be confusing and inappropriate for their area, preventing access to a strong devolution deal.

We had this discussion in Committee. There are many areas in this country where every town in a county, or even a district, will have a local mayor. That has been an issue for some authorities when they look into a CCA for the future. The noble Lord talked about directly elected leaders. Some authorities have said to us that they would prefer to call the person who leads—doing the same job as a mayor in a county authority—a “directly elected leader”. It is just a name; the job itself is the same.

To minimise confusion, the clauses include the protection of a shortlist of possible titles—it does not have to be used; it just gives some ideas—as well as a mechanism for areas to use any other title they choose, providing they have regard to other public officeholders’ titles in the area of that authority. We are trying to give as much local flexibility as possible to allow for local circumstances, so that the name of the directly elected person to lead that combined authority is the best name to use in that area.

Amendment 52, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, regarding the timing of an order changing a combined authority’s area, would add further inflexibility to the process. An MCA can be expanded only at the time of a mayoral election, for reasons of democratic accountability; those affected by the mayor’s decisions will have had the opportunity to take part in that mayor’s election. Consequently, it can already be several years between an area expressing an interest in joining an MCA and such expansion coming into force. Introducing additional inflexibility would impede and potentially further delay—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not delay the House for long but, with the greatest respect, this was a twinkle in the eye of Mayor Street a few months ago when the Wolverhampton Express & Star reported it. People in Warwickshire were innocently going about their own business, then along came Mr Gove to put pressure on them to make this application. The Minister is indulging in a fantasy that this is somehow driven by Warwickshire people desperate to join the West Midlands.

I joke about Wiltshire but the Minister will know about the sensitivities of shire counties and their relationship with urban metropolitan districts, which I well understand. My noble friend Lady Anderson’s Staffordshire would be another case in point; it would not wish to be ruled, in a sense, from Birmingham. It really is too much: the rules are being changed to allow for one gerrymander, in a foolish attempt to save Mr Street’s political career. That really will not do.

I am not going to go on because we have two other groups. In the next—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are finishing at the end of this group.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Sorry, I know that, but we are going to have further debates on this because the amendments have been split between groups eight, nine and 10. That is why I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as we have said before, there are clear regulations that the Secretary of State will look at when he considers any bid. We have made it clear that they have to be geographically sensible economic areas, so I cannot think of anything growing and growing, because it will not. But it will be local people who put forward the bid; the Government will not be saying to any local area, “You have to join”. These are locally led bids for areas that local people think are the right economic areas to do business in and to deliver for them. How big will they be, realistically? They will not be what the noble Baroness suggests, of course, because those would be too big to be really good economic areas, but it is up to local people to do this, as I keep saying.

One of the principles that underpin our devolution agenda is that devolution deals are agreed and implemented over a sensible geography. We want to remove any barriers to neighbouring local authorities joining a combined authority where there is a strong economic, social and environmental rationale for doing so. The new local consent arrangements under Clause 57 mean that the decision would be given to the mayor and council wishing to join the CA. The mayor is democratically accountable to the whole existing CA area, so it is right that they should be the decision-taker for decisions on changes to that whole area.

The arrangements proposed in this amendment could mean that an expansion of a CA area that evidence shows would be likely to improve outcomes for the proposed whole new area could end up being vetoed by just one existing constituent council if the CA’s local constituency requires unanimous agreement from its members on this matter. This has been an issue in the past. This potential impediment to furthering devolution cannot be right; one small authority cannot stop a larger area that wants to grow to be more economically viable.

In his explanatory statement for Amendment 53A, the noble Lord references

“reports that areas may be added to the West Midlands Combined Authority prior to the 2024 Mayoral Election”.

Warwickshire County Council’s plans are part of a local process for the area—county and district councils—and it is up to it to apply to join the WMCA. If Warwickshire decides to pursue this, it will undertake a public consultation, following which it may submit its proposals to the Government. The Government will carefully consider any such proposals, as statute provides. No decisions have been taken by the Government. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to not move his amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to quite a charged debate. I thought I was quite good on the geography of the West Midlands, but I learned a bit tonight. We are not entirely satisfied with where the Bill is on this issue at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, I feel sure that we will return to this.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. It is not my intention to speak at length about them or to test the opinion of the House.

I have a great concern about the role of audit. I do not think that the existence of Oflog is sufficient to address the problems that we have experienced recently around processes in local government being inadequate to prevent excessive expenditure—particularly capital expenditure—which has spiralled out of control. There is a big issue for local authorities and combined authorities to address in terms of their ability to undertake an audit effectively. We are aware that a number of local authorities have not had their audits signed off for some time. There seems to be a capacity problem across local government in terms of the audit function.

All that said, my amendment is not a matter on which I will divide the House. I just hope that Ministers will try to address the issue of capacity in the audit function on audit committees where they exist. There will be audit committees for a CCA. I would like to think that enough expertise will be there to do the job properly. Simply to have at least one member is not enough. I have proposed a minimum of three. This is very important. When councillors are members of an audit committee, they have many demands on their time. What is required is a more professional focus of those who are trained in the area.

The second amendment relates to the ability of an audit committee, where it exists, to publish a report. At the moment, it is required to report to the CCA. I do not know what will happen if the CCA decides that it does not like it or does not want to publish it. Does the CCA have the power to prevent publication? I hope to hear from the Minister that something can be done to reassure me that an audit committee of a CCA can publish a report, even if the CCA does not wish it to do so, where the audit committee believes it to be in the public interest.

These two amendments are as simple as that. I am very happy for the Minister to take the issue away, to see what might happen when some of these statutory instruments start to come through your Lordships’ House. I beg to move Amendment 32.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I want to express our support for the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and to reiterate our concerns around audit and Oflog and how that will operate within its responsibilities. We need to ensure that there is a sufficient set-up to deal with the huge problems facing local authorities regarding audit. We know that some authorities have not had an audit for years, so this is clearly a real problem. We thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendments and hope that the Minister and the department will look carefully at his concerns and constructive suggestions, as we really need to resolve this issue.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to increase the transparency of CCAs. Greater functions and funding must come with strong accountability, but that must go hand in hand with decisions being made at the most local level possible. I can deal with this quite briefly and, I hope, to the noble Lord’s satisfaction.

As the Bill is drafted, a CCA’s audit committee can appoint three independent members, should it wish to, but it should be a matter for the CCA to decide exactly how many above one. The regulations that will establish the combined county authorities will set out the audit committee arrangements. They will provide that, where practicable, the membership of the audit committee reflects the political balance of the constituent councils of the combined county authority. Membership may not include any officer from the combined county authority or the combined county authority’s constituent councils. The regulations will provide for audit committees to appoint at least one independent person.

As regards transparency, in addition, Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 provides powers to require the publication of reports of a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, including audit committees. Schedule 4 to this Bill already includes a consequential amendment to apply Part VA to CCAs.

I hope that that is helpful. The noble Lord has already kindly said that he will not press his amendment, but I hope that what I have said will reassure him.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

36: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: future relationships(1) Within 30 days of this act receiving Royal Assent, a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement on plans for the future relationship between Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners.(2) The statement must include details on their distinct responsibilities and whether there are any plans to transfer functions between the two roles.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment intends to ensure that the government provides clarity over the future role of Mayors and PCCs.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 36 is designed to provide clarity over the future relationships, roles and responsibilities of elected mayors and police and crime commissioners. The number of elected regional mayors has grown in recent years, and the Government clearly want to create more. At the same time, it also appears that the Bill’s proposals will allow these mayors to take over, rather than run alongside, the role of PCCs. Is it the Government’s intention to gradually phase out the elected PCCs?

This matters, of course, because policing has never been under more scrutiny and public confidence in some forces is, unfortunately, at rock bottom. Although PCCs do not have operational control over local forces, being watchdogs rather than police chiefs, the hiring and firing of chief constables is among their powers. Some mayors would quite like those powers for themselves, so may seek a mandate to take them when they are next up for election. We know that the next PCC and mayoral elections are due in 2024—next year—and that there are already strong feelings in some areas as to who should have the job of holding the police to account.

Current legislation allows for a CCA mayor to apply to become the PCC, first, if the majority of their constituent councils agree and, secondly, following any consultation. The Bill removes those conditions, even the need to consult. Clearly, consultation should be essential for a change as big as this.

In Committee, the Minister said that

“councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC. That is the job of the local police. Therefore, there is no crossover in that way”.—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1143.]

There was concern about that statement at the time. As my noble friend Lady Taylor and others said, this is simply not the case. Councils look at anti-social behaviour; they look at domestic abuse work with their police colleagues. They have issues related to local area policing. Councils set priorities with local policing teams and deliver services jointly to address these priorities. District councils have a community safety plan, a committee and a chair, with constant interaction between the PCC’s office and the councils, including the county council.

To say that there is no crossover between councils and PCCs is, we believe, a false argument to justify what is planned as a simple takeover of functions. I say this to make it clear that we support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach, Amendments 54 and 307A, which I understand are to be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also assure my noble friend Lord Hunt that if he wishes to push his Amendment 53A to a vote, he will have our support.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman. My noble friend Lord Bach is addressing a memorial meeting in Leicestershire for the late chief constable with whom he worked very closely as police and crime commissioner.

To bring it back to my local patch, my concern is that Clause 59 means that the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority can become the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands Police whenever he wants, without consultation or an open debate about the consequences for the West Midlands. That is a local example of what my noble friend Lady Hayman has just described. I recognise that a mayor can become a police and crime commissioner if he or she has general support, as I think has happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire, but in the West Midlands that support has not been forthcoming. The local authorities did not agree to it.

We have got used to voting for a police and crime commissioner. As it happens, it has been for a Labour one each time—most recently in May 2021, on the very same day that we voted for a Conservative mayor. There is no suggestion that the two postholders cannot work well together. Both were elected. I do not understand what the argument for change is. What is the argument for essentially nullifying the result of an election if it does not seem to suit one party?

This is compounded by Amendment 307, which allows the West Midlands mayor to take on PCC powers on Royal Assent—this could happen in September. What is the rush? If the Government are determined to go ahead with this clause, surely it should be done in a seemly and orderly fashion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I hope I have clarified that point. What happens in the future happens in the future; we are talking about this Bill, and the Bill does not change that at all. As I said, the levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspiration for, where policing and combined authority boundaries align, combined authority mayors to take the lead on public safety and take on the role of the PCC—and to take steps to remove the barriers to more CA mayors taking on PCC functions.

In an area where a devolution deal is agreed and the policing and CA boundaries are not coterminous, the Government wish to encourage close co-operation between the combined authority mayor and the PCC. While it is important for the area to shape exactly what strong partnership looks like in practice, one way of achieving this would be to use the non-constituent or associate membership model being established via provisions in the Bill. This could allow the PCC a seat at the table and allow the combined authority to confer voting rights on the PCC on matters relevant to public safety. The information and clarifications sought by this amendment are, we believe, already available, and we do not agree that there is any need for a further statement.

I turn to Amendment 54. Clause 59 amends the existing provisions concerning the local consent requirements for the combined authority mayors to take on the functions of a PCC. This reflects that this transfer is merely a process whereby functions are transferred from one directly elected person to another, without any implications for the local authorities in the area. Clause 59 maintains the triple-lock model for conferring functions. That triple lock is that any transfer or conferral of powers needs local consent, the agreement of the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament.

The change which Clause 59 makes is that in future, local consent will be given simply by the mayor, who is democratically accountable across the whole area. The transfer of PCC functions to a mayor in no way diminishes the role of local government in community safety. The local authority’s role in community safety partnerships remains the same and the police and crime panel will still exist, being responsible for scrutinising the mayor as the PCC in the same way it scrutinised the PCC.

A mayor having PCC functions will, we believe, be able more successfully to pursue their other ambitions and secure better overall outcomes for their community. A deputy mayor for policing and crime is appointed who can take on certain day-to-day responsibilities for this role, ensuring that the mayor can continue to focus on all their other priorities. The Government are clear that we expect mayors to discuss any proposal seeking a transfer of a PCC function with their combined authority in advance of submitting a request for such a transfer to government. This is in line with the existing expectation that mayors seek the views of the relevant PCC, whose consent is not required in legislation.

There is evidence of the considerable benefits that a mayor having PCC functions brings. For example, in Greater Manchester, following Greater Manchester Police’s escalation to “Engage” by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, and the resignation of its former chief constable, the mayor appointed a new chief constable to develop and lead the force’s transformation programme, the result of which has been to ensure that the force focuses on getting the basics right and improving outcomes for the region. Under the leadership of the chief constable and with oversight and support from the mayor, Greater Manchester Police is now responding faster to emergency calls, and the number of open investigations has halved since 2021, and the inspectorate released the force from “Engage” in October 2022 on the strength of the confidence in its improvement trajectory. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was clear that he, as the PCC for Greater Manchester, was accountable if things did not improve and that he should be held to account at the ballot box.

And finally, my Lords—although I think that says it all—government Amendment 307 provides for early commencement of Clause 59, which would allow for the statutory requirements that enable a transfer of PCC functions to CA mayors to be undertaken from the date of Royal Assent. This will enable the timely implementation of secondary legislation required for PCC function transfers to mayors to take place in time for the May 2024 elections.

The Government’s intention is to align as far as possible with the Gould principle relating to electoral management, which would suggest that any statutory instruments transferring PCC functions to mayors for May 2024 should be laid six months ahead of the elections in early November to provide notice to candidates, the electorate and the electoral administrations of any changes. It is for these reasons that the Government are unable to accept Amendment 307A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It would time out any PCC transfers in time for mayoral combined authority elections in 2024 where there is a local desire for this.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the early commencement amendment for Clause 59 and that, following these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I make clear that this amendment, to which I have added my name, is about local authorities having the option to make some of their meetings virtual or hybrid. It is not about going back to having all meetings held virtually; it is about having the option to do so where that makes sense in local circumstances.

During the Covid pandemic, we learned that virtual meetings could be conducted and worked well, in accordance with local authority conduct of meetings. There is no problem with the legality of how they were conducted. I accept the noble Baroness’s point about how we need to be together in a democracy but that is difficult on some occasions, and some people will be excluded if we do not provide an option for local authorities to make meetings accessible by making them virtual.

For example, people with disabilities find it more difficult to travel to a meeting in person—and then there are those with caring responsibilities and those with demanding work schedules. In many parts of the country now, people have long commutes to work. That option of a virtual meeting means that they can fulfil the responsibilities of being a local elected councillor as well as being in work. We do not want to revert to a situation in which local councils attract only people who are retired, because they are the only ones who have time or are able to go to meetings. We want as broad a selection as we can of people from our communities to become councillors, including the young and old, people with disabilities and people with caring responsibilities. We need them on our councils so that those voices are heard. That is one reason why the option—and it is an option—of holding meetings virtually is important.

The second is the huge size of some of the councils that the Government have now created. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, used the example of North Yorkshire, which is now a unitary council. People know where Selby is now, so I will use the example of Selby, which is in the south of the southern tip of North Yorkshire. To travel to a meeting in Northallerton, where the county headquarters is, means covering a distance of about 53 miles, which would take probably an hour and a half—so it is a three-hour round trip to go to a council meeting. Think of how many people that will exclude: those who cannot drive would not be able to get there, as there are no buses and no trains, or very few. This is not like London. In the winter North Yorkshire has snow, which makes it even more difficult to get physically to meetings, which is when a virtual option makes really good sense. There is also the example of this House, which has managed perfectly well holding its Select Committees virtually. If we can do it here, surely local authorities should be allowed to do it.

My last point is that this amendment is to a part of the Bill on devolution. If devolution means anything, it means that local authorities and local councils should be able to make the decisions that matter to them—to have the flexibility to make decisions appropriate to their situation. We know that the Local Government Association, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, is fully supportive of this amendment and this approach. We will obviously listen very carefully to the response by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but if the noble Baroness is not satisfied with the response and wishes to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches, for the reasons I have given, will fully support her.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing that we have heard in the debates in Committee and today is that councillors are a vital part of our local democracy; they represent the needs of their residents and they work to improve outcomes for their local communities. But it is also important that any good decision-making is done by people who reflect their local communities and bring a range of experience, backgrounds and insight. As we have heard, by law, councillors have to attend meetings in person at the moment. We have also heard how important Zoom and Teams were for councils to continue to meet and the public to continue to take part during lockdown and the pandemic. It also brought people together and involved more people than previously in many cases.

We debated at length in Committee the benefits of continuing to allow virtual attendance at council meetings. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, thoroughly introduced that when she spoke to her amendment, and I am very happy to support her in what she is trying to do. Unfortunately, the Government withdrew this ability. We know that it supports a large range of people, as the noble Baroness laid out: the parents of young children, carers, disabled people and people with long-term illnesses. It enables them to come forward and represent their communities and encourages wider public participation, which is surely a good thing.

When we think about access to participation, why would the Government not lower barriers to that participation? Why can we not have virtual participation in council meetings as an option? We think that councils should have the flexibility to decide for themselves whether this is a useful tool that they can use. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also mentioned, as have others, the option that we have in this House for virtual participation by those with disabilities and health issues. As others have asked, why at the very least can we not have the same dispensation for local councils that we have here in this House? The Government need to look at this again. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to replicate the situation created by the time-limited regulations that the Government made during the pandemic using powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that gave local authorities the flexibility to meet remotely or in hybrid form. Those regulations expired on 7 May 2021, and since that date all councils have reverted to in-person meetings. The Covid regulations, if I may refer to them in that way, were welcomed when they were issued for very good reasons, but they were nevertheless reflective of a unique moment in time, when a response to exceptional circumstances was needed. That moment has now passed, and the Government are firmly of the view that democracy must continue to be conducted face to face, as it has been for the last two years and for most of history prior to the pandemic.

Noble Lords have argued with some force as to the benefits of meeting remotely, and I completely understand why those arguments should be put forward. In the end, however, they are arguments based on one thing alone—expediency. With great respect, those arguments miss the point.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly respect the noble Lord, but it is Report and I hope he will understand that point—but I am also coming on to the very point that he has raised. He is absolutely right about the expectations of the public.

I suggest that the point at the heart of this issue lies in one of the core principles of local democracy, which is that citizens are able to attend council meetings in person and to interact in person with their local representatives. To allow for a mechanism that denies citizens the ability to do this, ostensibly on grounds of convenience, is in fact to allow for a dilution of good governance and hence a dilution of democracy in its fullest sense.

Councils take decisions that can fundamentally alter the lives of people. Where an elected authority comes together to impose such changes, it should be prepared to meet in the presence of those whose lives are affected. I shall exaggerate a little to make a point, and I do not mean to cause offence to anyone—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have talked about having the same as here. We all meet together, but other people can come in.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

63: After Clause 78, insert the following new Clause—
“Fair funding reviewThe Secretary of State must publish the fair funding review within one year of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
The Secretary of State must publish the fair funding review setting out baseline funding allocations for local authorities within one year of the day on which this Act is passed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have one amendment in this group, on the fair funding review. The review document was first published some time ago, back in December 2017. We are concerned that virtually nothing has happened in those five, nearly six, years to bring about its implementation.

We know that local government needs its core funding to have long-term security in order to make proper budgetary decisions and to ensure that it can meet all its obligations. So, the fact that reforms to local government funding have been delayed time and again is of great concern. We are particularly concerned now—we were initially told that they were being delayed until April 2023, but they now seem to be delayed beyond the next general election. For some authorities, the delay will simply postpone an inevitable reduction in funding, which is concerning in itself, but for others it could mean waiting up to at least two more years for funding to come close to catching up with their needs.

I stress that what we are talking about here is the critical core funding; it is not related to the other different pots the Government have for councils to bid and apply for. It is the central, critical core funding that councils receive.

What is the Government’s expectation about when these funding reforms will be implemented? Is it going to be in 2026-27? Is it likely, by any chance, to come in earlier, or could it even be later? It is important that local government has some sort of clear idea about when to expect it. Is the Minister able to give any oversight on the factors likely to govern and influence the timing of implementation? What kind of package of funding reforms is currently under consideration within the fair funding review?

Given that it has been quite a long time—more than five years, coming up to six—do the Minister and his department believe that the proposals which came out then are still fit for purpose? Are they flexible enough to deal with the shifts in available data and the different council service models that have come forward as a result of Covid-19? There have been quite a number of changes and responses to the pandemic.

We tabled this amendment because we feel that the Government need to act urgently in this area and to basically just get on with it. Our amendment would ensure that within a year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the fair funding review, which would include setting out the baseline funding allocations for local authorities. We believe this is necessary to bring to an end so much uncertainty for local authority budgeting and to allow our councils to plan and deliver the services our communities need. I look forward to the Minister’s assurances.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 66 would repeal Section 13 of the Elections Act 2022. Its aim is to reinstate the supplementary vote system for police and crime commissioners in England and Wales, the Mayor of London, combined authority mayors and local authority mayors in England. I said earlier today that there was an excess of centralisation in this Bill and other structures that have been created around combined authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

In addition, in practical terms, Section 13 of the Elections Act works together with a suite of statutory instruments which were also approved by your Lordships in 2022. Those statutory instruments made consequential changes to the rules for how mayoral and PCC elections are conducted, and to the ballot paper and other forms to ensure consistency with the first past the post voting system. Repealing Section 13 would therefore leave an incomplete and inconsistent legislative framework, which could lead to confusion for those tasked with administering elections.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response. However, I would like to make a couple of points. I do not think he has addressed the fact that we still have this huge issue of funding not being fairly allocated. That is the whole consideration. I completely appreciate that the figures are different now and that things have moved on; the Covid pandemic changed the situation for councils. But how long will it be before further consultations and discussions take place? How long will it be before we have another proposal, and will that be looking at fair reallocation? This is something that has been promised to councils for an awfully long time, and it is frustrating that it is potentially going to drag on for years longer, because we still have that disparity of core funding.

The extra funding mentioned by the Minister such as the levelling-up funds is not part of what we are talking about in this instance. It does not deal with the fundamental problem of the long-term fairness of allocation of funds right across the board. The Government may say that they are giving a particular council some extra money or there is this bit coming in, but that does not deal with the ability of councils to know in the long term what kind of funding to expect and be able to budget and plan services accordingly.

Finally, the lack of fair funding, which means that many poorer areas have less money, is only exacerbated by council tax returns—richer areas tend to receive more because their properties are of a higher value—and this is particularly true for business rates, as poorer communities do not tend to have businesses that pay the higher rates of tax to local authorities. So, while I will withdraw my amendment, I really think that this needs to be considered in more detail.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

It is reassuring to understand that the Government are binding themselves to consult and to seek legislative competence. At this point, I certainly would not oppose the amendments, I welcome the discussions that have occurred and am grateful for the briefings that have been held.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I want briefly to comment on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. She talked about her concerns about Clause 148 and its weak requirement regarding the devolved nations. She particularly talked about the fact that it is problematic for Northern Ireland, and we note that there are concerns about the regression risk that this part of the Bill could bring. She also mentioned the fact that the Scottish Government have expressed their opposition to the Bill on those grounds. In Committee on 18 May, the noble Earl stated that the UK Government were having

“discussions with the devolved Governments on how these powers should operate”.—[Official Report, 18/5/23; col. 447.]

We believe that the amendments tabled by my noble friend help to resolve the concerns expressed by requiring Ministers to secure the consent of a devolved Administration before setting EOR regulations within the competence of that Administration, rather than simply consulting them. We very much support the amendments in the name of my noble friend.

It is worth pointing out that this means that there has still been no movement regarding Scotland, and it would be good to know that those discussions are still ongoing to try to make some progress.

A concern to mention briefly on the government amendments is around those that relate to the habitats regulations. The Bill allows for changes to the existing regulations with only a vague non-regression commitment in Clause 147. I just point out that this is why I have Amendment 106 in group 5, which creates a robust non-regression test, and that is one reason I tabled that—just to tie the two groups together, so that the noble Earl has some frame of reference on where we are coming from on that. Having said that, if he can provide further clarity on the issues raised by my noble friend, I am sure we will be very grateful.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am, as ever, grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for the way in which she spoke to her amendments and for her experience in devolved matters generally. She will have heard that we consider that the Government’s amendments speak to the substance of her amendments and, in fact, go further in extending the powers to make EOR regulations for all of the devolved Administrations.

The Government consider it crucial that these powers are made available across the United Kingdom to allow for continued close co-operation and interoperability between environmental assessment regimes across the UK. Securing this ability to work together across the different jurisdictions reduces the risk of harmful divergence. This is particularly crucial for areas such as offshore wind, where minimising delay and cost is vital if we are to meet our environmental commitments and achieve energy security.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, spoke of these powers being imposed on devolved Administrations. The first point to make in that context is that there is no obligation or time limit under the powers for the devolved Administrations to use the powers that Part 6 would grant them. The powers would be exercisable at the discretion of the devolved Administrations if they chose to use them. However, these are powers that would allow devolved Administrations broad scope to implement their own new system of environmental assessment.

In addition, the model would mean that, where assessment is needed under both EOR and an existing EIA/SEA regime, whether in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the development or plan need satisfy only one of the regimes, avoiding the need for duplication. Without the ability to adopt EOR, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations would have no interoperability and gradually increasing divergence, and that could mean certain projects or plans requiring assessment under two separate regimes far into the future, which, as is obvious, could lead to a chilling effect on development of certain types and in certain locations, as well as cross-border plans. Devolved Administrations adopting these powers would not completely remove the risk of divergence, as the current powers model would allow devolved Administrations complete discretion on what their system of environmental assessment looks like, but it would retain the potential for continued alignment where this is considered beneficial.

The noble Baroness raised a number of points and questions about Northern Ireland, and I shall ensure that these are taken up at departmental level and that the department keeps in touch with her about the action being taken. I just pick up the issue she raised of the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland. In the current situation, with the Assembly not sitting, Northern Ireland is clearly not in a position to provide legislative consent for the Bill, so in respect of Part 6, the UK Government propose to extend these powers to Northern Ireland on the same basis as that agreed with the Welsh Government. This is not a decision that the UK Government have taken lightly, but we believe it is the right approach in these circumstances, as it preserves the opportunity for reform for a future Executive in a way that preserves the unique situation on the island of Ireland.

Legislating in this way provides Northern Ireland with safeguards on the use of these powers that would ensure that the consent of relevant Northern Ireland departments was required if the UK Government wished to use the powers in Part 6 to legislate for matters within devolved legislative competence. Not extending the powers in this way would mean the loss of these safeguards, as well as the loss of the opportunity for the Northern Ireland Executive to benefit from these powers once the Executive have been restored.

I am conscious that the noble Baroness has sought to introduce amendments for each of the devolved Administrations. While the Government share the noble Baroness’s view that it would be best for each Administration to be placed on an even footing, at this stage the amendments provide the Scottish Government with concurrent powers, but on slightly different terms from those of Wales and Northern Ireland. However, we are continuing to engage with the Scottish Government on this issue and remain open to extending the same provisions to the Scottish Government to place each Administration on the same footing, should they agree to that. On the basis of discussions continuing, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Lansley, for throwing some much-needed light on the practicalities of community land auctions. During the debate in Committee, a number of us expressed scepticism about the value of having this in the Bill and how it will work. Nevertheless, it is a pilot scheme; there are plenty of reservations in the Bill itself that may make it more difficult for the blue-sky thinking of the think tanks, this having been brought forward at a late stage of the Bill.

There are some voices in the housing sector that support the proposal of community land auctions. Their argument is that this is the best way of extracting a fair portion of the enhanced land value that allocation for development ensures. That is what they say. Others argue, as did the noble Lords, that it will have the perverse effect of buying planning permissions—I think that was the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Young, used in Committee. For me, time will tell. The noble Lords have said they will not push this amendment, so time will tell whether the scheme is attractive to councils and whether it will then deliver what its proponents claim.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said. The issue is that, on paper, this looks quite sensible, but when we start to dig into it and look at it, that peters away. That is one of the problems.

There is an assumption that the option value will be significantly less than the market value for housing development, which we have mentioned. That is not necessarily going to work out in practice; it is a flawed idea when you look at how it works practically. The circumstances for which the theoretical arrangement is designed are really a collection of small, completely substitutable land parcels with a number of different owners. I do not know that that necessarily bears much resemblance, in reality, to the characteristics of land management and the market across the country. That is one of our concerns. Further, the idea that auctions are going to drive down land prices in the absence of any element of compulsion is, we think, pretty unlikely, to say the least. There is an example of that with Transport for London’s disappointing experience with the development rights auction model, which failed to deliver.

Thirdly, if the arrangements prove to be workable in practice, it will almost certainly be an attractive proposition only in areas where there is significant housing demand and high land values; so I do not necessarily see it as something that will be practical to roll out around the country.

On those key points, I think it has been a discussion worth having.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

100: Clause 143, page 171, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that climate and other key environmental considerations, including improving the condition of protected sites, will be included in the new EOR regime.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is made up of four amendments in my name. They are designed to ensure that climate and other key environmental considerations are included in the new environmental outcomes reports, the details of which will be set out in secondary legislation, as we have heard; and to probe whether the EORs will support the UN’s sustainable development goals. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on these matters in her response.

My Amendment 106 specifically asks that the new system

“does not weaken existing environmental protections”;

in other words, it is an amendment to ensure non-regression. Environmental assessments play an important role in limiting nature and climate harms from planning decisions. Such an extensive series of changes to environmental assessments, delivered largely through regulations, could, we believe, open the door to environmental regression that has limited parliamentary scrutiny. Concerns to this effect have been expressed by the Office for Environmental Protection and a number of environmental NGOs.

Unfortunately, the one safeguard in this part of the Bill fails to address the regression risk. Clause 147 states:

“The Secretary of State may make EOR regulations only if satisfied that”


the

“overall level of environmental protection”

will not be less than before. The stipulation overall undermines the utility of this safeguard as the effect is to allow the Secretary of State to weaken individual existing protections as long as they consider this to be balanced out elsewhere in order to maintain overall levels.

We discussed this issue at some length in Committee, so I will not go into detail on the risks that we believe this approach carries. However, it remains unclear why this low-bar test for new regulations has been chosen over the higher bar provided by the Environment Act, Section 20 of which requires Ministers to state that new legislation will not reduce the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law. My amendment would apply this recent and relevant non-regression precedent to EOR regulations, thereby ensuring that environmental protection is not weakened through the introduction of the new EOR regime by specifying that the Secretary of State should demonstrate that EOR regulations would not diminish any individual environmental protection applying at the time that the Bill passes. This would have the effect of aligning Clause 147 with the Environment Act and the Government’s own commitment, as stated in Committee, to use the EOR regime as an

“opportunity to protect the environment”.—[Official Report, 18/5/23; col. 444.]

I urge the Minister to consider accepting my amendment as the provision of a robust non-regression clause is the minimum required to ensure that the proposed EOR regime does not harm the environment.

A series of government amendments on Report—including Amendments 133 and 138, which we have debated today—seek to define more closely the environmental protections that would be subject to the new EOR powers. However, this listing exercise provides little to no assurance that environmental regression will not take place. We believe that the threat of environmental regression is significant. In its response just last month, in June, to the Government’s EOR consultation, the Office for Environmental Protection observed that

“there are risks associated with a move from well-established regimes when so much rides on effective delivery over the next few years (and beyond)”.

To address these risks, Clause 147 needs to be strengthened and non-regression assured before the EOR regime is introduced. My amendments would achieve this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 106 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

I have been a great fan of the habitats regulations over the years; I was part of the movement that helped shape them and they have done some pretty sterling work for us, both here in this country as well as across Europe. They have one major feature at the moment: they are understood by both the development community and the environmental movement. There is a shedload of case law that surrounds them, enabling people to understand quite considerably and in detail how they operate. However, I accept that we move on; that is Brexit for you.

The regulations are now being replaced in what I regard as a rather piecemeal fashion but, nevertheless, that is what we have got. So we must make sure that all the building blocks that are being put in place to replace the habitats regulations are going to work properly; and this block, reflected in Amendment 106, is an important one. This is a risky time to be meddling with environmental assessment regimes, when we are at a crisis stage on the climate and biodiversity—but we are where we are, so let us have a look at how we can make this better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require that all regulations made under Part 6 specify environmental outcomes, whether or not they actually relate to the outcomes themselves. This would place a significant burden on subsequent regulations and would require outcomes across every process element, even where not relevant—for example, on regulations related to enforcement, exemptions and guidance.

We recognise that framing will be critical and recently carried out a consultation on how we can translate the Government’s ambitions into deliverable outcomes, which is surely the key consideration here. The Government have also legislated to ensure additional consultations on future outcomes, as well as adopting the affirmative procedure in Parliament on the associated regulations.

Regarding Amendment 101, the Government have been careful to ensure that the new system is capable of capturing all the current elements of the environmental assessment process. This allows the Secretary of State to consider health matters such as air pollution when setting outcomes. Impacts on human health are covered by “protection of people” in Clause 143(2)(b). When developing secondary legislation, we will consult with stakeholders to ensure that health-related commitments are sufficiently captured.

On Amendment 106, the drafting of Clause 147 mirrors the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement to ensure that, when bringing forward reforms, we live up to our commitment to non-regression. As well as departing from the existing drafting, Amendment 106 would create a rigid approach to non-regression. Removing “overall” from levels of environmental protection would remove the ability to look at the effect of reforms as a whole. When read alongside the commitment to international obligations and expansive duties to consult, we feel that the non-regression clause strikes the right balance to ensure EORs can be an effective tool in managing the environment.

Let me respond to all the noble Baronesses who have spoken by making it clear that, in creating a new system of environmental assessment, it is essential that the standards are kept high. The Government are committed to improving what exists and ensuring that we can deliver on the challenges we face in the 21st century. Focusing on environmental outcomes will allow the Government to set ambitions for plans and developments that build on the Environment Act and other environmental commitments. The legislation is clear that the Government cannot use these powers to reduce the level of environmental protection, and it includes a clause setting out this commitment to non-regression.

On Amendment 107, I have no reservation in saying that the UN sustainable development goals are crucial ambitions. The UK is committed to achieving them by 2030, as affirmed in the international development strategy and integrated review. The expansive nature of these goals is such that it is not possible for the planning and consenting frameworks within which EORs operate to support them all. To require the EOR regime to do so would significantly expand the scope of the assessment beyond the existing legal frameworks of the environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments.

This amendment would exacerbate the biggest issue with the current process, which is a mandatory list of topics that are required to be considered for all assessments, whether relevant or not. Listing matters to be considered in this way has resulted in overly long, complex and inaccessible documents, full of unnecessary material in case an omission invites legal challenge. It would thwart our efforts to make the process more effective, meaningful and manageable.

Environmental assessment was established as a tool to ensure that the environmental impacts of a development were not overlooked in favour of the social and economic priorities that drive development activity. A requirement to support the delivery of all goals would divert attention away from the EOR’s core purpose of providing an additional level of scrutiny of the effects of the development activity on the environment.

I hope this provides the reassurances necessary for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to withdraw her Amendment 100 and for the other amendments not to be moved when they are reached.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I have to say that I still have concerns about non-regression. If it works for the Environment Act, I do not understand why it would not work here. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I add our Benches’ support for Amendment 139 and will make three brief points. The first has been touched on by other Members, but I do not think the figures have been set out as strongly as they need to be.

If the Government are to achieve their 30 by 30 target by 2030, which is seven years away, they will have to rapidly increase the amount of protected areas that we have in the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, 25% of our protected areas are national parks and AONBs—15% of them AONBs and 10% national parks. If we do not use the opportunities in those protected landscapes, it is frankly inconceivable that we will be able to get to 30 by 30. We cannot just extrapolate and say that all those areas will be able to equate to the 30 by 30 target, but the strongest increases in purposes will enable the landowners, and people who care for that land, to help move towards that target.

The second issue is connectivity, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, touched on. Given the size of the national parks and AONBs, and given the threats to our species and the impacts of climate change, we know that we need more connectivity between our sites. These large areas of our national parks and AONBs offer the best opportunities, if not for 30 by 30 then for providing areas of respite and connectivity for species. I wanted to highlight that point.

My third point has been touched on by other Members and I just want to reiterate it. This amendment gives equal weight to the other existing statutory purposes for national parks and AONBs. It does not say that nature is above the requirements for economic activity in them, which we accept, or above the rights of people to live and work in—and enjoy—a national park, which we accept. It is saying that, at the moment, it is not on a level playing field, and given the nature biodiversity crisis that we have, we need all the statutory purposes to be on a level. We need people to work; we need our farmers; we need people to want to live there.

With the AONB where I am in Surrey, I know how much nature underpins the economic activity and businesses—the food producers and wood crafters. We need all that activity. We are not saying that nature needs to be above that but that, at the moment, as the Government themselves admitted in the Glover review response, the terminology—to conserve and enhance—is not strong enough. That is what the Government said; that it is not strong enough and that they would do something about it. This is the chance to give it that level pegging and this is the Bill to do it in. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the wording, can he please be clear in explaining why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say how much we support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. We have heard that it would deliver a new focus on nature by implementing the key recommendations from the Glover review of protected landscapes, all of which were previously agreed by the Government. This is an opportunity to move forward on them and I really hope that the Minister can give us some hope that we are going to achieve some of that.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for moving my noble friend Lord Randall’s Amendment 139. The Government recognise how precious our protected landscapes are, and the Environment Act’s recently commenced biodiversity duty will play a vital role in further improving their ability to deliver for nature. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is no point in talking about 30 by 30 as if it was a line on a map; it has to be a quality that we are seeking to protect. We are determined that national parks and AONBs should play their part in really protecting nature and the environment. I will come on to talk about socioeconomic activities when I respond to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s point.

However, the current statutory purposes are well established. Adding five purposes would cause confusion, particularly when it comes to prioritisation. Instead, we will publish an outcomes framework to define the expected contribution of protected landscapes to national targets later this year. This framework will be embedded within management plans to ensure they reflect the Government’s priorities—the priorities enshrined in the 25- year environment plan and in our environmental improvement plan, as part of the Environment Act. We believe this will deliver the desired outcomes in a less disruptive and more agile way than through legislation. We have also taken on board my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s excellent suggestion that new guidance would clarify interpretation of legislation. The Government will publish guidance this year on management plans and, next year, on the duties on public bodies.

I hope that is an important indication to your Lordships that we are determined to ensure that we achieve the kind of requirements for the purposes that these places were designated. When the 1949 Act was passed, no one was talking about climate change or about a crisis of species decline—but we are, and we want these landscapes to contribute to the response that this Government so passionately want to achieve, which is a reversal of the decline of species by 2030, with all those Lawton principles of bigger, better and more joined up absolutely functioning at the heart of it. I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to withdraw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

164: After Clause 202, insert the following new Clause—
“High street financial services(1) The Secretary of State must engage with local authorities to devise strategies to reduce the number of high street financial services becoming vacant premises.(2) For the purposes of this section high street financial services includes but is not limited to banks, post offices and cash machines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is aimed at protecting banks, post offices and cash machines on high streets by placing a new duty on the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Welcome back, everybody, to the levelling-up Bill. I have the only amendment in this group, Amendment 164 after Clause 202, which would insert a new clause about high street financial services. It says:

The Secretary of State must engage with local authorities to devise strategies to reduce the number of high street financial services becoming vacant premises … For the purposes of this section high street financial services includes but is not limited to banks, post offices and cash machines”—


although that is, of course, the most usual way of cash access to our financial services in our high streets.

We had a fairly robust discussion about this in Committee and the reason for introducing it is that I believe very strongly that we need to protect banks, post offices and cash machines on our high streets by placing a new duty on the Secretary of State. I am sure anyone who lives in any kind of rural community will have seen the number of bank branches in their local high street diminish substantially. Where I live in Cockermouth, I think we now have one bank left—and of course that is a continuing story. I looked at the figures. From 1986 to 2014, the number of bank branches on our high streets pretty much halved, which is an extraordinary number of closures. Unfortunately, that has continued and hundreds more have been closed this year. I think Barclays Bank is now predicting more closures.

We know that banks close branches to increase their profitability and to redirect investment, and we also know that it is partly in response to customers moving to online banking. The loss of branches potentially has little day-to-day impact on those who are able to move to online banking. It has more of an impact on those who need access to the physical services when they need them. We are particularly concerned about the effect of the closure of branches on people and businesses who need the physical infrastructure of a branch to visit and to make appointments to discuss financial issues.

In my community, we are particularly concerned that we have only one bank branch left in the town. We are extremely concerned about what will happen if that bank branch closes, because the impact on vulnerable people is particularly significant when the last bank branch in a local community goes. We know that an increasing number of people who live in rural areas now live at least 10 miles distant from their nearest bank branch, and this creates significant challenges for the disabled and elderly, who are less able to move to online banking. The Financial Conduct Authority has raised concerns that this could well be contributing to these groups’ financial exclusion, and it also has an impact on the 20% of small businesses with a turnover of below £2 million a year that use branches as their primary means of banking.

Bank closures also mean less access to cash. I know that when the branches have gone in our locality, the cash machines sometimes stay for a while, but after a time they also go. We have a number of events in Cumbria where cash is what people really need, and the queues for the one remaining cashpoint are enormous at those times. People might say, “Well, you can get these handheld things that you can tap your card or phone on”. That works only if you have very good internet access, which is not always the case in rural communities. I will give a personal example. My hairdresser has just given up on that method, so I am back to cash or cheques for my hairdresser. It is not unusual in certain rural areas for this to become a significant problem.

Back in May 2019, the Treasury Select Committee said that face-to-face banking

“is still a vital component of the financial services sector, and must be preserved”.

It also said:

“If the financial services market is unwilling to innovate to halt the closure of bank branches, market intervention by Government or the FCA may be necessary to force banks to provide a physical network for consumers”.


Some banks may say that they provide a mobile service and that this provides what consumers need. I have noticed that we sometimes have a mobile bank in our Sainsbury’s car park. I have to say, I have never seen anybody use it. That is, I think, because people do not know when it is coming and how long it will be there; it is also up quite a steep slope, which is not very good if you are vulnerable, elderly or disabled. So I do not think that that is the solution.

My amendment also talks about post offices. In order to increase the role of the Post Office, many banks came to agreements with the Post Office to enable consumers and businesses to use a range of branch banking services such as checking balances, paying in cheques, and withdrawing and paying in cash. Those arrangements covered 40% of business customers. In 2017, a banking agreement was agreed between the Post Office and major banks to cover the three-year period to 2019; a further agreement then came in in 2019. According to government, this extended banking services to nearly all the large banks’ personal customers and 95% of their small business clients.

The then Government said that

“the Post Office is not designed to replace the full range of services provided by traditional banks”.

Instead, the intention is

“to ensure that essential banking facilities remain freely available in as many communities as possible”.

That all sounds very good—except, of course, that we have seen a large number of post offices close. Last year, Citizens Advice analysis revealed that 206 post offices had closed in the previous two years—the equivalent of two closing every week—and closures are continuing. One in three rural post offices is now offered as a part-time outreach service, open for an average of just five and a half hours per week. That happened to a post office in one of the large villages near where I live: it maintained this service for a while but, because it was not getting the footfall since the hours were not at times when many people could go, eventually it stopped offering even that. It then moved into the village hall and people tried to do it through that route but, again, not with great success. It certainly does not replace the services of post offices and banks when they are fully functional.

To sum up, that is why my amendment is so important. People need access to cash and financial services. They often need to be able to talk face to face with somebody who understands their particular concerns; it is also important that that person is somebody whom they feel they can trust. So I do not believe that we can continue with these closures any longer. They put rural communities at a serious disadvantage and I urge the Minister to consider my amendment. I should also say that, if I do not receive sufficient reassurances from her, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment, although if it is pressed to a vote I will not be voting for it. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will understand.

I take this opportunity to press my noble friend the Minister to clarify, when she responds, the welcome advice given by the Treasury over the summer that any customer living in a rural area should be no further than three miles from a bank branch. This begs the question: why have Barclays and, presumably, other banks, taken this opportunity to undergo another raft of rural bank closures exactly when the Government have announced that rural customers should have the right to be within three miles of a branch?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, welcome back. Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seeks to reduce the closure of high street financial services. The nature of banking is changing, and the long-term trend is moving towards greater use of convenient, digital and remote banking services over traditional high street branches. In 2021, 86% of UK consumers used a form of remote banking, such as an app, online or on the phone.

Banking customers can also carry out their everyday banking at more than 11,500 post offices across the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Post Office network and have provided more than £2.5 billion in funding to support the Post Office network over the past decade and are providing a further £335 million for the Post Office between 2022 and 2025. There are more than 11,500 Post Office branches in the UK—the largest retail network in the country—and, thanks to government support, the network is more resilient today than it was a decade ago. The Government protect the Post Office network by setting minimum access criteria to ensure that 99% of the UK population lives within three miles of a post office. I do not know whether this is the figure that my noble friend mentioned earlier. Businesses can withdraw and deposit cash at any of those branches of the Post Office.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up a real issue, I think, and that is good internet access, particularly for banking services. The Government know that, and Project Gigabit is the Government’s £5 billion programme that will ensure that the whole of the UK benefits from gigabit connectivity by providing subsidy to deliver gigabit-capable connectivity to uncommercial premises, which are typically in very rural or remote locations. We have an ambition to connect at least 85 % of UK premises by 2025 and 99% by 2030, so we are working on what is a difficult and expensive issue—we know that, but we are working on it.

The Government cannot reverse the changes in the market and customer behaviour, nor can they can determine firms’ commercial strategies in response to those changes. Decisions on opening and closing branches or cash machines are taken by each firm on a commercial basis. However, the Government believe that the impact of such closures should be mitigated so that all customers have access to appropriate banking services.

Of course it is vital that those customers who rely on physical banking services are not left behind, which is why the Financial Conduct Authority has guidance in place to ensure that customers are kept informed of closures and that alternatives are put in place, where reasonable. The FCA’s new customer duty, which came into force on 31 July this year, further strengthens protections for consumers, as it will require firms to consider and address the foreseeable harm to customers of branch closures. These issues were debated extensively during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill in 2023, and through that legislation the Government have acted to protect access to cash by putting in place a framework to protect the provision of cash withdrawals and deposit facilities for the first time in UK law. This introduces new powers for the FCA to seek to ensure reasonable provision of cash-access services in the UK and, importantly in relation to personal current accounts, to free cash-access services. Following the passage of this new law, the Government published a statement setting out their policies on access to cash, which include an expectation that, in the event of a closure, if any alternative service is needed, that alternative should be put in place before the closure takes place.

Furthermore, the financial services sector has established initiatives to provide shared banking and cash services, an example being the banking hubs, which offer basic banking services and a private space where customers can see community bankers from their own bank or building society. Industry has already opened eight banking hubs and 70 more are on the way.

I have set out the comprehensive action the Government are taking to protect access to financial services in a way that recognises the changing nature of banking and respects the commercial decisions of UK businesses. This is why we believe that the right approach is being taken, and, while we agree with the noble Baroness’s intention, we cannot support this amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly those who have offered their support. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; I fully understand that she may not be able to join me in the Lobby if I call a vote. I appreciate the support offered by the Green Party through the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as well as the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made a really important point about the distances that have to be travelled, and the need to go to Exeter. My husband’s family are from Ottery St Mary, and I know the area well. When she said there were no banks there and she had to go to Exeter, I was quite horrified. That is an extremely potent example of the problem.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, of course, for putting her name to the amendment and for offering her support. I have to say that I was pretty disappointed with the Minister’s response. She said that banking is changing and people are now using “convenient” digital services, but the problem is that they are not convenient for everybody. That is the point I was trying to make when I introduced my amendment.

Also, the Post Office network is not always set up in the places and communities where it is needed. We have lost too many post offices and as was mentioned, they are often now not in separate buildings on the high street but at the back of or in the main part of shops. On going to the post office, I have ended up queuing for quite some time because of other people in the shop purchasing things, so it is not necessarily convenient, particularly if you have a lot of money on you. The problem of businesses having to travel large distances with a huge amount of cash has come up. I had not mentioned that issue but of course, it is very important.

The Minister talked about connectivity, but improving connectivity in rural areas has been talked about for years. There are parts of rural areas that are very difficult to connect, and they always seem to get left behind unless the local community agrees to pay what are often very large sums of money. So again, I am not convinced that that will solve the problem. The Minister also talked about having to follow the market. I strongly believe that financial services should be driven not by the market but by the fact that they are important to all our communities, whether we are talking about personal services or business services.

The key point I would like to make concerns the banking hubs. I do not know when we are going to see them. I have never seen one and I do not know what the rollout will be, but they do not seem to be replacing what has been lost.

Having said all that, I am not satisfied by the Minister’s response so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise—the Minister jumped up very quickly, but it has been good to hear his introduction to the government amendments.

The success or failure of the local nature recovery strategies is incredibly important, particularly around the Government hitting their legally binding 2030 nature targets, as the Minister is very well aware. Our concern has been that a planning authority could disregard all the spatial recommendations of the relevant LNRSs in their local development plan and still be technically compliant, which is why we were pleased to support Amendment 182 from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because it addresses that weakness by requiring local planning authority development plans to incorporate those policies and proposals to deliver the objectives.

It is important to have a specific and meaningful legal link between the planning system and the local nature recovery strategies so that any substantial investment in their production does not then go to waste because it is simply not happening—and it would also help to inform better decision-making. The consequential Amendment 202 would weave that through the Bill.

As the Minister is aware, the Committee version of these amendments got substantial cross-party and Cross-Bench support when we debated it back in March—it seems a long time ago now. We are pleased that the Government have subsequently tabled the amendments that the Minister has just been talking about, plus the series of consequential amendments following on from Amendment 194A. We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need for this specific legal duty, and we think that Amendment 194A represents a step forward—but, again, like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we would have liked to see it move a little further forward than this, because “take account” can be a bit weak. We would have preferred to see it tied more tightly to development plans.

What we do not want to see is history repeating itself because no effective planning conditions are in place that mean that what we want to be delivered is delivered. I am talking about the Localism Act 2011, which required local planning authorities to have regard to the activities of local nature partnerships. We have heard a lot about the guidance that came along and the guidance that we are promised to go with this. The problem with having just a “regard” duty is that there is limited impact on strategic planning. It is important that we do not have that again—we need something stronger this time around.

We strongly welcome the Government’s Amendment 194A. It would be good to be sure as it goes forward and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter said, the guidance must be crystal clear. We must know exactly what the guidance is saying and have confidence that it will deliver what it needs to deliver—and that the concerns that have been raised will not come to pass. It is important that the amendments in this group genuinely make the difference to ensure that local nature recovery strategies are as effective as we need them to be.

--- Later in debate ---

It would be great if the Minister could just stand up and say, “This is a really good amendment; we will accept it and put it in as part of our planning policies”. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, wants to push it to a vote, we will give it our support.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a really important group for us to debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for introducing it with his important Amendment 191, which I was very pleased to support. I have two amendments in this group: Amendment 275, under which a Minister must publish a green prosperity plan—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support on this—and Amendment 283, which defines adaption to and mitigation of climate change. There is a specific reason why I have put that amendment down, which I will come to.

My Amendment 275 says that:

“Within one year of this Act being passed, a Minister … must publish a Green Prosperity Plan”,


specifically to

“decarbonise the economy … create jobs, and … boost energy”.

This amendment and the others in the group are about how we consider climate change and the environmental and energy crises that we have been facing as a country. We need to look seriously at how we are going to dramatically reduce our emissions by 2030. We also believe that climate justice should be a priority. It is important that we can all agree on what action has to be taken to accelerate the benefits of nature restoration and recovery alongside this.

We believe that there should be a national mission to upgrade the energy efficiency of every home that needs it. This will help to lower people’s bills and reduce emissions. We must make sure that, if we are to change the way we heat our homes and how we manage our gas, electricity and oil, we have a different system that supports the reduction of emissions and looks at ways to meet our net-zero targets. We see this as an opportunity to create many thousands of new jobs and help the country to rebuild the economy. It gives us the opportunity to invest in manufacturing and factories—for example, to build batteries for electric vehicles—to develop a thriving hydrogen industry and to increase the manufacture of wind turbines here in the UK. We see this as a huge opportunity, and we also believe the UK should have the ambition to be a world-leading clean energy superpower.

My second amendment, Amendment 283, seeks to insert a new “Interpretation” clause, concerning the interpretation in the Bill of adapting to climate change and adaption to climate change. The reason for this is that, in the Bill, the words “adaptation” and “adaption” are both used. It is very important that there is no confusion about what is meant by adaption and what is meant by adaptation—they are two different terms but they seem to have been used fluidly within the Bill. Amendment 283 tries to clarify that. It may well be that the Government do not want to accept my amendment, but they might want to look at the wording in the Bill and see whether clarification could be brought through in another way.

Adaptation is incredibly important as we go forward. We know we have a strong framework for emissions reduction and planning for climate risks, as set up by the Climate Change Act 2008. However, we still need better resourcing and funding of adaptation, as it is going to be a critical part of supporting the country as we try to tackle the impacts we are seeing—very regularly now—of climate change. We think it is unacceptable not to do that, so we would like to see a clearer understanding of what is required for what we call “adaptation”—though it may well be called “adaption”. This needs to come together in the Bill in a clear and understandable way that will bring about the investment we need in this area.

This brings me to what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has brought forward in his amendment on wildfires; clearly that is an area where adaptation is going to be terribly important, as it will be with flooding—and we will debate that later in the Bill. One thing we know is that wildfires have brought an increasing threat to a wide range of interests across the country. We need a co-ordinated approach, and the noble Earl, in introducing his amendment, was very clear about why this was needed. We know that we have to mitigate the impacts of wildfires on people, property, habitats, livestock, natural capital, wildlife and so on, as the noble Earl explained. We also know from the recent terrible wildfires we have seen—such as that on Saddleworth Moor, as the noble Earl mentioned—that it is going to take decades for those areas to recover. We have to get systems in place to tell us how we manage that, how we avoid it and what we do when it happens. This is a levelling-up Bill, and the impacts of climate change often have an unequal effect on different citizens in this country. As part of the levelling-up agenda, we need to address this.

Finally, that brings me to the incredibly important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to which I was very pleased to add my name. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked passionately and eloquently about the importance of how we deliver this and how vital it is that we are able to do this. The noble Lord’s amendment would be an important step on the way to achieving this. If the noble Lord wishes to push it to a vote and test the opinion of the House, he will have our strong support.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments we return to the crucially important issues surrounding climate change and the green agenda, about which we have heard strong views, and rightly so. Climate change presents clear risks to our environment and our way of life, which is why I am not embarrassed to claim that the Government have led the world in their ambition to reach net zero, and why we are committed to fostering the changes needed to reach that goal. That is the delivery that my noble friend Lord Deben spoke of.

However, what is crucial is that we do this in a way that is effective without being unnecessarily disruptive. That is where, I am afraid, I must take issue with Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. For the same reason, I need to resist Amendment 283 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I do so with regret.

The intention of these proposed new clauses—to set more specific legal obligations which bear upon national policy, plan-makers and those making planning decisions—is not at all the focus of my criticism. We all want to achieve the golden thread that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to. The problem is their likely effect, which would be to trigger a slew of litigation in these areas. That in turn could serve to hinder the action that we need to get plans in place to safeguard the environment that we all wish to protect. For example, Amendment 283 would mean that the Bill’s existing obligations on plans to address climate change mitigation and adaptation would have to be interpreted in the context of very high-level national objectives. That would not be a straightforward thing to do, because high-level objectives do not, in most cases, provide clear direction at the level of an individual district.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise because every one of these amendments merits serious consideration by the Government. I hope very much that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be able to stretch his brief somewhat in responding to them.

It is a particular pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his advocacy for healthy homes in Amendment 191A. He has rightly argued that having healthy homes in this country is a vital step in promoting and enhancing well-being. Well-being was at the heart of 19th-century reforms of housing. It was also at the heart of 20th-century reforms of housing, where the underlying and clearly expressed purpose was to make sure that people’s homes enabled them to live lives which were productive, meaningful and, for them, a success. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, argued cogently, a healthy home is a gateway to life; it is a prerequisite of educational attainment as well as gainful employment. It has to be at the core of any genuine attempt to level up.

I want to take the noble Earl, Lord Howe, back a little way to what is almost a historic document now. A White Paper was produced on levelling up, and in it were missions which the Government committed to and set targets to achieve. Mission 10 said that, by 2030, which is now just six years away,

“the government’s ambition is for the number of non-decent rented homes to have fallen by 50%”.

That is a long way to go in a short period of time, but it shows that the Government understood that a healthy home was a prerequisite for a healthy society.

Mission 5 was about education. Again, by 2030, in six years’ time,

“the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst performing areas will have increased by over a third”.

Those children in the worst performing areas, funnily enough, all live in the worst housing and accommodation.

Mission 7 talks about healthy life expectancy, something on which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, spoke very eloquently. Again, by 2030, the gap between the highest and lowest areas is to have narrowed and, by 2035, the healthy life expectancy of the whole country is to rise by five years.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as well as the other amendments in this group, are all keystone decisions on policy that the Government need to take if they are to close the gap as set out in those mission statements—and as they are supposed, and claim, to be doing through this Bill.

The reality is that nothing else in this Bill will or could move the dial on any of those mission objectives, yet they are supposedly central to all the time and effort that noble Lords in this House and Members at the other end of the building have put into this so far. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with all these amendments and, specifically, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and not simply read the brief as he did in Committee.

All the other amendments are worthy of merit, but I want particularly to mention in this group Amendment 282L, which I have put my name to, relating to low-carbon heat, energy-efficient homes and so on. That has been a lifelong goal—half a lifetime of my political and professional activity has been in trying to make sure that these things happened.

I recall—as, I am sure, does the Minister—that we would have proceeded to have zero-carbon new homes at least in 2016 had the proposed plan not been discontinued by the incoming Conservatives. I hope that at the very least he can reassure us that in 2025 the new homes standard will really come in and move things in the right direction. In the meantime, giving his assent to Amendment 282H would be a clear signal to the industry and developers that that is the direction in which we are to go.

Also in this group is Amendment 198 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and signed by my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, who unfortunately is unable to be here today. It is on the same track exactly, asserting the importance of good quality and affordable housing to our health and welfare. I am indebted to the Better Planning Coalition for its briefing on this.

We are still building housing that fails to meet basic standards for health and safety. Our existing housing stock is poor. The Resolution Foundation reports that there are 6.5 million people living in poor-quality housing, including homes that are cold, damp and in poor repair—that is one in 10 people. Once again, the Government’s mission 10 sets out an aim to halve the number of non-decent homes in the private rented sector by 2023. Living in poor-quality homes makes people twice as likely to have poor general health as those who do not, and they face increased stress and anxiety. The links between health and housing go beyond quality. Professor Sir Michael Marmot found that affordability as well as quality affects health, and living in overcrowded and unaffordable housing is linked with depression and anxiety. We shall return to that in the debate on a further group later tonight.

If we want to enable people to live healthier lives, we also need to examine how our homes and environment can be adapted as our life stories alter, whether through illness, injury or ageing. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to restate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that new homes are built to higher accessibility standards, as well as to better insulation and efficiency standards, from 2025. The statutory duty in Amendment 198 would provide local authorities with the flexibility to meet local health needs while giving them the mandate to take action that has been sorely lacking when we have had to rely purely on the vague language within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The amendments from both the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, would make sure that the planning space paid special regard to creating local places where homes are affordable to local residents, where they are developed to good conditions and adaptable standards, and where they are connected to facilities and services that maximise the opportunity to be active in a safe and pleasant environment.

There is a dreadful alternative—in fact, it is the alternative world that we actually live in—of increasing health inequalities, with additional problems for individuals and families and increasing demands on public health and care services. I hope the Minister agrees that the moment has come to move from this alternative world that we are in to one that could be delivered with these amendments. I and my colleagues look forward to supporting those that are taken to a vote if the Minister does not agree.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for speaking to his amendment, introducing the debate on this group and bringing forward clear arguments for why the Government should consider accepting his amendments. For two years or so the noble Lord, supported by the Town and Country Planning Association, has led a campaign to put people’s health and housing at the centre of how we regulate our built environment. I pay tribute to him, and I am pleased to offer our support for his amendment.

During the time that he has been pushing on this, medical evidence surrounding the relationship between the condition of someone’s home and their life chances has become even stronger. We have heard evidence of the shockingly poor standards even of some new homes that are being created through our deregulated planning system. The amendments could prevent the development of poor-quality housing, which continues to undermine people’s health and well-being. While the Government have acknowledged that housing and health are key to the levelling-up agenda, the Bill currently contains no clear provisions for how we are to achieve that objective. So we support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his efforts to put new obligations on the Secretary of State.

We hope that the Government will change their approach and accept these amendments as a sensible starting point on a journey to transform the quality of people’s homes, with benefits to them and to the national health and social care budgets. But if this does not happen and the noble Lord is not satisfied by the Minister’s response, we will be happy to support him in a vote.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

201: After Clause 95, insert the following new Clause—
“Definition of affordable housing(1) Within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish the report of a consultation on the definition of affordable housing.(2) Within 30 days of the publication of the report, a Minister of the Crown must by regulations update the definition of affordable housing as set out in Annex 2 to the National Planning Policy Framework.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the Government must update the definition of affordable housing following a consultation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and—

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I apologise but, given that we are running over what we thought was the anticipated time for starting, and given the large number of topics to discuss today on Report, I respectfully remind all participants to have a brevity objective in mind, as required in the Companion for Report stage.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I was saying, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support for my Amendment 201. My amendment inserts a new clause for the definition of affordable housing. It asks that, within 90 days of when the

“Act is passed, a Minister … must publish the report of a consultation on the definition of affordable housing”.

Following the publication of that report, within 30 days, the definition must be updated in the National Planning Policy Framework. The reason we have put this forward is because we feel that the current definition in the National Planning Policy Framework is simply not fit for purpose.

Earlier today, we passed the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on social housing. He is not in his place, but I point out that getting that sorted out is part of managing our problem with affordable housing. So, in many ways, although they are not in the same group, these amendments in fact work together. The noble Lord is also the chair of the Affordable Housing Commission, and although he is not here, I pay tribute to the important work that he has done with that. The Affordable Housing Commission has produced an important report on this issue, Making Housing Affordable Again, which I urge all noble Lords with an interest to study.

When we consider affordable housing, we need to look at a number of issues, the first of which is to ask who has a problem with it. What the commission did was to divide the overall picture into four different groups: struggling renters; low-income older households; struggling home owners; and frustrated first-time buyers. So this issue affects a very large proportion of our population, including people who are trying to find themselves a decent, secure home. The way that housing affordability is currently defined and measured is as rents or purchase costs that are lower than in the open marketplace; we believe that that definition is both misleading and confusing. It is a crude definition, which is not helping to solve the problem. It brings “affordable housing” to a level that is way beyond the means of many who need a home.

The commission offers a new definition of affordability, which views the issue from the perspective of the household and not from the marketplace—as the current definition does. What can people pay for their housing without risking financial and personal problems? Who is facing these problems of unaffordability, and exactly what is the scale of the problem?

The NPPF definition of affordable housing is made with reference to various housing products, from social rent to low-cost home ownership. Even if eligibility is bounded by local incomes, except for social rent, of course, affordable housing remains market-led, rather than being defined by personal income. This has led to a number of local authorities being extremely sceptical about their ability to deliver the affordable housing their areas need.

A cursory glance at the affordable rent level shows that in many areas a three-bedroom, affordable-rent property cost £400 per week. This is clearly way out of the pocket of many people in this country. I suggest that the Government look at what the Affordable Housing Commission is calling on them to do. We believe it provides a good starting point for solving the housing crisis we are in.

First, it suggests a rebalancing of the housing system so that there will be affordable housing opportunities for all by 2045. Affordable housing should be made a national priority and placed at the centre of a national housing strategy. The safety net for struggling renters and home owners should be improved. A new definition and alternative measures of housing affordability should be adopted which relate to people’s actual income and circumstances, rather than just to the market.

We agree with the Affordable Housing Commission. Will the Minister accept that the current definition is not fit for purpose? In order to help the very many people who are struggling either to buy or rent a home, will the Government put into the Bill a commitment to act to change the definition so that affordable housing actually means what it says?

I have spoken on this issue a number of times. Others are saying what we are saying. The Affordable Housing Commission is saying it. People who understand the system and have identified how it can be changed for the better are offering concrete, constructive ways in which things can be improved. I hope that the Minister can accept my amendment as a starting point on this journey to improve the current situation. If I do not have her assurance that this will be the case, I will test the opinion of the House on this matter.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 201 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. As she clearly set out, there is a complete absence of focus on what is and is not affordable when it comes to government policy-making. That policy is in desperate need of overhaul and a recalibration. This amendment puts that overhaul firmly on the agenda. It is a fitting addition to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept it. If not, I and my colleagues will strongly support the noble Baroness in pressing it to a vote.

In Committee, I made the case as strongly as I could that the highly desirable objective of the provision of affordable housing, which is shared on all sides of this Chamber, is not being achieved in real life. It has failed by a wide margin, as the noble Baroness has just set out. At present, about half of affordable homes—the ones which are given capital letters by policy-makers—are supposedly delivered through planning obligations placed on developers. The reality is that in many parts of England this is being completely undermined by basing the calculation of affordability on a figure of 80% of the open-market price of that property on that site or, for renters, of 80% of the market rent. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, gave one practical example of the consequence of this for renters.

Amendment 201 calls for a review. The Minister may reply that all government policies are under constant review, but when she replied in Committee, I got the impression that any such review of this policy has not been particularly diligent. It certainly has not been timely or purposeful. This amendment would put that right and task the Government with producing a review and publishing it, with recommendations for a change, on a short, fixed timescale.

In Committee, I drew noble Lords’ attention to the experience of my noble friend Lord Foster, who unfortunately cannot be with us today, in his local area of Southwold in east Suffolk. A so-called affordable estate, built with £1 million of government subsidy, is so out of the price range of people on median incomes there that its homes have proved unsaleable and the developer has been released from the planning obligation. The homes are now going on the open market. This is not in inner London; it is 100 miles away. In Southwold, the price/median earnings ratio of the affordable homes, at 80% of full price, is still 13:1, reduced from 17:1 for full-price homes. Obviously, that is completely out of the reach of those seeking an affordable home.

I am sure that the Minister will know of similar circumstances in many other places. It is certainly true in Cheshire and Derbyshire, for instance—they are known to me—and is quite possibly so in Wiltshire as well. Far too often, affordable homes as delivered by planning obligations are nothing of the sort. I sometimes think that saying this out loud is seen as swearing in church. Nobody seems to confront this obvious truth. This Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill is exactly the place to begin putting that right. It must be the case that when median incomes in a locality are not sufficient to buy such homes, it is misleading to describe them as affordable, wrong to put them on the credit sides of the affordable homes balance sheet and deceitful to boast that their provision makes a worthwhile contribution to fulfilling an election promise.

Amendment 201 would kick off that process of reform, but my Amendment 201A and its consequential amendment, Amendment 285A—they are also in this group—would go further by setting out the principles that should underlie that review. Those principles have been set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. They include the principle that affordability must be defined by reference to the income of the purchaser or renter, not solely by the inflated price on the open market. My amendment does not specify the mechanics or precise formula for that. The Affordable Housing Commission certainly provides a professionally generated one, while two others were quoted in Committee. We all know how it can be achieved, but the vital point of any government review must be to take into account the obvious truth that the current measuring stick is not solving the problem of affordability but is instead costing the Treasury a hatful of cash, which is being wasted and at the same time leaves many families stuck in wretched housing conditions.

There is a second part to my Amendment 201A, which I believe would help to close the yawning gap between open market prices and affordable home prices. It would disapply the current exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for the disclosure of viability calculations used by developers when haggling with local planning authorities over their planning obligations. At present, commercial confidentiality can be exploited to leverage cuts in affordable home provision, and it often is. Transparency would ensure that there was no temptation to inflate falsely the figures of costs that are deployed in those negotiations. It would also be likely to lead, over time, to less profligate bidding and purchasing of land by developers. Simply by removing that commercial exemption in this specific situation, at nil cost to the public purse, more affordable homes will be provided by developers. It is a no-brainer and one that I hope the Minister will find irresistible.

If levelling-up is to proceed from an election slogan to real delivery, it has a long road to travel. On that road, an essential milestone will be a proper affordable homes policy. Amendments 201 and 201A would provide the Government with that milestone. I hope that they pass today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, we have already discussed this. We will have a test and learn throughout the country and then a rollout, but with any large change in any planning system, as with the community infrastructure levy, it will take time—up to 10 years, we believe.

Levy rates and charging schedules will be matters of public record, as I said. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to move his amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for her response. I welcome the right honourable Michael Gove to the Chamber and thank him for taking the time to listen to our debate. Clearly, he is enthralled by our discussions at the moment, and I am sure that he will take our concerns away for further consideration.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for spelling out the Government’s commitment to social housing through the affordable homes programme and for the wider review that she talked of. I understand the need for flexibility that she talked about for local authorities. However, this does not change the fact that houses classed as affordable should actually be affordable and currently are not. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of having the definition?

I am afraid I have heard nothing to convince me that the Government are serious about changing the definition. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for his introduction and for the amendments that he introduced. It was good to see that we have the negative procedure being applied in some areas. As others have done, I too welcome the rollout of the blue plaques, but I also support the comments regarding women and diversity. I am sure that he will take those away.

My noble friend Lady Andrews, as always, introduced her important amendments eloquently and clearly. I will not go into detail but want to let the House know that we fully agree with and support her amendments and the arguments that she put forward urging the Government to accept what she believes is absolutely the right way to move forward on this. I thank the Victorian Society for its very helpful briefing on this. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that one big concern that has come across in the debate, particularly regarding the Crooked House, of course, is that we have been too casual about demolition in our society. The Crooked House demolition raised very highly up the agenda the public’s concerns when something like that happens in their local community. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, it appeared that the building was about to be listed, so it is quite shocking that it was able to happen. We need to ensure in future that buildings of such importance to localities cannot just be demolished like that.

We heard during earlier discussions on the Bill about the release of carbon when buildings are demolished. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, had an amendment on this and it was mentioned by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Again, that now needs to be part of the discussions. Also, I really agree with the noble Baroness’s comments on tidiness. We are too concerned about tidiness and that has impacts on all sorts of areas and our environment.

My noble friend also had an amendment around the importance of the local list that communities now have of buildings that are important to those local communities. We should all applaud my noble friend Lady Taylor, because I understand that she has set up such a list. But the concerns are how little weight that then has in planning and how little understanding there is of it, so my noble friend’s amendment is important in this aspect.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, introduced his amendments, which are similar to those he had in Committee, so I will not go into detail. However, he raised concerns about the approval of inappropriate developments and the importance of what local residents feel about them. That should be taken proper account of and, again, we would very much support him in that. We believe that local residents should be listened to and that there should be proper consultation.

On replacement windows in conservation areas, it is really important that we have a sensible and practical approach to this. I know that we talked about like for like and heard that other materials can be used, but that is not always the way things are interpreted, unfortunately. There is a house near to me where the windows are going to fall out because like for like insists on hardwood, and the residents cannot afford it. There needs to be more flexibility and practicality. Also, in the conservation area in Cockermouth after the flooding, households were told that they were not allowed to put in flood doors, which seems a ridiculous situation for us to be in.

In my last two comments, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made some very good points on his amendments, particularly regarding dispute resolution, environmental record services and archives. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as always, made some very important points. He has enormous knowledge and practical expertise in this area.

This debate has shown that there are serious concerns about heritage and conservation, areas that could move forward quite sensibly and practically with government support. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful, first, to all those noble Lords who expressed their support for the amendment relating to the extension of the blue plaque scheme. I am glad to see that it has had support from across the House, as it did from the cross-party Local Government Association, so I am grateful to all those who mentioned it in their contributions now.

My noble friend Lord Lexden was particularly kind. He was right to point out that one of the motivations here is to increase people’s curiosity and knowledge about the past, including untold or surprising stories. I am glad to hear of the progress that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, are making with their campaigns for plaques—not blue ones, but important ones—in Birmingham to the two sons of that city and of Joseph Chamberlain, who is already commemorated. My noble friend is right that they are people of international and national significance, as well as of great local pride. I look forward to seeing those plaques added to the Chamberlain memorial.

I am also grateful for what my noble friend Lord Mendoza said about the importance of the blue plaques scheme in increasing people’s connection to and sense of pride in place. That is a very important aspect of the scheme.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Hayman of Ullock, are right to point to the need for a greater diversity of stories. That is something that English Heritage has been focusing on in recent years. For instance, of the plaques that have been unveiled since 2016, more than half have been to women. The noble Baroness is right that there is a job of work to do to ensure that we are telling more untold stories of women, working-class people, people of colour, people of minority sexualities and so much more. I hope one of the benefits of extending the scheme across all of England will be being able to draw on the greater diversity of the country in telling those stories, which are always so interesting and important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked some questions on blue plaques. Yes, local schemes—which, as I say, have operated for many years in parallel—will be able to do so. In fact, a number of London boroughs organise their own schemes on top of the blue plaques scheme which has operated in the capital—so the more the merrier, I say.

I was remiss in not thanking the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in my opening speech in relation to the amendment when I thanked the Historic Houses association, with which I know he has been in touch. I am grateful to him for the time and attention he has given this and for the discussions we have had on that amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, rightly asked a few more questions on BPNs. Our original proposal was without this further amendment recognising the need for speed in these instances. I reassure her that Historic England is adept at dealing with these and other listing and heritage matters quickly when the situation needs, and there is an expedited process for listing when something is believed to be at risk. One of the advantages of having Historic England’s chairman in your Lordships’ House is that my noble friend Lord Mendoza will have heard those points and be able to reflect them back to Historic England, which already works quickly. That point will be carefully considered in the production of the necessary guidance. I hope that addresses her concerns on BPNs.

I turn now to the amendments in this group tabled by other noble Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Northbrook for tabling Amendment 203 and for the correspondence we have had on this issue this week. His amendment seeks to require that, in meeting their statutory duty under Section 72, local planning authorities should have regard to any relevant advice produced by Historic England. I agree that this should be the case, but it is already something that local planning authorities do, and the Government’s planning practice guidance points them to Historic England’s advice.

My noble friend Lord Bellingham is right to remind us that Historic England has a duty to liaise with local authorities, and I hope he will be reassured by what our noble friend Lord Mendoza said about the frequency with which it does that. When our guidance is next reviewed, I am happy to ask officials to consider whether the links to Historic England’s advice could be strengthened. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend Lord Northbrook will be content not to press his Amendment 203.

Amendment 204, also in my noble friend’s name, relates to replacement windows in conservation areas. An existing permitted development right allows for enlargement, improvement or other alteration to a dwelling-house. That is subject to a condition that the materials used in any exterior work—other than those used in the construction of a conservatory—must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling-house. That applies to replacement windows in conservation areas. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, in his housing speech in July, launched a consultation which included a proposal to apply local design codes to permitted development rights. He also announced that the Government will consult this autumn on how to better support existing homeowners to extend their homes. On top of that, the Government are undertaking a review of the practical planning barriers which house- holders can face when installing energy-efficiency measures.

Although I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, I hope he will understand that it would be premature to accept his Amendment 204, as it would curtail the scope of any legislative recommendations that the review might set out in due course. Additionally, powers to amend permitted development rights already exist in primary legislation. For these reasons I cannot support Amendment 204 but am happy to reassure my noble friend that we keep permitted development rights under review.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for raising what is often a bone of contention among residents of new properties where those properties have been built adjacent to businesses, often hospitality businesses. They are the latecomers. but they suddenly expect the business to comply with their requirements and not the other way round.

I will give one example that may illustrate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Near where I live, there is a long-standing working men’s club with space. Some new properties were built on the land adjacent to the club’s outdoor area. The club decided that, in order to increase its income, it would use the outdoor space as a pub garden. This is in Yorkshire where pub gardens do not get used all year round. The use would have been intermittent, let us say.

However, the residents of the new properties raised such a fuss about it that the working men’s club was forced to remove the tables and chairs—it did not have planning consent or something. As a result, in the end, a couple of years later the working men’s club closed. So I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has said.

It is not just about places of hospitality but also existing business use and leisure facilities—particularly where flood-lights are used at night, on grass areas for football or whatever—that the complaints come. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say in response to what is a very practical amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting if short discussion which picks up on much of the debate that we had during Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for bringing this back to us again today.

One thing that came across very clearly when we debated this in Committee was that it really is time to review the status and look at the situation. It is important that we return to this. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has said, now and previously, we have got the change of use from office to residential space in town centres, we have the problem of many empty town centre premises, and there have been a lot of changes on our high streets and in our towns in ways that we have not seen before. These challenges are particularly acute for the night-time economy.

The agent of change principle has been with us for some years. This is why it is important that we use this Bill to ensure that it is fit for purpose and doing what we need it to do. As we have heard, it is in the National Planning Policy Framework, but does the licensing guidance, as the noble Baroness said, reflect the principles of the NPPF itself? The NPPF needs to be fit for purpose, as well as the agent of change principle that sits within it.

I asked at Committee and would like to ask again: is the NPPF, when we get to see it, going to reflect the likely focus of future planning decisions on this? How is that all going to be taken into account? This is genuinely an opportunity to enshrine this principle in legislation and get it right. It needs to be fit for purpose and it needs to do what it is supposed to do: to protect both sides of the discussion and debate when you have change of use coming forward. As the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, said, we need to get this right and it has to have teeth—I think that was the expression that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, used. We completely support her request for clarification on the legislative change referred to by the Minister in Committee and hope that we can move forward on this issue.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 220 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering tackles the important agent of change principle in planning and licensing. There was substantial discussion around this topic during Committee, a lot of it setting out the important conclusions of the House of Lords Liaison Committee follow-up report from July 2022. This built on the post-legislative scrutiny by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003. I thank the committee for its work and will briefly summarise how the Government are meeting the aspirations of that committee.

First, the committee’s report called for licensing regime guidance to be updated to reflect the agent of change policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. This is why, in December 2022, the Home Office published a revised version of its guidance made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, cross-referencing relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework for the first time. The Government have therefore delivered on this recommendation.

Secondly, the committee set out that it believes that guidance does not go far enough and that the Government should

“review the ‘Agent of Change’ principle, strengthen it”.

Recommendations such as this are one of the many reasons why we are introducing national development management policies. In future, and subject to further appropriate consultation, NDMPs will allow us to give important national planning policy protections statutory status in planning decisions for the first time. This could allow the agent of change principle to have a direct statutory role in local planning decisions, if brought into the first suite of NDMPs when they are made.

Finally, the committee called for greater co-ordination between the planning and licensing regimes to deliver better outcomes. We agree that such co-ordination is crucial to protect affected businesses in practice and it is why the updated Section 182 guidance, published by the Home Office in December 2022, is a significant step forward. The Government are committed to ensuring that their policies which embed the agent of change principle are effective, but we do not think that additional legislative backing is needed at this time. As such, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why, although we entirely support its intention, we will not support the amendment. With that, I hope that she will be willing to withdraw it.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a good day. I thank all noble Lords who have worked hard with the Government to get to a place where there is landscape protection for those areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. I am fortunate to live in a place where I can easily get to three great national parks—the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors and the Peak District—so I particularly welcome, from a selfish point of view, what has been achieved here.

Turning to government Amendment 230A, I am pleased that the Government have closed a loophole here in the way that biodiversity net gain is measured. That is very positive. I applaud the whole biodiversity net gain approach.

I will make one comment about an issue which constantly concerns me when dealing with local planning applications: applicants trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities in biodiversity net gain. As the Minister will know, there is a hierarchy of how applicants can achieve biodiversity net gain—on site, close to, by, or as near as possible. If you live in a built-up area like me, “as near as possible” can be a big distance away. The town where I live—I guess this happens to small towns all across the place—will often see its biodiversity further depleted because the hierarchy allows applicants to put their biodiversity net gain at some distance away. I wonder whether the Minister could perhaps address that and enhance what I believe is a very positive approach adopted by the Government.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s amendments that have been tabled in recognition of previous concerns expressed by your Lordships. As a member of Friends of the Lake District, I am pleased to see that the Government have pretty much accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. It is important. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, my noble friend Lady Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their comments and support for that.

Those of us who live in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks know that there is so much that we can do to enhance nature, increase natural beauty, support our cultural heritage, and work to support climate change and the local people who live there. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, brings this about by implementing much of what was in the Glover review. Again, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for all their work on this. These are important amendments, and they will improve our countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly on this matter. I welcome the amendment being proposed by the noble Baroness, and the comments that she has made. I have not been intervening very much on most of this Bill, particularly those parts, like most of these, that apply to England only. But of course, with regard to drainage, water flow and rivers, there are cross-border issues.

The noble Baroness kindly referred to some of the progress that we have made in Wales on some of this, which of course we welcome, but goodness knows there is much more that needs to be done in Wales as well as in England. In any work that is undertaken in England this way, the co-ordination between what happens in England and in Wales on these matters is of vital importance. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness has, in a number of these amendments, put her finger on matters that are important in Wales as well. We have to deal with certain aspects of those ourselves, but we also have to co-ordinate where that is appropriate.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I stand to introduce my Amendment 240, and also to speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

My Amendment 240 is on flood prevention, mitigation certification and accreditation schemes. The reason I have tabled this amendment is that it does concern me that, when we have areas that have suffered major flooding, with both residential and business properties damaged, often the incentives to “build back better”—to put in flood mitigation and systems such as, in a residential building, a different sort of kitchen, different flooring, flood doors and so on—have not always been the eventual outcome when repairs have been done. It is also about the actual standard when they are put in: what kind of standard are the building repairs, which are being paid for by insurance companies? Whenever there is a major flooding event, insurance companies have an enormous amount of work to do, and we should thank them for that. Most insurance companies work very hard to provide a good service. But we have to be careful to make sure that all the equipment and facilities that are available are of the right standard and that appropriate mitigation is being put in place, which is why I have brought my amendment forward.

On the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I just wanted to make a few comments. Her Amendment 231 is about sustainable water management and sustainable drainage; I know this is a topic that is very close to the noble Baroness’s heart, and I completely support her on what she is trying to achieve through this. We know that sustainable drainage systems—SUDS—can play a pivotal role in ensuring that new properties are built in a way that manages surface water flood risk at a local level. We also know that the Government have a really good policy on SUDS under the Flood and Water Management Act, which the noble Baroness referred to. I think the frustration is that we now need the Government urgently to implement this, so that we can benefit from the announcements. The Government announced in January that it was going to be mandatory in all new developments, so we need to crack on with the implementation of this. We would very much support the noble Baroness’s amendment on that.

On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 232, on basically not building any more on flood plains, we again strongly support the noble Baroness in her efforts to achieve this. We know that the insurance industry, through the ABI, has been calling for the Government to ensure that there is no inappropriate development on flood plains and flood risk areas, and also that we need a more transparent planning application system in regard to this. One of their asks is that the Government link future residential and commercial developments to the building regulations approved documents. Again, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

This Bill is also reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework, so we think that brings forward an opportunity to really set how this should happen, to ensure that we do not get inappropriate building. I remember there was one case when there was a large flood—I live in an area that floods—and there was a new development called “Water Meadows”. After the flooding had gone away, it was called the “Meadows”. That was very disingenuous of developers, and I think we need to get to grips with this. If the noble Baroness wishes to put her Amendment 232 to a vote, we would be very happy to support it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the important amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled to the Bill demonstrate how wide-ranging the Bill is. These amendments themselves could benefit from an individual Bill, because they are so critical to the future both of development and of environment preservation in our country. To be able to spend only 30 to 40 minutes debating them is a great shame, because the noble Baroness raises very significant issues.

The reason that these issues are so important was not stated, but I will state it because it is fundamental. We know that climate change will inevitably lead to higher rainfall and, therefore, to higher potential flood risks. All water companies, I know, have to take that into account in their 25-year plans when developing their own infrastructure, to make sure that it is flood resilient. If they are doing that, then surely the Government and Parliament itself have a responsibility to help developers build in such a way that housing, in particular, is either not built on flood plains or is built to be totally resilient to increasing water levels and flood risk as a result of climate change.

The Environment Agency has a hierarchy of flood zones: 1, 2 and 3. Flood zone 3, the high-risk one, is separated into two parts: 3a and 3b. Flood zone 3b is what we would describe as a functional flood plain: where water goes when there is heavy rainfall. There should not be any development on flood zone 3b, and on 3a only after very clear advice that it should not be there during a planning application or consultation. That is the essence of Amendment 232, of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

Too many homes are currently being built on areas at risk of flooding. The consequence is that in a few years’ time, as rainfall increases as a result of climate change, those same houses will be at greater risk of being flooded. That cannot be right; we ought to be dealing with that at the planning and construction stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I ought to start by saying that I am a member of the Woodland Trust and therefore protection of woodland is very important to me, so I wholly support the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in her amendment.

Ancient woodland is ancient. The definition of ancient woodland is that it has been around since the 1600s or even longer. The combined effect of a copse or even a small woodland area in biodiversity terms is enormous. The Woodland Trust and others define these areas as being our equivalent of the rainforests in the tropics in the extent of the diversity of nature that is encouraged to live among the trees. So, it is not simply a question of cutting down a tree; it is destroying a habitat. I think that is what we ought to be thinking of and it is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, thought about.

Some of these ancient woodland areas are homes to threatened or at-risk species, so again it is not just about, “Let’s cut down the old oak tree”; it is about protecting a whole habitat for a huge number of species. The National Planning Policy Framework, which was published last week, has a tiny paragraph saying that

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats … such as ancient woodland … should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

If only it had ended at “should be refused”. Because if we are, as a country, intent on protecting and enhancing our environment, those bodies of ancient woodland are exactly the sites that we should be protecting in full. What the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is asking, which we on these Benches wholly support, is that we strengthen that protection of ancient woodland, which is a key element of any Government’s environmental protection. So, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and if she presses it to a vote, as she has indicated, we will be with her.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because my noble friend Lady Young has set out extremely clearly why her amendment is so important, as have other noble Lords who have spoken. Part of the problem is that we have never really properly appreciated the huge contribution that ancient woodland makes. We have talked about it, but have we actually properly acted on it to protect it in the way that is needed? We know the huge contribution it makes to our environment, through carbon capture for example, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, it takes absolutely centuries to replace once it has gone.

There is so much talk about offsetting on the environment, but offsetting cannot always provide what is lost. We just need to consider that more. Offsetting is not the easy way to manage these things every time, so we completely support what my noble friend is trying to achieve. To be honest, she is the expert on this and if she is concerned, we should all be concerned, so if she wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our strong support.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, here we are on day seven of Report, and up pops yet another amendment on a completely new topic. It is so out of scope that, to debate it, the Long Title of the Bill has also to be amended.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has chosen to discuss, via the theme of ULEZ, the London devolution deal. How much better if he had done so during the very long section of debate on the Bill devoted to devolution. The amendments that he has proposed have only a tenuous link with the prime purpose of this Bill: levelling up. If he wanted to truly level up in the areas of the country identified in the Government’s own White Paper, the amendments would focus on transport issues elsewhere in the country.

Those of us who live in the north, especially in west Yorkshire, can only dream of the quality of public transport available in London. For instance, the government commitment, repeated many times, simply to electrify the trans-Pennine route, has been dropped. The new trans-Pennine route, nationalised because of its previous failure, has the highest number of train cancellations of all train companies. Added to this appalling level of service comes the decision that the 13 new trainsets for the route are to be taken out of service for want of trained drivers. In addition to this very large dent in already creaking connectivity in the north is the increasingly poor service provided by bus companies, which results in growing numbers having to rely on private transport, thus increasing the already poor air quality in many northern urban areas.

How much more beneficial to promoting levelling up—the purpose of this Bill—if the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, had used his talent to direct government attention to levelling up connectivity, which is absolutely essential if areas defined in the levelling up White Paper are to enjoy growing investment and prosperity.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing this group and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as well as for drawing our attention to the importance of standards. Clearly, most of the debate has been around the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As we are on Report, I shall be brief and make just two points in response to the noble Lord’s amendments.

First, I point out that Sadiq Khan has explicitly ruled out the introduction of pay-per-mile charging while he is Mayor of London. Secondly, on Amendment 282N, which seems to be the core amendment within the four amendments introduced, our concern is that this includes a loophole for councils to opt out of such schemes. Introducing that loophole undermines the national objective of improving air quality. We think that it risks increasing public confusion and is not in the interests of preventive health and improving air quality.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 242 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, introduced by my noble friend Lord Lexden, would require the Government to make all standards that relate to all planning Acts or local authority planning policy, online and free of charge.

As I think I said in Committee, our national standards body, the British Standards Institution or BSI, publishes around 3,000 standards annually. These standards are a product of over 1,000 expert committees. BSI is independent of government and governed by the rights and duties included in its royal charter. This includes the obligation to set up, sell and distribute standards of quality for goods, services and management systems. About 20% of the standards produced are to support the regulatory framework. This will include a minority of standards made to support planning legislation and local authority planning policy. To ensure the integrity of the system and to support the effective running of the standards-making process, the funding model relies on BSI charging customers for access to its standards. As a non-profit distributing body, BSI reinvests this income from sales in the standards development programme.

My noble friend Lord Lexden asked what the difference is between a regulation and a standard. A regulation provides minimum legal requirements, is written by government and is laid before Parliament. A standard is expert-led and derives its legitimacy through consensus and public consultation. A standard, however, can help demonstrate compliance with legislation. My noble friend also brought up the issue of access in Northern Ireland’s libraries. Interestingly enough, access to British standards is available free in public and university libraries across this country as well, including the British Library, Herefordshire County libraries and the National Library of Scotland. I hope that this provides sufficient reason for my noble friend Lord Lexden, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, to withdraw the amendment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling Amendments 282N, 302A, 315ZA and 317, to which I have added my name. He speaks with his characteristic eloquence about the challenges of introducing road user charging schemes in the capital. My noble friend’s experience in these matters is worth repeating. He is a former deputy leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, a former deputy chairman of Transport for London and a former chairman of London Councils’ city-wide transport and environment committee. My noble friend therefore speaks with unrivalled experience and authority on matters of London’s governance.

My noble friend is entirely correct in his analysis of the differences between the mayoral model followed in London and the combined authority model followed elsewhere in England. He is right to draw attention to the resulting friction that can arise between London borough councils and the mayoralty in London. Regrettably, we have seen a clear display of this during the recent debates on the expansion of the ultra-low emission zones.

As the Government, through this Bill, look to widen and deepen the devolved powers of leaders outside the capital, it is right that we also take stock of how London’s devolution settlement is working in practice. To this end, the Government have committed, through their new English devolution accountability framework, published earlier this year, to review

“how current scrutiny and accountability arrangements in London are operating in practice”,

including

“how the Greater London Authority works and liaises with the London boroughs”.

In addition, the Levelling Up Advisory Council has been asked to examine the strengths and challenges of the capital’s devolution settlement, and a report on that is expected next year. In the meantime, my noble friend’s new clause on road user charging schemes in London provides a targeted, proportionate and wholly sensible correction to the current uneven distribution of power and decision-making between borough councils and the Greater London Authority when introducing ULEZ-style road user charging schemes across the capital. The amendment is entirely in keeping with the wider aims of the Bill to “empower local leaders” and to “enhance local democracy”. As such, I can confirm that, should my noble friend Lord Moylan wish to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House on this matter, he would have the Government’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

We on these Benches will vigorously oppose those government amendments, and if and when they are brought to a vote, we will be in the Not-Content Lobby, particularly on Amendment 247YY and then the new schedule in Amendment 247YYA. You can have both housebuilding and environmental protection, and that is what we will vote for.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for her introduction to this debate. It has been a very important debate with some excellent contributions, and I am sure that it has given many noble Lords on the opposite Benches food for thought. I will speak to my Amendment 247YYDA and will oppose certain government amendments in this group.

The current nutrient neutrality rules do not work, as we have heard from noble Lords today, but we do not think that the Government’s proposals work either. We certainly do not agree with the powers being introduced in government Amendment 247YY, or government Amendment 247YYA, which introduces new Schedule 13 and means abandoning legal protections for the nation’s most precious and sensitive habitats, on the premise that this is the only way to increase housing supply. As we have heard from noble Lords, this is completely wrong. It is entirely possible to balance the need for more homes with the need to protect nature. That is why have tabled Amendment 247YYDA, which would establish a process to consider alternative ways to reform nutrient neutrality regulations. Perhaps I can draw the attention of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Moylan, to our proposals.

The amendment would launch a public consultation to consider the alternatives, allowing for an evidence-based approach that the Government’s new schedule completely lacks. Before I expand on how that alternative could be established, I want to explain why we will be opposing the introduction of the government amendments in this group.

Put simply, this change of policy means that developers will no longer need to mitigate harmful pollutants when building in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Noble Lords have made quite clear their concerns about this approach. We believe that the resulting increase in river pollution is a wholly unnecessary price to pay for building the homes that we are in short supply of. We also believe that the way the Government have introduced the amendments has been entirely inappropriate.

As we have heard from other noble Lords in this debate, the Bill has been passing through Parliament for more than 16 months, and yet this policy has been added only at the very last minute, during the final days of Report. It is accompanied, as we have heard, by excessive regulatory powers, which we will oppose, and which, as we have heard, noble Lords on the Delegated Powers Committee, have referred to as “open-ended”. I would not suggest that the word “proportionate”, which the Minister used, was the correct response. What is more, the committee noted that

“there appears to have been no public consultation or engagement with stakeholders prior to the publication of these measures”.

For a group of amendments which the Government claim could cost £230 million—other estimates suggest they would cost far more—no consultation or engagement is, frankly, astounding.

As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, but which I think needs repeating, the Office for Environmental Protection has issued statutory advice to say that the measure

“would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law”—

in other words, a regression. We have already heard, and so the House will not need further reminding, that during consideration of the retained EU law Bill the Government repeatedly ruled out ever taking this step. On Monday 26 June, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, told this House that

“the Government will not row back on our world-leading environmental protections”.—[Official Report, 26/6/23; col. 469.]

However, the Office for Environmental Protection says that this is exactly what is happening. We believe, therefore, that it is wholly inappropriate for this House to agree these amendments to the Bill.

Instead, I urge the Minister to consider the approach that we have outlined in Amendment 247YYDA, which would open up the possibility of nutrient neutrality reform on the basis of consultation and evidence, and through the principle of good law. This is an amendment which has benefited from the input of the Local Government Association, and, I am pleased to say, has the support of Wildlife and Countryside Link. As I mentioned earlier, it would allow for a public consultation on various proposals which have been suggested by other Members of this House and other organisations across the UK. While I will not delve into the various options now, noble Lords will note that proposed new subsection (2) outlines the key alternatives. I also draw attention to the fact that the amendment stipulates that the consultation would launch, be completed and laid before both Houses within three months. I see no reason why the Government cannot provide an evidence-based solution to this Parliament.

It is abundantly clear that there are far better ways to build the new homes we need than at the expense of our precious environment. I hope the Minister will accept our amendment, withdraw the government amendments, and agree that polluting our rivers is not a price we need to pay for sufficient housing supply. If not, as other noble Lords have indicated, we will oppose the government amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, let me conclude this debate by responding to a number of points that have been made, starting with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I shall not name all noble lords, if your Lordships do not mind, in each response, but those who asked the questions will know who they are, and questions were asked by a number of noble Lords.

I turn first to the question on the views of the OEP. As my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary has set out very clearly in her response to the Office for Environmental Protection, we do not accept that this will lead to regression in environmental outcomes. It is the Government’s judgment that it will not. The reform package will improve the conditions of these habitat sites. The obligations on water companies to upgrade wastewater treatment works in designated catchment areas by 1 April 2030 will far outweigh the nutrients expected from the new housing developments, by putting in place wider upgrades for the long term. These upgrades will benefit existing houses, not just new homes, providing an effective approach to reducing existing wastewater nutrient pollution, not just forestalling the possible future pollution from development. On top of that, we are doubling investment in Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme to £280 million, which will be sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to the 100,000 homes between now and 2030.

Staying on the OEP, my noble friend Lady McIntosh suggested that the Government broke the law on sewage. We always welcome scrutiny from the OEP, and we are co-operating with it fully to support its work in many areas. The OEP has not concluded that the Government broke the law on combined sewer overflows; it issued an information notice requesting a further response from Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, and is continuing to investigate.

I move on to another issue that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, brought up, as did many other noble Lords: how can we justify asking local authorities to effectively ignore the facts? I dealt with this in my opening speech, but I am going to repeat it.

The assumption we are asking competent authorities to make is reasonable for two reasons. First, this assumption is limited to developments where the wastewater is treated by a wastewater treatment works or a private treatment system regulated under the environmental permitting regulations. This means that nutrients from wastewater will remain subject to the strict legal duties that are binding on water companies and others who operate wastewater treatment systems. These duties are becoming stricter in many affected catchments, thanks to the wastewater treatment work upgrades mandated through the Bill. As I said before, the Government estimate that this will lead to a 69% reduction in phosphorus loads and around a 57% reduction in nitrogen loads in total from wastewater treatment works across all affected catchments, significantly reducing nutrient pollution at source in a principled manner.

Secondly, a package of measures we are putting in place will ensure that we more than offset the additional nutrient flows from new housing. This includes the significant additional investments we are putting into Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme. Local authorities will be able to object to planning applications on the basis of nutrient pollution; it is mandatory to consider it. Local planning authorities will still have to consider the impact from nutrient pollution as a material planning consideration, as the amendments made no change to the wider operation of the planning system.

Planning decision-makers will continue to have regard to the national planning policy and material planning considerations, and the Government are clear that the focus of planning decisions should always be on whether the proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes, where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes. Nutrient pollution from wastewater treatment works is controlled under environmental permits, and planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

Another issue brought up by a number of noble Lords is that the developer should pay. The Government agree. It is essential that housebuilders contribute fairly, and we all agree with the principle that the polluter should pay. We are working with the HBF to structure a fair and appropriate contribution system. My officials are in active discussions with it about the design of these schemes, including considering how they are delivered.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

276: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcareIn section 8 of the Childcare Act 2006 (powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare), omit subsections (3) to (5).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows local authorities to open their own childcare provision.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I seem to have a lot of paperwork on my lap but I will talk very briefly to Amendment 276. I thank the Minister, who is no longer in her place, for her response but, having listened to what she said, I am afraid that I would still like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for introducing her amendment and for bringing it back at this stage. Her Land Use in England Committee wrote an excellent report on this, Making the Most out of England’s Land, with a number of recommendations for the Government. As she said, the Government have said that they will look at this. The question is: when and how is that actually going to happen? She made a very important point about the fact that the Government are looking to focus very much from a Defra point of view, whereas actually, if we are to address the wider aspect of land use and tackle many of the conflicting priorities, it has to be done across parties and across departments to be genuinely effective. We have to work across the House and across all departments to come out with something that will actually make a difference.

I confirm our full support for what my noble friend is trying to achieve with this, and I will be grateful if the Minister confirms that the Government are treating this as a priority, that we will see something sooner rather than later, and that the Government are also intending to work right across all departments and to work constructively across the House.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has once again highlighted the important issue of land use, and I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s plans in this area. First, the Government agree with the intention behind the amendment. Major influences on the use of land must be considered in the round—that is completely accepted and indeed it is why Defra has been working closely with a number of other departments to develop the content of the land use framework for England, which will be published this year. The framework will provide a long-term perspective and, to pick up the point the noble Baroness made, it is supported by the latest advances in spatial data science. We have developed the evidence base needed to ensure that policy can make a virtue of the diversity of natural capital across the landscapes of England.

That said, the Government’s view is that it is neither necessary nor sensible to specify the framework’s scope and purpose in legislation at this stage. There is a very simple reason for that: our work on the framework needs to be open to the latest evidence and insights and indeed, if necessary, to change as our understanding continues to develop. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the principles she has highlighted are very much in our minds as we approach this important task and that we look forward to engaging with her, and indeed everyone else with an interest, in due course. I hope that, with those reassurances, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised an interesting issue. I will briefly comment on it because, to me, it seems that the fundamental issue is not just a visual aspect; it is also the fact that by using paving on front gardens you greatly increase the risk of flooding, because the run-off from paved-over front gardens is a serious addition to flooding problems. The issue here is not just whether you have pretty flowers in your front garden. There are complex issues, such as those which the noble Lord referred to around access to home charging, which will be very important in the future. There are excellent porous products that can be used instead of hardstanding. If local authorities are to have a role, it ought to be in specifying to ensure that porous products are used, not just in front gardens but in the creation of any car parks, because they work perfectly well.

I will briefly refer to the issue of aviation and the provision of airports. The concentration of so many large airports in the south-east of England is one of the most obvious manifestations of inequality in the UK, as well as making it extremely difficult to build modern public transport links to those airports to reduce their impact on the environment. The UK is generously supplied with airports, in comparison to most other countries. Many of them have spare capacity. I would urge that what needs to be done is to take these two factors together. Therefore, there is no justification for the expansion of airports in the south-east, and, in particular, no justification for expanding Heathrow for a third runway.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, there are a number of quite disparate amendments in this group, so I will speak briefly to them.

The first is Amendment 281 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I added my name, on a register of disrepair in schools and hospitals. This raises a very serious issue. She introduced it very clearly and in detail, so I will not repeat what she said other than to endorse her remarks. We are completely behind her amendment and what she is trying to achieve with it. If the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, she will have our strong support.

Turning to the other amendments, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is now in his place. His amendment, around creating a new partnership model for town centre investment zones, has not really been mentioned. We had quite a discussion about this in Committee, in which we expressed our support. I express that support again and urge the Government to work with the noble Lord on how this approach can be taken forward. We need to do something to support many of our town centres, and his suggestions are worth exploring.

My noble friend Lady Young spoke to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, around local authorities publishing a list of publicly owned land which is suitable for community cultivation and environmental improvement. I totally support the principle of this; it seems like a sensible way forward to improve local growing and the environmental purposes of land.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, introduced the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, around reviewing the air transport sector. We must really think about our approach to this when we look at climate change. Obviously, we must support this important part of our economy. However, there is so much more to consider. I come back to this over and again: why is it so much cheaper to fly than it is to go by train? This has got to be at the core of how we approach this, particularly if you look at what the French Government have done regarding internal flights. It is something we must take a much stronger look at.

Finally, I was going to make the same point as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about surface water flooding. If we are going to pave over more of our towns and cities, we are going to have more of a problem with surface water flooding—it is just a matter of fact. I support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to see what we can do to stop so many of the gardens in our towns and cities being paved over. It is not just about the aesthetics—although, obviously, they are lovely; there is a practical reason to consider this more carefully.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 281 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, considers the important issue of school and hospital safety. It would require the Government to keep a register of schools and hospitals in serious disrepair. Nothing is more important than the safety of pupils, patients and staff in schools and hospitals. That is, I am sure, common ground between us across the House; however, it is our belief that the amendment is unnecessary. Furthermore, we think that it would not, in practice, have the effect that the noble Baroness intends. The Government provide significant funding and support for the upkeep of schools and hospitals, including additional support where there are issues that cannot be fully managed locally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I want to put on record that I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on this issue. The Government have to give an explanation. The experts say it is impossible to decarbonise our electricity supply by 2035. Labour has planned to do it by 2030, but if it is impossible to do it by 2035 then it is certainly impossible to do it by 2030. One has only to look at recent papers—for example, the one by Professor Dieter Helm, an expert. It lists completely all the points that we are going to miss.

One of the missing ingredients is of course onshore wind. I have seen these huge onshore wind farms under construction in Shetland. It is true that they took rather longer in terms of planning applications that I thought they would—instead of eight years, I thought they would be pretty quick. The biggest problem will be that they are so big that the grid does not have the wires to get the power to the mainland. That is crazy.

Then there is the matter of alternative jobs. I find the windmills magnificent, whether they are in the Lake District, Cornwall or anywhere else—they are not an eyesore—but where are they made? We are losing out on manufacturing. We are importing far too much because we do not have an energy plan. We have 20 bits of energy, but that is not an energy plan. Without one, we are going to be importing and importing, and we are going to lose the jobs that the green policies should give to our people.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in this amendment. It is important that we continue to discuss where our energy comes from, what kind of energy we want and how it is going to help us meet our net zero and low-carbon targets. Onshore wind has to be an important part of that. She is completely right to draw attention to the problems we have been facing in recent years in getting onshore wind built. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about the issues of the results of round 5 recently. That puts a sharp focus on some of the issues we have had around wind farm development, whether offshore or onshore.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as it is not customary for anyone on these Benches to speak on their behalf, I just add thanks on my own behalf, which I hope will be shared by colleagues, to the Minister, particularly for his appreciation of the contribution made from these Benches. Of course, I send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. Her courtesy throughout has been outstanding and her tenacity to be admired, and I add my best wishes for her restoration to good health as soon as possible. I add my thanks to the Bill team, even if we did not agree on quite a number of points, and to our clerks. I particularly thank the noble Earl’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for the way in which he responded to the question of building preservation notices, to the CLA, of which I am a member, and Historic Houses for their valuable input on that.

On the other matter of interest to me, namely building safety remediation, I am of course sorry that I could not persuade the Government or your Lordships to support a different way forward, but I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to people outside—they know who they are and I will not mention them by name, but they have dedicated their time free and without any benefit to themselves to assist me with their comments and their critique. I also thank the many other experts, and professional and trade bodies, who were willing to share their thoughts with me.

I particularly express thanks to Amanda Walker, a leaseholder, for her courage in coming forward with her story, and the hundreds of other leaseholders who wrote to me with theirs. I thank Jake Fisher for his online petition, which gained 50,000 signatures in 25 days. My focus throughout has been on them and getting fair treatment for affected leaseholders generally, even if my approach has not always been fully understood or appreciated. I do not intend to give up trying.

Finally, I am most grateful for the support across the House for the general principle sitting behind the fact that we all, I think, believe that leaseholders should not pay for construction defects for which they are blameless. There is clearly a lot more work to be done, but I am enormously grateful for the general acceptance across the House of that principle.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Earl for his very kind comments around the constructive work that we have all been doing together. I send our very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has been a remarkable workhorse on the Bill. Her door has always been open to us for any discussion and I thank her very much for that. Alongside her, a number of people need to be given a Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill endurance award, because it really has felt a bit like that at times: we have been ploughing through this since January. So, I thank her and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. People seem to have forgotten—we have been going on for so long—that she did an enormous amount of work in the early stages of the Bill, so we want to pass our thanks to her as well. We also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, and all the visiting Ministers who have come in and talked to the different areas of their expertise.

We have done extremely constructive Cross-Bench work with the Government, noble Lords on the Government Benches, Cross-Benchers and our Liberal Democrat colleagues, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is very good to have been able to work so constructively on the, unusually, many different issues in this Bill that we have had to discuss, tackle and understand. On that note, I also thank all the organisations and NGOs that have provided so much information, time and support to us in understanding some of the more complex areas. I have a whole book of all their different names, which would take too long to go through—if you took part, we are very grateful; thank you for making the Bill better than when it arrived here.

Many Back-Benchers worked incredibly hard on this and we should be very grateful to them. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who has been the most tremendous support to me all the way through. I could not have done it without her help. I also thank our team; Ben Wood in our office has worked incredibly hard and tirelessly on this Bill, through recess and weekends. We have asked so much of him and he has always delivered everything. My final thank you is to the doorkeepers, who have sat through a few late nights with us on this and have always kept a smile.

There are quite a number of outstanding issues that we will come back to after the Recess, on which this House believes that the Bill could be improved. I hope that, ahead of ping-pong, when we revisit these issues, the Government will continue to work constructively with those of us in this House who believe they are important to improve the Bill. Our door is always open. We look forward to hearing from the Government on some of those issues.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

Why not put these issues at the very heart of what we are trying to do? We on these Benches strongly support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness. I hope she calls a vote, because we will strongly support her.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have some amendments in this group. Amendment 1 concerns the timetable for when the levelling-up Statement should be published. I put on record that we are very happy with the noble Earl’s response and accept the Government’s arguments about that.

I also have the amendment on levelling-up funding. We are pleased that the Government have said they will take a new approach to the third round of the levelling-up fund, and that they have listened to the arguments in this House in Committee and on Report. We welcome the fact that the amendment in lieu has been tabled by the Government so that the Minister has a duty to lay before each House the Statement about the third round of the levelling-up fund within three months of Royal Assent.

I also have Amendment 199 on high-street funding, banks and post offices. We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter; I do not intend to press it any further.

I was pleased to hear the response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on rural-proofing and that the Government have tabled the amendment on having regard to the needs of rural communities. Rural communities often feel left out and forgotten, and more needs to be done to take account of that during any levelling-up and regeneration process. It is important that geographical disparities are taken account of.

I will not say much about my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment on child poverty and health inequalities because she has laid it out very clearly, as have other noble Lords who have spoken. As others have said, if you are genuinely going to sort out disparities and level up, you really have to take into account health inequalities—they are the basis of so much—and child poverty is impacted by that as well. So it is disappointing that the Government have not gone further on this and recognised the difference that they could make. If my noble friend wishes to divide the House, she will have our strong support.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the government Motions in this group and on the amendments that have been tabled. As regards Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about which she has just spoken, and which concerns round 3 of the levelling-up fund, there is little more that I can add to my earlier remarks. She may like to know, however, that policy development relating to round 3 remains ongoing and, for that reason, the Government cannot comment on the specifics of the statement at this time. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Baroness that we have published information on the GOV.UK website regarding allocations in round 1 and round 2 of the fund, and we would expect to do so again in this third round.

Turning to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and spoken to by other noble Lords, while I have spoken about our reasons for not accepting her amendment, I would not want the Government’s policy in both these important areas to go by default. I simply say to the noble Baroness that it is important to look not only at what the missions might be able to do—I have already described what our approach will be in that context—but, equally, at what the Government are doing on the ground.

It remains our firm belief that the best way to help families with children to improve their financial circumstances is through work. As I am sure she knows, because she is an expert in these areas and probably has the statistics in her head, we are supporting working people with the largest ever cash increase to the national living wage. We will spend around £276 billion through the welfare system in Great Britain in 2023-24, including £124 billion on people of working age with children. To help parents on universal credit who are moving into work or increasing their hours, the Government will provide additional support with upfront childcare costs. We will also increase universal credit maximum childcare costs. These issues are not ones the Government regard as trivial—quite the opposite; they are centre stage in the work the DWP and others are doing.

I repeat the undertaking I gave earlier to the noble Baroness. The first statement of levelling-up missions will contain the missions mentioned in the levelling up White Paper, including the mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy and increase healthy life expectancy by five years. I hope she will regard that as evidence of the Government’s intent, even if we have to beg to differ on what ought to go on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his comment. What we did discover, and I have the papers with me, was that there would still be a subsidy for major applications—that was in the papers—and that there would be a subsidy for householder applications. But the case I make is this: if householders wish to add an extension to their house or improve it in some other way, then there is a cost to that, of which the planning application fee is a minor part. Why should their next-door neighbour subsidise it? I do not think it is a just or fair way of spending taxpayers’ money. If we told them that this was happening, I think they would be as cross as I am.

We need to recover costs because the principle that I have just outlined, but also because without local planning authorities being fully resourced, they will not turn around the situation that is well recorded by professional bodies, by the Local Government Association and by the Government in the papers that we had for the statutory instrument last week—that there is a significant shortfall in planning officers in local government because of the lack of resources. If we are going to reverse that, local planning authorities need to be properly resourced, so that in a plan-led system we have experienced and well-qualified planners who have the responsibility of ensuring that local and national plans are respected.

The only other point I want to make on this issue is this: many councils across the country are under severe financial pressure—let us put it like that. Some, as we heard from Birmingham, which was the latest council, are on the brink of having insufficient resources to fulfil their statutory obligations. Particularly in those circumstances, it seems quite wrong to expect councils to use council tax payer funding to subsidise planning applications, hence my continuing pursuit of a fair and just planning application fee process.

I suppose my final point on this is to totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when he asks why on earth in a local democracy cannot local government have the right, responsibility and duty to set its own fees? It does on everything else, so why not on that? I will push this to a vote if the noble Earl fails to agree with me and others’ powerful speeches on this.

On the other amendments, I endorse the “healthy homes” Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has pushed again today. He is absolutely right: why do we continue building places that produce problems, when we could solve it from the outset? If the noble Lord wishes to press his Motion, he will get our full support, as will the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Motion on climate change. He is absolutely right; it is an existential threat to our country. We must take it seriously, and here is one area of policy where we can be seen to be doing that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. This has been quite a long debate, and we have a number of votes at the end of it.

First, on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, regarding NDMPs, we agree with her that the Government’s amendment is not sufficient to answer the concerns that were raised in Committee and on Report. If the noble Baroness wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.

Secondly, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on planning and climate change, we consider this an extremely important issue, as other noble Lords have mentioned. If he wishes to divide the House, he will have our full support.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on healthy homes, which he spoke to so eloquently—as did the noble Lord, Lord Young—we also believe that health needs to be at the centre of planning when making decisions about housing. If the noble Lord wishes to press this to a vote, he will have our full support.

We welcome the fact that there have been concessions on ancient woodland and offshore wind, and some concession for the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his amendment. We would have preferred to see mention of social housing, as well as affordable housing, in the Government’s Amendment 329A.

On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on floods, it is very important and the Government need to get a grip on whether people can get insurance—ideally through Flood Re—because we cannot have insurance with excess that is so huge that it makes the insurance pointless. We have a debate tomorrow on Storm Babet; I am sure these issues will be raised again then.

Finally, on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on planning fees, we believe that this is an important point that we need to continue to discuss. Therefore, if the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our strong support.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, once again I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and questions.

Motion L1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, relates to national development management policies and the process by which they are made. We do not agree with the principle that the process for making national development management policies should be based on that for national policy statements. National development management policies will serve a broader purpose than national policy statements, which are used by Ministers to make planning decisions for major infrastructure projects, so it is right that their requirements should be suited to their purpose, not based on the provisions of a different regime.

That said, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness’s characterisation of Motion L. The parliamentary scrutiny proposals in Motion L go even further than the provisions for national policy statements. The NPS provisions refer to the House of Commons where these proposals refer to both Houses. The NPS provisions require the Secretary of State to respond to recommendations of a committee of either House before they can be made, while this Motion would require a vote in favour of the proposals if a committee of either House made recommendations about a draft policy. This Motion would limit the circumstances in which no consultation is necessary to those in the interests of public safety or national security. That would be too narrow for the exceptional circumstances in which we expect this provision to be used. Examples we have given—such as our changes during the pandemic offering protection to theatres that were temporarily vacant—would not have been able to be made with such a narrowly drafted provision. This is because, although the policy change was in response to the pandemic, it was not in the interests of public safety or national security itself. We do not think this part of the amendment is necessary, as NDMPs will be a programme of policies that we anticipate will be captured by the requirement to undertake statutory environmental assessment.

Motion N1 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, requires the Secretary of State to

“promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.

While the Government, as I have said on many occasions, support the principle raised by the noble Lord, I say again that these matters are already taken into consideration and addressed through existing systems and regimes. That includes through building safety, building regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework, the national design code and the national model design code. The creation of an additional regulatory framework would cut across these regimes. I know he said that was the whole point, but I contend that those regimes are already comprehensive, and the Government therefore cannot support his Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion Z I will also speak to Motions ZA, ZB and ZB1. As in the earlier group, I draw the attention of the House to the advice from the House of Commons authorities that Motion ZB1 is financially privileged.

The Government listened to the arguments made about local authorities opening their own childcare provision, as reflected in Amendment 239, which was carried on Report. While we did not feel that there was a legislative gap, we have proposed Amendments 239A to 239C in lieu. Amendment 239A removes restrictions on the powers of local authorities to provide their own childcare, as intended by Amendment 239, but does so in a way that is legally sound. Amendments 239B and 239C relate to the extent and commencement of Amendment 239A. On this basis, I hope that your Lordships will agree to these amendments in lieu.

On Report your Lordships also approved Amendment 240, which would require that a Minister publish an assessment of the impact of the enforcement sections of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on levelling up and regeneration. Once again, we have listened to noble Lords’ desire to see something tangible about the Vagrancy Act in the Bill. Given our commitment to the repeal and replacement of this Act, and because identifying, gathering and analysing the information will take significant time, we have agreed to publishing a report but propose that a year should be provided for this, instead of 90 days. To that end, we have tabled Amendments 240A to 240C in lieu, which commit the Government to providing the report within a year. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be able to support these amendments.

I turn now to the final issue in this group, as reflected in Amendment 241, which was also carried on Report. This amendment would require the Government to maintain a register of school and hospital buildings in serious disrepair, and to update the register every three months. The safety of our school and hospital buildings is of paramount importance. That is why we invest significant capital funding into improving the estates each year and provide targeted support on issues such as RAAC. We regularly and routinely collect and make available extensive data on the condition of schools and hospitals.

The proposed amendment would drive a number of unintended—and I would say unwanted—consequences. Most concerning is the burden it would place on the school and hospital estates sector and departments, given the volume of relatively minor issues that would require reporting, analysing and following up in order to maintain such a register, ultimately drawing focus away from the most serious issues that require additional support to keep our schools and hospitals safe. The amendment would also carry inevitable financial implications for both the NHS and school systems to collect and maintain such a register, at a time when we all recognise the importance of maximising the front-line impact of resources going into public services.

The House will therefore wish to note that the reason given by the other place for rejecting Amendment 241 is because of the costs that it would impose on public funds through new data collection requirements. In the light of the Commons reason, I trust and hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will not wish to take the issue further and will instead be content to accept Amendment 241A. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled an amendment in lieu that would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on schools and hospitals in serious disrepair within 12 months, and every year thereafter. The Government already publish a wide range of information on the school and hospital estates as a matter of course. For example, on health, the annual Estates Returns Information Collection report contains detailed data on individual hospital condition and safety.

For schools, the department has already run two major condition data collections in recent years, made individual reports available to the sector, and published a summary of findings in 2021. In July, detailed data on all 22,000 schools within scope of the condition survey was deposited in the House Libraries and made available on the Parliament website. A third data collection is under way, covering all 22,000 schools and colleges in England. The Government have also published information about schools and hospitals with buildings confirmed as containing RAAC. The education department does not own or manage the estate, as I am sure she knows, so collecting and reporting additional information would have resource implications for both the department and the bodies responsible for school buildings, and take focus away from supporting schools with the most serious issues. Parliament is routinely updated on these issues already, and they are subject to frequent scrutiny and debate among colleagues. That will clearly continue to be the case, and the Government’s view is that the amendment is not required. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to thank the Minister for his introduction regarding the two amendments that were moved by the Front Bench here. The first was in my name, relating to childcare. We thank him for listening to and recognising our concerns, and thank the Government for tabling an amendment that does exactly what we asked for; we very much appreciate that. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage had an amendment down on vagrancy, and again, we are very pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu on the Vagrancy Act. I will say only that this was promised two years ago, so in our opinion the sooner that action is taken on this, the better.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has an amendment in lieu on RAAC. The Minister is aware, as are other noble Lords, of increasing concerns about the number of schools, hospitals and in fact other buildings that have been affected by this. It is important that there is proper information regarding the extent of the problem, and that schools and hospitals, and other organisations which have buildings that are affected have the support that they need, because this is extremely concerning.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed arguments he has put towards Motion ZB1 in my name, which I recognise have substance. However, the levelling-up Bill, which includes missions relating to education and health, means that we need to think about the quality of the public buildings provided, because they have a substantial impact on the quality of the services that are then received by those in both schools and hospitals. To have higher-quality buildings inevitably leads to better outcomes for patients, students and children.

Given that, there are two issues. One is that these are public buildings that are publicly funded, and there ought to be greater transparency for users and employees in those buildings of the state that they are in. The Minister has carefully explained the vast data collection that goes on regarding the buildings, both in the school and NHS estates. He is right—there is a vast collection of data. However, there is not transparent, easily accessible data for people who use those buildings and work in them. If, as he said, safety is paramount—I totally agree—the public need to see that there is transparency around the data on the state of those buildings.

I am asking the Minister and the Government to accede to easily accessible data concerning these public buildings because of safety concerns. That has been highlighted by the recent RAAC issue, and more and more buildings have been discovered with RAAC as a safety issue. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote today, but I hope that the Government will consider greater publicity and accessibility of the data that they collect already so that people can see what state their buildings are in.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

I thank all who have taken part in proceedings and those who have provided the essential support in different parts of this Chamber and in the office supporting the Liberal Democrat Benches. Finally, I genuinely look forward to seeing evidence of levelling up in practice where it is needed most. Sadly, at the moment, I cannot say that I am particularly optimistic on that score.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, significant changes have been made to improve the Bill while we have worked on it over the past 10 months—although I have to say that it is beginning to feel like a lifetime.

However, we are mainly looking at the two amendments in front of us—first, on whether local authorities should be allowed to meet virtually with hybrid technology. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on her assiduous work in pressing this issue and continuing to bring it to the attention of your Lordships’ House. We find the Government’s response deeply disappointing. In many ways, I would like better to understand why they have dug their heels in on this issue, because I genuinely do not understand why there could not be a little flexibility. Local councillors can see that, in your Lordships’ House, we are able to take advantage of hybrid technology, so why is this refused to councillors? It could have been put in legislation with fairly strict reasons for its use, so that is disappointing. I genuinely do not understand why no progress whatever was made on this.

Moving on to progress, we welcome the amendment in lieu of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on climate change and planning. I congratulate him on his work on this and on getting the Government to recognise that this is an important issue that needed an amendment to the Bill. We endorse the noble Lord’s proposals on how we can continue to take this forward.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is disappointing that, in a levelling-up Bill, neither child poverty nor health inequalities were included, because they are central to levelling up. On that, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister has chosen to remove the cap on bankers’ bonuses.

I thank everyone who took part and the noble Earl for his generosity in meeting to discuss these issues. We may be saying goodbye to the levelling-up Bill, but there is still much to do if we are to achieve levelling up in this country.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their respective remarks.

As I said earlier, I appreciate that my noble friend and other noble Lords beg to differ from the Government’s position on remote meetings of local authorities. However, the Government’s position rests on an issue of principle that has served local government well for over 50 years. The Local Government Act 1972 is clear that “attending” a council meeting means attending physically in order to be “present” at such a meeting. I appreciate that the Covid regulations saw us through some difficult and exceptional circumstances, but the democratic principle of face-to-face attendance of meetings at all tiers of government is important. There is a long tradition of local authorities meeting in person and, since the expiration of the temporary arrangements put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic, they have continued to do so without issue. Having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us fair warning that she expects to bring us back to these issues at a suitable point in the future.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for welcoming the government amendment. I suggest to noble Lords that we should not underplay the effect of the Government’s amendment in lieu, which will mean that all national development management policies will give consideration to their impacts on climate change mitigation and adaptation while they are being developed and designated. I will take back for consideration the noble Lord’s suggestion about including targets in the Explanatory Notes.

Finally, in response to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I can tell the House that the Scottish Parliament granted legislative consent for relevant parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill yesterday, following the agreement with the Scottish Government that was mentioned in the House previously.