Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Follow that.

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on levelling up. What is good for the Minister is that everyone agrees that we need to be levelled up. Not such good news for her is that we are not all really sure which bits we will level up. We all agree on transport; on housing, definitely; on health, which is absolutely critical; on skills, yes; and on devolution, definitely. There is a huge range of issues that Members of this House feel very passionately about, and they are all under the umbrella of levelling up. I wish the Minister good luck.

Since one book was already shown this afternoon, I will show another: the White Paper, Levelling Up the United Kingdom. There is loads in there that a lot of us will agree with. One of the things it says is that levelling up is

“a mission to challenge, and change … unfairness”,

and that there is a need to

“end the geographical inequality which is such a striking feature of the UK.”

It has loads of measurements and metrics in it, including that, if the north of England were able to produce at the same level as the south-east, the country would be better off by £180 billion. So what are we waiting for?

We on these Benches were anticipating a levelling up Bill that attempted to fulfil some of the fine words in the White Paper. Unfortunately, none of the words, especially those on the mission, is in the Bill—we just get mention of “the mission”, whatever that will be. There is a growing sense of disappointment and of an opportunity lost, which I have heard shared to a greater or lesser degree across the House during this debate.

I ought at this point to say that I have registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a councillor in Kirklees, in West Yorkshire.

About four hours ago, my noble friend Lord Stunell described the Bill as an “empty box of dreams” Bill, because the White Paper was very ambitious but the Bill does not live up to that ambition. Over the course of this debate four big themes have come out: social housing for rent, which has been mentioned many times across this House; the environment; remembering rural areas; and genuine devolution, as described so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. What we are left with is a Bill basically about planning and local government devolution to the counties, which is a long cry from the expectation that a Government were finally going to erase years of inequality and paucity of opportunity.

Part 1 claims to set out the levelling-up missions, but it is a series of clauses entirely devoid of content, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, pointed out. It would be good to hear from the Minister about the content of the levelling-up missions and what metrics are going to be used for their measurement. I have to say that the civil servants are to be congratulated on being able to produce six pages of legislation which are wholly dependent on the whim of the Government as to what is published. Clause 2(4) is a masterpiece of a get-out-of-jail clause. It states that if the Government consider that one of the levelling-up missions they agreed is no longer achievable, the report

“may state that His Majesty’s Government no longer intends to pursue that mission”.

We need a commitment from the Government to fulfil what was said in the White Paper.

Part 2 focuses on local democracy and devolution and, as my noble friends Lord Shipley, Lord Stunell and Lady Thornhill have set out, the headline of this part feels distinctly Orwellian. There is little about local democracy, and devolution is, as they and many other noble Lords have described, the delegation of powers and not genuine devolution. If county councils wish to combine to create new authorities, then all well and good, but the issue for us on these Benches and for many other noble Lords is the leaching away of local democratic accountability in these provisions. I will give just one example: combined county authorities can appoint associate members who are individuals, not representative of any institution or local organisation. It seems to me that being able to appoint associate members is a recipe for challenge around lack of transparency and lack of accountability—or worse.

I agree with many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, that parish and town councils are vital elements in providing local involvement and making decisions about improving their areas. So I turn to Part 3, about changes to the planning system, which has inevitably attracted a huge amount of comment and criticism. The best planning system creates a proper balance between developers and existing communities. Fairness and consistency in planning outcomes are important for its credibility.

Unfortunately, the Bill fails to adhere to these principles in some of the changes proposed. For example, Clause 87, which contains the proposal about the national development management policy, gives unspecified and draconian powers to the Secretary of State. Currently, local plans have to

“have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework”,

which is currently being rewritten. Can the Minister in her response set out reasons for significantly changing this approach? What is the purpose of the national development management policy?

Developers loudly condemn the existing planning regime for failing to enable house building, but I remind the Minister that over 1 million homes waiting to be built have planning permission. “Social housing” was the cry from nearly every Member of this House. I could mention many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke of its importance initially, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and my noble friend Lord Shipley. I hope the Government are listening.

Somebody had a good idea, which I wrote down, about redefining “affordable”. I hate that word. Affordable housing, as defined by the Government, costs 80% of average rents. That is not affordable to the vast majority of people. Redefining it as social housing could be a way forward; let us think about that.

There are six pages on street votes to enable planning in the streets; all I say on this is that it will be a postcode lottery.

Part 4 is about the infrastructure levy. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that. How can it fulfil the three different functions that he laid out? I am very concerned that, when a big development of 500 or more homes is built, a lot of facilities and amenities are needed as well as infrastructure. Perhaps the Minister will be able to spell this out rather more clearly than we can see in the Bill.

My noble friends Lady Parminter, Lord Teverson and Lady Sheehan, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and others, have spoken eloquently about the need for environmental improvements in the Bill. The environmental outcome reports and other green issues will need to be dealt with in Committee; a levelling up Bill with no reference to climate change seems totally lacking in using that opportunity.

I end on town centres, noting the vague references that have been made to improving their vitality and viability without mention that one of the reasons for the decline of our town centres is online retail. Retail warehouses have a very large tax advantage, especially in business rates. Reform of the business rates could have played a real part in the Bill, making online retailers pay their fair share as compared with town-centre retailers, to redress that imbalance. I hope the Government will look at that; it is certainly one of the things that we will raise in Committee.

To conclude, the levelling up White Paper is sadly to be consigned to the archives. Ambitious levelling up is no more. Those—I am one of them—who live in areas of geographic inequality understand how desperately change is needed. Sadly, the Bill in its current form will not achieve that change but we on these Benches will do our very best to put that right during its passage.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “levelling-up”
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to explore the meaning of the phrase “levelling-up” and whether this part is sufficient to support the aims of “levelling-up”.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have a lot of scrutiny of this Bill before us. Before we start, I want to explore what is meant by levelling up, and whether there is a broad agreement as to its definition and purpose. My amendment proposes to remove the words “levelling up”, as the content of the Bill fails to live up to the aspiration as described in the levelling-up White Paper.

Here is one definition. The purpose of levelling up is,

“to break that link between geography and destiny so that it makes good business sense for the private sector to invest in areas that have, for too long, felt left behind ... A vision for the future that will see public spending on R&D increased in every part of the country; transport connectivity reaching London-like levels within and between all our towns and cities; faster broadband in every community; life expectancies rising; violent crime falling; schools improving; and private sector investment unleashed.”

That is the former Prime Minister’s explanation, set out in the foreword to the levelling-up White Paper.

Does levelling up refer to this? The White Paper says:

“There are stark geographical inequalities between and within our cities, towns and villages … It is about unleashing opportunity, prosperity and pride in places where, for too long, it has been held back.”


These words were those of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and Andy Haldane, formerly of the Bank of England, in a further foreword to the White Paper.

The executive summary of the White Paper spells out the purpose very clearly:

“This requires us to end the geographical inequality which is such a striking feature of the UK … This programme has to be broad, deep and long-term. It has to be rooted in evidence demonstrating that a mix of factors is needed to transform places and boost local growth: strong innovation and a climate conducive to private sector investment, better skills, improved transport systems, greater access to culture, stronger pride in place, deeper trust, greater safety and more resilient institutions.”


Therefore, throughout the White Paper, on which presumably the Bill is based, there is a clear focus on geographical disparities and inequalities. These inequalities, it is argued, harm the whole of the country, not only for the lost opportunities of lower incomes and skills but because the consequence is lower growth, which has a negative pull on the country as a whole.

The levelling-up fund is, I assume, a precursor to a wider strategy. If so, it is instructive to analyse which areas have been granted funds in the first two rounds. If levelling up was to be laser-like in addressing the worst of the geographic inequalities, levelling-up grants would be targeted at those parts of the country deemed to be suffering the greatest inequalities as defined by the White Paper. Yet, as the House of Commons Library has shown, those areas categorised by the Government as priority 1 for grant funding had just 59% of the total funding available. Over £1 billion from the levelling-up fund was allocated to areas not deemed in greatest need; those were in priority 2 and even priority 3 areas.

That is not levelling up as defined by the White Paper; it is spreading the government funding jam way too thinly. Of course there will be, within every area, pockets of deprivation. Empowering and enabling local councils to tackle smaller areas of deprivation is probably the most effective way to do so. The levelling-up White Paper, however, is setting out a strategy, not for tackling individual poverty or small areas of deprivation but for finding solutions to economically underperforming places. Will the Minister clarify whether levelling up is to tackle individual poverty or to narrow the gaps as proposed by the metrics in the annexe to the White Paper?

The White Paper—it is a good read—also states:

“The UK has larger geographical differences than many other developed countries on multiple measures, including productivity, pay, educational attainment and health … While London and much of the South East have benefited economically, former industrial centres and many coastal communities have suffered. This has left deep and lasting scars in many of these places, damaging skills, jobs, innovation, pride in place, health and wellbeing.”


In chapter 1 of the White Paper the analysis is most clearly stated:

“The UK’s spatial disparities are also among the largest across advanced economies on a number of measures, including productivity and income per head … When assessed across 28 different measures—using different spatial units of analysis, different measures of prosperity and different indices of inequality—the UK has been found to be one of the most spatially unequal countries among the OECD.”


The Bill offers an opportunity to fulfil the aspirations set out in the White Paper. Currently, it fails to do so. The missions and capitals described in the White Paper must be part of this Bill. The Bill should then establish the legislation to enable those missions to be enacted. It fails to do so.

This is a complex Bill addressing, in part, one element of the White Paper missions, that of wider local devolution. It also has a detailed section on planning reform which may—or may not—add to a mission to narrow spatial gaps. Yet measures to enable the big strategy of levelling up are simply not there. Levelling up is a slogan seeking some substance. For the sake of millions of people, the substance and the financial commitment are desperately needed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling this amendment because it gives us the opportunity to pinpoint the tension at the heart of the levelling-up agenda. As the impact assessment reminds us, the problem it claims to address concerns unequal shares and opportunities, and levelling up

“is a mission to challenge, and change, that unfairness.”

It means

“giving everyone the opportunity to flourish”

and to have

“longer and more fulfilling lives”,

together with

“sustained rises in living standards and well-being”

for people everywhere. In fact, this is a statement about people, not places, as reflected in some of the missions. Yet the impact assessment states that achieving the aims of levelling up

“requires us to end the geographical inequality which is such a striking feature of the UK.”

The Minister’s levelling-up letter explains that the missions are necessarily spatial—but why are they purely spatial and geographical when inequalities of income and wealth between individuals are also striking features of the UK? A report published by the Social Market Foundation, called Beyond Levelling Up and written by a former senior adviser to recent Conservative Chancellors, argues that this approach to levelling up

“avoids the question of whether we think the gap between rich and poor is acceptable, and whether we are comfortable with the current levels of income and wealth accruing to the richest in society.”

I will leave those in poverty until a later amendment. To make matters worse, ONS data shows that inequality has worsened since he wrote the report, and it is worse still if we use alternative measures on inequality.

I ask the Minister if she thinks the gap between rich and poor is acceptable. How does she think that the levelling-up agenda’s ambitions can be achieved without addressing that gap between rich and poor?

--- Later in debate ---

Through the Bill we are placing an obligation on future Governments to state publicly and before Parliament whether they will proceed with existing missions or establish revised missions, and to report annually on their progress in delivering against those missions. As I said, Parliament will do the scrutiny and agree to the changes in any missions. That is the important place for it to be—not on the face of the Bill where, because it is in legislation, it cannot be changed very easily. I hope that I have given enough reassurances to the Committee, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response to the question I posed, which was to try to establish greater clarity on what we mean by levelling up before we start debating the 500-plus amendments to this Bill. Unfortunately, I do not think any of us are much the wiser.

On the one hand, the Minister was quite rightly able to agree what is in her Government’s White Paper, but equally she then talked about spreading the benefits or investment of levelling up away from those areas which the White Paper defined as spatial disparities or geographical inequalities. We ought to have a laser-like focus on dealing with those places, be they coastal towns, rural areas, or areas where old industries have gone and new industries have not replaced them. That is what I wanted to achieve from this short debate. Unfortunately, I really do not think that we are any nearer to knowing what the Government’s intentions are.

What I do know, from long experience and involvement in local government—I should mention, and apologise for not having done so, my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a councillor in Kirklees in West Yorkshire—is that, if we just have relatively short-term funding and investment packages, that will not work. The City Challenge; Single Regeneration Budget 1; Single Regeneration Budget 2; the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund; the whole panoply of those investment packages came and went and some of those places are still identified by the Government’s own White Paper as being priority one, in need of—in their terms—levelling up. The Government say in the levelling up White Paper that levelling up should be “broad, deep and long-term.” The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in front of us does none of those things, and although I beg to withdraw the amendment, I will be pursuing the aspirations and intentions of the Government in this levelling-up Bill throughout its proceeding.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Valentine (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendments 32 and 38, both of which deal with the independent evaluation of progress against the levelling-up missions. I begin by apologising that I was unable to be present for Second Reading. Levelling up is a subject I care deeply about and, with Business in the Community, I spend much of my time working in or for the sorts of places the Bill seeks to address. Before commenting on the amendments, I congratulate the Government on their levelling-up missions. While one can argue about whether these are exactly the right ones, I personally value the clarity and long-term commitment that these missions convey.

It is in this vein that I support the independent evaluation of progress. The missions need to work across government departments, across political parties and across Parliaments. I would value a statutory board being created to provide independent insight in exactly the way we have the Independent Commission on Climate. It seems to me that the long-term and challenging aspiration to level up socially has a strong parallel to tackling our environmental challenges and is at least as important.

I will finish by quoting two lessons from the LSE’s report on the effectiveness of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, where the parallels are, I think, obvious. The first is this:

“An independent expert body can strengthen climate governance by introducing a long-term perspective, enhancing the credibility of climate targets and ensuring more evidence-based policymaking.”


Secondly:

“To be effective, independent advisory bodies must have an appropriate status. This means having a clear statutory mandate, strong leadership, adequate resources, and sufficient powers to hold Government to account.”

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments to tease out the Government’s intentions as to the scrutiny of the success or otherwise of their actions in levelling up. While I speak to Amendments 24, 26, 32 and 49, to which I have added my name, I also wish to speak to the other amendments in this group.

The key question is how Parliament will know that progress has genuinely been made in reducing geographical disparities. That, after all, is the question at the heart of the White Paper. The only way to judge whether progress has genuinely been made is by using evidence and independence. All the amendments in this group refer to producing independent accountability of the statement that the Government will be making towards the end of a period of time—what that period is is still to be debated.

What is really positive about the White Paper is that it is absolutely full of evidence. There are around 80 different graphs and datasets to establish the evidence base for the purpose of the White Paper: how it is going to change different parts of the country and narrow the gaps. This set of amendments attempts to say that not only do we need the evidence but we need it to be independently assessed. I agree, obviously, with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, in talking about an independent commission or board—as we have done with climate change—to assess what is going on, and whether change has been made and, if so, how much and in what areas.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the missions not being in the Bill, because otherwise, the levelling-up Bill is whatever the Executive define it to be. The Government have set out in a lengthy White Paper what the Bill attempts to do: narrow the gaps, reduce geographical inequalities and disparities, and make a big difference not only to the people who live in certain areas but to the country as a whole. If we do not change the country as it is at the moment, the people who live in those areas will be the ones who are low paid, have poor health and low skills—as a generality, of course. If we can change that, we will change their lives and change the country as well; there would not be such a call on the health service and the benefits system if we had people with better paid jobs, higher skills and better health outcomes. It is in the interests of us all, not just those of some areas of the country.

I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about research and development. I draw his attention to what the White Paper says—and it is a government White Paper, not mine. It says that the Government need to ensure that there is government investment of a significant degree in these geographical areas of disparity—the spatial disparities it talks about—in order to attract matching private sector investment and create better paid jobs, and deal with all the concomitant issues related to low pay, poor health, poor skills and all the rest of it. That is what it says in the White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and to echo his concern about the lack of environmental ambitions expressed in the Bill, which I think we will also discuss in the next group. In my first contribution in Committee, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, to cover my other contributions in Committee.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his powerful and expert introduction to this group. I will speak briefly to offer Green group support for the general direction of all these amendments. I will focus in particular on Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which was ably introduced by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and talks about looking at

“the disparities between rural and urban areas”.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, talked about the different needs of different areas, but it is really important that, when we think about levelling up, we actually see ambitions for equal services for people all across these islands.

I will reflect on some of the experiences I have had in some small communities. Clun is a tiny, picture-perfect postcard village in south-west Shropshire near the Wales border. When I visited a decade ago, the locals believed that it was the smallest place in the UK with a food bank, which was operating out of the church. One of the volunteers working at that food bank told me that, until he got involved in that food bank, he never believed that anyone would need a food bank in Clun. He was absolutely and deeply shocked by the level of need and the experiences he encountered. There is a desperate need for essential support services. While I do not think that we should rest until the last food bank closes because of a lack of demand, we need to put other services in place to help the people who are now reliant on those food banks.

Another issue for so many of these areas is the fact that policies designed for cities and urban areas get imposed on rural areas. This makes me think about the time I visited a school in north Norfolk. The schools in that area had had imposed on them the idea of specialist schools: “Isn’t it great if pupils can choose to go to a sports academy or a language-specialising school?” However, as each village only had one bus service, pupils had no choice about which school they went to; they went only to the school that the bus went to. If you were really good at and fancied sports, but you ended up in the language school, that was just tough luck. That was because of policies imposed on rural areas which are just inappropriate.

I return to the issue of buses, because it is very close to the heart of the Green Party, having announced this week our policy for a fare that would be available to everyone in the country on local buses, “A One Pound Fare to Take You There”. When I talk about local buses in rural areas, I often get reactions such as, “Well, you can’t expect a bus in a rural area; it just won’t work.” However, I have been to Finland, where I caught a bus that went right into the middle of a national park. I went for a walk, I came back and stood at the bus stop, and I waited for the next bus service, which came every half an hour, all day, in the middle of that national park. So, when thinking about levelling up in an absolute and real sense, we should not be saying, “Oh, it’s a rural area; they can’t expect this or that.” In particular, we should not say that they cannot expect the foundation of a bus service so that people can get around. For that reason, I think that Amendment 3, about reducing disparities, is crucial.

My final point is about the little bit of discussion we have had on the Government’s vision for rural areas. Over the decades, the direction of travel in rural areas has been that landholdings and farms will have to get bigger and bigger, with fewer and fewer people working on them. However, I suggest that levelling up for rural areas means restoring small businesses and small farms which employ quite a lot of people. That then means that there are children to go to the local school, that there are people to get on the bus, and that the bus is there for the older people who need it, perhaps because they cannot drive any more. Restoring communities is about a lot more than asking, “Oh, what’s there and what can we support?”; it is about a vision.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Young, that we will not hear from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. As someone who also knows that problem of running between the Chamber and the Moses Room all too well, I sympathise.

I do not feel that I need to add anything to the child poverty point made in the three powerful initial speeches. All one can say is that we hope that the Government in both Chambers were listening to those three speeches or will at least read them, because, really, how could they not act on the basis of them?

I want to focus on three amendments: Amendment 8, adding climate emergency as a mission, Amendment 18 on net zero, and Amendment 19, on the Environment Act. I broadly support what the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, but I slightly disagree with him because he said that he could not imagine a Government who did not have a net-zero-by-2050 target. I can imagine it: I know that we need a Government who have a target for net zero long before 2050, and indeed, who need to explore very closely that phrase “net zero” and what exactly it means. Perhaps I should add that that is a friendly disagreement,.

I am not quite sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that net zero should not be sitting there as a target on its own. As he was speaking, I could not help but think about the often-repeated phrase that what is not measured is not prioritised. If it is across all the targets—I very much agree that it applies across all the targets—is there a risk that it just disappears into the “Yes, we’ll put a few nice words in without really putting the counting in there”? We are seeing from local councils, so many of which have declared a climate emergency or, indeed, a nature crisis, that they are desperate to do that—to be able to show their own contribution.

A lot of our discussion about the climate emergency has focused on mitigation and the possibilities of mitigation. It is important to put that in the current global context, where we see both the United States and the European Union—particularly the US leading, with the EU trying to follow—putting massive sums of investment into what is loosely called the green economy. If we think about the Government and their often-expressed desire to be world-leading, there has been a real change in the global context just in the last few months. In that light, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Most of the talk has been on climate mitigation. When we are particularly talking about what are commonly described as “left-behind communities”, such as the rural and coastal communities which we were talking about in the last group, the issues of adaptation and resilience to the climate emergency really need to be highlighted.

Here, we speak in the week when the UN Security Council had its first ever debate on the impacts of sea-level rise, and in just the last day or so we have seen some truly terrifying research coming out about the weakness of ice sheets that have the potential to cause a massive sea-level rise. As I was sitting here thinking about this, I thought about a visit I made to a small rural village called Hemsby in 2014 after it had been hit by a storm and a number of homes had been swept away. I just looked up Hemsby and realised that this year, Hemsby has been hit by serious storms three times again, and the lifeboat has lost its ramp again and again. If we think about places that desperately need support in the climate emergency, communities such as Hemsby have to be at the forefront. We have not really heard much discussion about that in this debate. I am not sure whether this needs to be a separate mission. The issue of resilience needs to be across all of the missions, making sure that everything we are aiming to invest in and build can stand up to climate and other shocks when we live in this age of shocks.

A number of noble Lords made the point about the interaction of human health and well-being and the environment. I do not know whether the Minister is aware—I point this out to her as a constructive suggestion—of a UN project called the Healthy Urban Microbiome Initiative, known as HUMI. It focuses on how human well-being benefits from a healthy environment even in the most concentrated urban settings. A more biodiverse setting, even on the busiest urban street, is better for human well-being. That has to underpin everything the Government are doing and thinking about here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate about new missions to be added to the levelling-up agenda. Quite rightly, the Government have been thrown a challenge in four different ways. First, there was an absolutely vital challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about reducing child poverty being absolutely at the heart of any levelling-up agenda. As she and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said, currently 3.9 million children in our own country—nearly 4 million children—are living in poverty. If we do not use the Bill to address that scar on our country and our communities, we will not level up the lives of those communities in those localities.

The fundamentals that we have raised in this debate of child poverty, net zero, access to green spaces and protecting and enhancing our natural environment, are, for the reasons given, at the very heart of what the levelling-up ambitions ought to be achieving. As all the contributions have indicated, if we reduce those inequalities in those areas of spatial disparities, because we are focusing on those we will focus as a country on all child poverty. If we say that in the north-east people need access to green spaces, we focus on everybody’s access to green spaces. If we focus on reducing child poverty in some of the worst parts of our country, we improve the lives of every child because we are putting a spotlight on reducing those dreadful inequalities.

I thank the speakers, particularly my noble friends Lord Stunell and Lady Parminter, who drew the attention of the Minister and the House to the advantages of putting net zero and the environment at the very heart of all that we do. If we do not, we are missing a trick, as someone said. We have to will the means, said my noble friend Lady Parminter, not just express them. That is why on these Benches we will wholeheartedly support the amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, wishes to bring this back on Report, she will have our support, as will those who raised the other issues with regard to the environment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

The pandemic demonstrated to the whole UK on television at 10 pm each night that key services are run very differently in each country, with a different ethos and a different personality. What united them was the common desire to control the virus and minimise deaths. To do that, consultation was vital on a daily basis. There is no reason why the consultation should not be there in the long term on issues of this importance.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a really good debate on something as fundamental as the meaning of devolution. Throughout today we have been thinking about definitions of words. Devolution certainly needs to be redefined by the Government in their Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly pointed out, devolution can mean home rule, self-government or something quite different: devolution to the English regions. Throughout the Bill the Government clearly have stepped on the standing of the Governments in Scotland, Wales and on occasion, Northern Ireland, who rightly have legislative rights to determine their own way on many of the missions in the Government’s White Paper. That needs to be resolved on the face of the Bill, otherwise confusion will continue to reign.

The second big issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Stunell: devolution to the lowest possible level. What he said was really important. Obviously Whitehall never knows best, but the evidence shows that greater empowerment of local government and local people leads to better economic outcomes. Local decision-making sorting out local problems and finding local solutions gets better results. As he rightly pointed out, the White Paper is a rich source of evidence to support that proposition. True devolution will mean turning the Bill on its head and making sure that local areas are making changes and responding to the progress made, rather than the top-down approach we always get from this Government and others.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

All across Europe, the European Commission is fighting to increase the rate of new business formation and to add more small businesses. It is the starting point for the scaling up of businesses. Why are we not doing this in this country and in this mission? Why is there not a higher number of small and medium-sized enterprises in places such as the north-west? We know that the enterprise is there, but the data is telling us that it is not turning into the number of sustained businesses and the opportunity to scale up.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 31 in my name. It aims to ensure that initiatives and funding to achieve the aims of the levelling-up mission will be measured by a systematic, statistically accepted and agreed set of metrics. It fully supports Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which seeks also to have the missions put into the Bill. These metrics will be used to measure progress. If they are not in the Bill, I do not know how we will get the public to understand what is being achieved—or not.

Amendment 31 is unashamedly lifted from the technical and metrics annexe to the levelling-up White Paper. This seems to have been the will of the Government when it was written and published a year ago this month. Let us put this very acceptable set of measurements into the Bill and use them. This would give it some power and make it known that the Government are determined to put the missions into effect. It would make a difference in narrowing the gap in the spatial disparities.

The amendment sets out the key components of the metrics and references the main drivers of economic and social outcomes for places, which are named “capitals”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, listed those capitals. We are using such strange terms—“missions” and “capitals”—but let us use them because that is what they are in the White Paper. To remind us all, the six capitals are physical, intangible, human, financial, social and institutional, so they cover a whole gamut of individual and community well-being. The missions are attached to them, and the metrics are then attached to the missions.

The basic assertion in the levelling-up White Paper is that in too many places those capitals are in poor shape. When they are, those places are the ones where spatial inequalities exist. The evidence in the annexe—the Government’s own document—demonstrates that

“economic decline in the former industrial heartlands and coastal towns exacerbated poor health outcomes, which in turn led to lower levels of human capital. The lower levels of human capital then reduced the incentives for business to invest in the region and skilled workers left to seek employment elsewhere, further reducing the incentives to invest. The result was a self-perpetuating loop in which lower human capital fed into lower levels of investment, thereby reducing productivity and earnings growth, depleting social capital and pride in place, and further exacerbating the migration of skilled workers and capital out of the region.”

That says it; let us put pressure on the Government to do it.

That is the argument for the metrics. All these need to be measured and reported to Parliament if spatial gaps are to be considerably narrowed and seen to have been so following independent scrutiny, as we discussed on Monday. For example, pay and productivity are rightly seen as key to improving the life chances of people living in areas where spatial disparities are greatest. Thus, pay levels for those in employment must rise to help break the cycle of decline. As the annexe to the White Paper states:

“This mission is directed at closing the significant and persistent spatial disparities in productivity, wages and employment”.


That might answer the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for a measure of business and investment, because if you get business and investment at the right level, wages, productivity and employment will rise. That is what the White Paper says. Maybe his Government are at fault.

This metric could be readily measured by gross value added and by ONS data on pay. These measures are used by the ONS and can be applied to check progress, so putting this metric in the Bill would ensure that progress on raising incomes in areas of special disparities, as compared with the country as a whole, will of itself be a driver for change.

Improving skills and encouraging inward investment that requires higher skills will lead to higher-paid employment. Currently, there is a tendency for low-skill jobs in warehousing and distribution for online retailers to be created in areas that already have low pay and low skills, thus re-emphasising problems that are already there. Measuring the changes to skill levels, as defined in the metrics for mission 6 in the annexe, will be a driver for change and raising skill levels. In 2012, nearly 2 million adults were in funded FE and skills training—that figure is in the annexe. By 2020, that figure had dropped to below 1 million. The simple requirement of having to report to Parliament on progress on improving skills will be a significant driver to encouraging more adults to train or retrain, and there is no doubt at all that one of the negative pulls on economic growth is the poor skill levels in some parts of the country.

Another of the metrics set out in the annexe to the White Paper is the numbers who travel to work by public transport. In London that is over 50%, according to the data in the annexe—I was not quite sure that I believed it, but that is what it says—and in most other places in the country the figure is around 10%. So, measuring the modal shift that will be needed is important, not just for narrowing gaps but in supporting the net zero aim.

Currently bus services outside of London are in crisis with services being slashed, making it more difficult for those who rely on public transport to get to jobs, take up jobs and go to better paid jobs. The public transport mission is to improve local public transport connectivity in order to be

“significantly closer to the standards of London”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is smiling because she has just one bus per week, so if she had two, that might help.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We are laughing but in the end, it is no joke. It means that people are isolated and unable to get to employment. It is not just rural areas such as the noble Baroness’s. In one of the villages in my area—an urban area of west Yorkshire—you cannot get a bus after 5 pm. Come on! If we are serious about narrowing these gaps, we have to be serious about public transport. Many of those of us who live outside London will applaud that measure, because once it is part of a regular public reporting process, it will force change both in funding and in governance models.

I will not go through all 12 missions, you will be very pleased to hear, but that gives noble Lords a thread of an idea of what needs to happen if we are serious about helping parts of the country that suffer from not just one area of poverty, but which are deprived in all of these “capitals”, resulting in a serious negative pull on their lives and the lives of their communities.

The question for the Government is: are they serious about levelling up? If they are, the missions will be in the Bill, as in Amendment 7. If they are, the metrics should be included—in headline form, because I take the point that you cannot put in the Bill every way in which you are going to measure. All I have put in the amendment is that we will measure healthy life expectancy —about which we have had a bit of debate—which can be measured in a variety of ways.

If we do not include missions and metrics, we are not being serious about this. I feel very strongly about it, as perhaps you can tell, because unless we do, we are not being serious about helping people who do not have the same advantages and lifestyles as others are able to enjoy. We have to something about it; it is not acceptable.

I know this puts the Minister under pressure, but I want the Government to just say that they are serious about this and want to put this in the Bill, because these spatial disparities scar our nation and affect it negatively, through unfulfilled talent, lost opportunities and the cost to the public purse in subsiding low wages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

The contributions we have heard in Committee this afternoon get to the heart of the question as to whether the Bill, in practice, will have real-world impact. The discussions we have just been having on healthy life expectancy and homes really illustrate that general question mark. I suggest to your Lordships that two ways in which the Bill potentially could have impact would be, first, if, as amended, it forced a focus on the means by which the stated missions would be achieved; and, secondly, if it forced a more horizontal view across public policy to show how different aims connected in a shared way.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on healthy life expectancy. He quoted the position that I think existed in 2000s, when health life expectancy in this country was growing by about five hours a day. That is an extraordinary fact when you think about it. It means that, since the House has been sitting this afternoon, your Lordships would have gained about half an hour extra of life expectancy. Sadly, that no longer obtains, and the slightly draining sensation noble Lords may have had this afternoon more correctly corresponds to our physiological prospects.

The question is: does this Bill, in any way, in setting missions for healthy life expectancy, force a debate within the country and in government about the means by which you would actually do anything about it? My concern is that even having a mission and metrics potentially on the face of the Bill does not get you to the skin of the onion, peeling away the chain of causation by which you would reverse the unfortunate position we now find ourselves in. Looking at the amendments in this group and throughout the Bill, the question for me is: do they drive a focus on what real-world implementation would need to be to get the result we all want?

In relation to this, I was with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on her point about 250,000 homes and the need to deal with the supply side. I thought “My goodness, this is a speech from the noble Baroness I can actually agree with”—until she spoiled it at the end with gratuitous remarks about how we do not need green planning for housing, when of course that is precisely what we need. That is not the impediment to housebuilding in this country. We would be committing a historic error if we embarked on the necessary scale of housing construction without designing in congenial neighbourhoods and healthy lifestyles. The fact is that, in many developments that have been built, we are designing in, for example, car dependency. Your Lordships may be astonished to be reminded that, according to one estimate a few years ago, on average in this country we spend more time each week on the toilet than we do exercising. We are not going to change that fact just by the recitation of that rather startling insight; we are going to change it by doing precisely the opposite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, suggested.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I want to know who measured that.

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

My Lords, as I have set out in earlier debates, it has always been the Government’s intention that the first statement of levelling-up missions would contain the missions from the levelling-up paper. I want to repeat what I said yesterday about why we are not putting the missions on the face of the Bill. The missions will be published in a policy document laid before, and debated in, Parliament. The first example of this document will be based on the levelling-up White Paper and future iterations will include the headline and supporting metrics used to define the missions and measure progress towards them.

If we put them in the Bill, it would make this part of what we want to do—and what we think it is right to do—very inflexible. This way, Parliament and the public will have the opportunity to scrutinise progress towards the missions, including annually when the report is published. This is comparable to other key government objectives documents such as the Charter for Budget Responsibility, which is laid before Parliament for scrutiny. That is why we are doing it this way, and I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for supporting that way forward for the second day running.

I now move to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which inserts the Government’s levelling-up missions into the Bill. As I have said, that is not what we are going to do, because we do not feel that there would be flexibility if anything changes—for example, economics, data, pressures and issues in particular areas of the country. We would not have the flexibility to change the missions and scrutinise them, as I have said.

The 12 levelling-up missions are the product of extensive analysis and engagement. They cover the areas that require improvement to achieve an increase in the six capitals in the White Paper—human, physical, intangible, institutional, social and financial—and are needed to reduce the geographic disparities that we discussed today and that are identified in the White Paper. They are designed to be ambitious but achievable. They are necessarily spatial in their nature and definition, and they are neither national nor aggregate.

The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at an appropriate level of geography. These metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. The metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but are all clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities.

I reiterate that the Bill is designed to establish the framework for missions, not the content of the missions themselves. The framework provides ample opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions against a range of government policies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, brought up the allocation of levelling-up funds being made according to government priorities, rather than local need. Places are invited to submit bids—under the themes of the regeneration of town centres, local transport and culture —that they feel best meet the levelling-up needs of their area. Part of our strategic fit assessment test is on how far a place’s bid locks into its wider levelling-up plans and how well it is supported by relevant local stakeholders and community groups.

My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is not here and will therefore not move Amendment 13, but a number of noble Lords brought it up and I felt I ought to respond to it quickly. The levelling-up White Paper highlights the importance of the educational attainment of primary schoolchildren and sets out a clear mission to significantly increase the number of primary school- children achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and mathematics. In England, this will mean that 90% of children will achieve the expected standard, and the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst-performing areas will have increased by over a third. As we know, reaching the expected standards in these subjects is absolutely crucial for children to succeed at secondary school, which paves the way for success in later life. Ensuring that as many children as possible have these skills, regardless of their location or the current quality of their school, is an ambitious target, particularly as we work to recover lost learning from the pandemic.

We are already starting on that. The Education Endowment Foundation, which gives guidance and support to schools, has a £130 million grant. Importantly, we are supporting 55 education investment areas, including starting interventions in schools with successive “requires improvement” Ofsted ratings. We are also delivering a levelling-up premium—a tax-free additional payment to eligible teachers in priority subjects—which is very much weighted to those education investment areas. We have started already, with over 2 million tutoring courses, particularly for young people who were affected by the lack of education during the pandemic.

From Second Reading, I know that many noble Lords are interested in health inequalities in this country—we heard that again today. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is not here, but her Amendment 15 was nobly spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It puts forward that the missions must include reducing health disparities. I note Amendment 59 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 30, tabled my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who is not here, although it was mentioned by noble Lords. All of these would mean that geographical disparities include health outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, as this is my first time speaking in Committee, I lay out my interests as in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley and have listened carefully to this debate. Technically, it does not matter how small and granular the information is; it is how it is evaluated and reported against the aims of the mission that is important. That is why I want to speak in particular to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

If you look at the Bill, you see that the only person who will evaluate the homework of whether the geographical disparities are actually narrowing against the missions in the Bill is the Minister. The Minister will not only set the way in which the task is set but will then be the person who marks his or her homework on that. That is why it is particularly important that Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is accepted by the Government, as it proposes an independent review of whether the geographical disparities are narrowing.

I ask the Minister a very simple question: why would you object to an independent body assessing whether the Government are meeting the requirements in the Bill which they say they are so eager to meet? That is why, as Amendment 48 proposes, regardless of how data is collected, at what level and what criteria are used, it has to be independently measured to ensure that the Government’s desired requirements and policies are working to achieve the levelling-up issue in a geographical area.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, three issues have been raised by this small group: defining geographies—we talked a lot about geographies and spatial disparities— and granularity; independent scrutiny, which is really important; and then funding allocation and how that happens. I am beginning to think that the Government and the Minister may regret the publication of the levelling-up White Paper because it is a fountain of really good information.

On geographies, we need to understand what we mean by “geographies”. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about very small pockets of multiple deprivation, and largely we have been speaking in the previous debates, yesterday and today, about big, regional or county-wide differences across the country. We need to understand at what level—or is it at all levels?—levelling up will take place. The levelling-up White Paper is quite handy in that regard—the Minister is nodding, so that is a good start. It has not taken IMD—the index of multiple deprivation—but it has a great map; I love maps which are mapped out according to datasets of this sort. It is figure 1.13 in the book, if noble Lords want to know. It has mapped, across local authority areas, gross value added, weekly pay, healthy life expectancy and level 3+ equivalent skills in the adult population. It is very revealing.

The map shows where there are all four of those indices in the lowest quartile of the measures. Where are they? According to this map, it is not always where you suspect. One of the areas is north Norfolk— I would never have thought that. Another area is where we would expect: the north-east, shown as a great, dark blob where that is a problem. Then there is the area down the Yorkshire coast and then obviously on the Lancashire coast, where you would expect—and then central Devon. So this is a very important sort of dataset to use. That is on a big scale. However, when my noble friend Lord Shipley introduced this, he talked about being able to go below that level of dataset to understand where the highest levels of multiple indices are occurring on a regular basis and how that can be tackled.

So that is the first point: it is not defined in the Bill, and we need a definition of what we are tackling in terms of geographies. So I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Foster about the granularity and importance of the data, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Scriven on supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hullock—I am so sorry, I always do that; I meant the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—on the importance of independent scrutiny.

Finally, on the allocation of levelling-up funding to date, if this is a symptom of how it is going to occur in the future, we may as well abandon levelling up. The House of Commons Library has a report on the funding to date and where it has gone. The Government have put local authority areas into priorities 1, 2 and 3, with 1 being the most needy. I would expect that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the money would go to priority 1. But no: 59%, only just above half the money, has gone so far, in the first two rounds of funding, to priority 1 areas. Some has even gone to priority 3 areas, which, by the Government’s own definition, are doing okay. So what is this about levelling up?

In response to the question about the cost of bids, I know, because I spoke to the chief executive of Leeds City Council, that it spent a third of a million pounds on drawing up bids for level 2 and got not a penny piece in return. When local government across the country, or certainly where I am, is cutting its budgets—£43 million has to be found in my own budget in Kirklees because of rising energy prices, inflation and all the rest of it—local government cannot afford to spend a third of a million pounds on making bids that then get turned down because the Government decide to hand the money to local authorities in priority 3 areas. It is not right, it is not levelling up and it needs to change.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the assessment of levelling up. Amendment 10 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with whom I am more than happy to have a teach-in on data for anybody who would like to come and learn more about the technicalities—please just let me know. The amendment would define criteria that could be used to evaluate levelling-up policies that aim to address geographical disparities.

As I set out in detail to noble Lords in our first day of Committee, the missions contained in the levelling-up White Paper are a product of extensive analysis and engagement. The missions are supported by a range of clear metrics, used to measure them at the appropriate level of geography, and these metrics take account of a wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. These metrics cover a wide range of policy issues but all are clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities. This has been set out in the White Paper.

I turn to Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. This amendment would require an assessment by the independent evaluating body to be included in any review of statements of levelling-up missions. We have accepted in this Chamber that scrutiny and seeking expert advice will be important in ensuring that we deliver on our missions and level up the country. That is why we have established the Levelling Up Advisory Council to provide government with expert advice to inform the design and delivery of the missions. The council includes voices from different parts of the UK.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, might not have been here for the debate on a previous group but I should say that the advisory council is chaired by Andy Haldane and its membership was published in the White Paper. The council members are not tied to government views and the council is made up of renowned independent experts in their field, such as Sir Tim Besley, professor of economics and political science at the London School of Economics; Cathy Gormley-Heenan, a former deputy vice-chancellor of research and impact at Ulster University; Sacha Romanovitch, the CEO of Fair4All Finance; and Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive at L&G. All are independent experts in their field. We welcome the challenge and expert advice that the council provides and have been clear that we want it to provide us with candid views and challenging recommendations for how the Government are delivering levelling-up policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am assuming, optimistically, that local government will be a key partner in levelling up; I hope that is the case. It is therefore a bit disappointing that we had so little knowledge among us about the Spatial Data Unit, the deep dive team and the Levelling Up Advisory Council. I hope that we can put that right as we go through the Bill.

In speaking to these amendments, I hope that the wording of Amendment 39 has not caused consternation among my local government colleagues. If it has, they can blame my inexperience in your Lordships’ House for that. It was certainly not intended to represent a burdensome, bureaucratic reporting process; I have had plenty of those in my time as a council leader.

My point in tabling the amendment was to reflect our overall concern that it is currently difficult to determine from the Bill what mechanisms will be introduced to enable the effective monitoring and management of levelling up, either between government departments or by consolidating the actions of local government with what happens in government departments. I have suggested that guidance be published for the exact opposite reason than burdensome bureaucracy: to give local government clarity about how we would contribute to that monitoring mechanism. That is Amendment 39.

My second amendment in this group refers to the perceived gap between the planning framework and the levelling-up missions. If the two do not correlate, we will once again be in a position where what happens in the day-to-day business of local government is in danger of being disconnected from the overall aim of levelling up. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, referred earlier to the critical role that housing delivery can play in levelling up and my noble friend Lady Young spoke about the importance of the environment. Planning can certainly help tackle poverty of environment. The last example refers to the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the ability of planning to provide the framework to drive local economies. These are vital issues for levelling up. My second amendment is a probing one designed to determine both how that will be done and how the link will be made between the National Planning Policy Framework and the levelling-up missions.

Amendment 55 reflects my experience in local government, where there are always additions—they are generally helpful but sometimes are not quite so helpful—at the end of reports on legal, financial and equalities issues, climate change et cetera. The wide-ranging nature of levelling up means that it stretches right across government, and the business of local government is not necessarily an easy fit with government departments. It has been interesting for me since I came to your Lordships’ House to see that adult social care, for example, which is very much part of everyday local government life, does not sit in the local government department in central government but sits with health and social care. I have a big domestic abuse unit in my council in Hertfordshire; that sits very much with the Home Office in central government. There is not always an easy link so part of the mechanism to ensure that the Bill is considered properly as legislation goes through should be that those impact assessments refer specifically to how legislation reflects the aims of the Bill. Of course, in this case, I am thinking specifically of local government legislation as it comes forward.

I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has raised some significant points in her amendments in this group. The first is to include in the Bill the engagement of local authorities in reporting on levelling up in their areas. My noble friend Lord Shipley said in our debate on the previous group how there has been an obsession in government, from Governments across the decades, with ruling England from Westminster and Whitehall down to minute areas of decision-making. Certainly on this side of the House, we believe that local people and their locally and democratically elected representatives are best placed in this context to determine what areas within their council boundaries would best benefit from the levelling-up missions and funding. They would also be able to report on them because they have a depth of understanding and data that would help to make clear what progress has or has not been made.

That is a point well made, as is the point that the National Planning Policy Framework, which is currently in review, will relate to many of the missions in the Bill. Are we going to build new homes that are car-reliant or will we ensure that they can access public transport? Are we going to make them safe places in a safe environment for housing? Is there going to be in the framework allocation of land so that businesses are in appropriate places and are accessible for people who want jobs? All of that means that that is a very important point well made. No doubt it will be pursued at later stages of the Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, looks at the role of local government and the National Planning Policy Framework in delivering levelling up.

First, Amendment 39 would mean that county councils, unitary authorities and combined county authorities would publish annual reports on the delivery of levelling-up missions. I hardly need to re-emphasise that local authorities and local leaders have a crucial role to play in levelling up places across the UK. Empowering local leaders, including through agreeing devolution deals and simplifying the funding landscape, is a cornerstone of the levelling-up agenda.

This principle of empowerment is absolutely critical. Noble Lords have tended to criticise the Government for any suggestion of the centre telling local authorities what to do; writing this amendment into the Bill might appear to do just that. Having said that, many organisations outside central government, including All-Party Parliamentary Groups, academics, business bodies, think tanks and local organisations, have been debating and scrutinising the levelling-up agenda and how it could be taken forward in particular areas of the country; I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. The provisions on reporting in the Bill will further enable such independent assessment and thinking but requiring local authorities to report in this way, as I think the noble Baroness herself recognised, would surely be disproportionate and unnecessary.

Amendment 55 would mean that a Minister must publish a report on the impacts of this legislation on local government and a strategy to consider how this part of the Bill will impact local authorities through future legislation. 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 such policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. It is very clear that anything which issues a new expectation on the sector should be assessed for new burdens. As the Government develop new policies to deliver against their levelling-up missions, they will fully assess the impact on local authorities and properly fund the net additional cost of all new burdens placed on them. Therefore, 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.

Amendment 54 would mean that a Minister must publish draft legislation for ensuring that the National Planning Policy Framework has regard to the levelling-up missions. Although it would not be appropriate to legislate to embed the levelling-up missions in planning policy, the levelling-up missions are nevertheless government policy. Planning policy to achieve these will be a relevant consideration when developing local plans and determining planning applications.

The department is currently consulting on updating the National Planning Policy Framework. The consultation document was published in December 2022 and the consultation is due to close in March 2023. It sets out a number of areas where changes to national planning policy might be made to reflect the ambitious agenda set out in the levelling up White Paper, and invites ideas for planning policies which respondents think could be included in a new framework to help achieve the 12 levelling-up missions in the levelling up White Paper. The department will respond to this consultation by the spring of 2023 so that policy changes can take effect as soon as possible.

In summary, I suggest that these amendments, though well intended, are unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 39 and not move Amendments 54 and 55.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I accept entirely that when the noble Lord was a Minister, we got that first stage of ground rents through, and that was very good to do. The problem of course was that I could not persuade him on the next stage, but hopefully it is coming soon. But the noble Lord certainly got the first thing through, and I am very grateful for that.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, good debate. I agree.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I was concerned that, after quite a sky-level discussion of missions and strategy and things, Amendment 42 was going to be very specific and granular. We have had some outstandingly worthwhile speeches in the last few minutes, and I congratulate all those who sponsored the Bill and who have spoken so far.

I was going to speak in a granular sense as well about insurance, proposed new subsection 3(e) in the nine small but specific letters of this amendment that we are forcing the Government to address, if it is adopted, in the event that a report says that this should be done in the interests of levelling up. We have had such a good exposition on insurance scams from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I am not going to say what I was going to, which would only repeat much of what the noble Baroness said—but I do hope that we can get into the granular level of these injustices for leaseholders as the Bill progresses.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

I urge the Minister, who I regret to say probably will not agree to adopt Amendment 57, to at least acknowledge that there is a problem and say that the Government will work on it. If the Government are committed to a further round of levelling-up funding—I believe they have already announced that there will be another round—will she give the most careful thought to how she can respond to this debate and influence her colleagues as to they can return some functionality and trust in this broken system as they set out on the third round?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, one of the reasons why I and my colleagues have been so determined that we define geographies, missions and metrics as clearly as we can is that those three criteria should define where the levelling-up funding goes. I totally support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for that very reason. Unless those criteria are clearly defined, the Government have the ability to move the money around to those areas they want to have some funding. Unfortunately, that has been the experience to date.

I have raised before and will repeat again, because it is very important, the fact that the House of Commons Library carried out an analysis of the round 1 and round 2 funds for levelling-up bids. It found that, in the first round, the following criteria were set out: economic recovery and growth, improved transport connectivity and the need for regeneration. The majority of that funding, though not all of it, did indeed go to priority 1 local authority areas, which were categorised by the Government.

When it came to round 2, the Government changed the rules, as reported in the House of Commons Library, so that they would move some authorities into priority 1. One of those authorities that moved into priority 1 was Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, which then got another round of funding from these levelling-up bids.

I have to say exactly what my noble friend has just said. When that happens, you lose trust that this is going to be a fair system, and there is a loss of credibility in the claim that what the Government are intending to do is to focus their energy with a laser-like focus on those areas of the country that, by their own statistics, are in desperate need of considerable amounts of government funding. I do not mean just one-off funding, such as in Richmondshire in north Yorkshire to build a pavilion in a park; that does very little for people who are in need of skills, better-paid jobs and the ability to travel to jobs, whose health is poor and who cannot get to national health services easily—it does nothing for them.

So one of the reasons why I was so pleased to see this amendment was that it talks about having long-term and strategic distribution of levelling-up funds. What the Government seem to be doing at the minute is spreading the funding jam across the country to suit their particular needs, rather than putting a significant amount of funding into certain areas to give them a real long-term boost to achieve the missions that we have debated long and hard today and on Monday.

I will again repeat that a town in my area has had City Challenge money, single regeneration round 1, neighbourhood renewal funding, communities funding—and it has now got some levelling-up funding. I have to tell noble Lords that the folk who live there are still living in desperate circumstances, with low-paid jobs, poor housing, poor health and low skills. All that funding has not shifted the dial much at all—we have lovely road signs declaring what town people are in, we have a nice sculpture and a nice market square—but the folk are still living in poor-quality housing with low skills and no particularly great job prospects.

That is what we need to be doing, and that is what we are not doing, so I am hoping that the Minister is going to stand up and say, “This is a really good idea and we’re going to accept the amendment”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that and for the work she is doing in encouraging the private sector to get involved.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We have had a bit of a discussion about priority areas 1, 2 and 3. I would be grateful if the Minister could write and let us know what criteria the Government use to categorise areas and how, between the first and second round, some moved into category 1. I do not know whether any moved down. It would be useful to have that information.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will be very happy to provide that information.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start to examine those parts of the Bill which address local government and devolution powers, we might welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the long-standing asks of councils and their representative bodies for greater devolution, and that there is more flexibility in the proposed structure of combined county authorities than we might previously have envisaged. Nevertheless, we had hoped for a Bill that was far more ambitious and open to ideas when looking to address the imbalance of power in the UK.

As we have often heard in your Lordships’ House, the UK today is the most centralised state in Europe and there is too much in the Bill that seeks further powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. I welcome very much that the Secretary of State accepts that the national challenges require place-based solutions—at least, it appeared so from the White Paper. However, I feel strongly that Part 2 would better deliver this if accompanied by greater powers and fairer funding so that leaders can support the local economic recovery according to the needs of their own areas.

We have pointed out before in your Lordships’ House that, without a comprehensive and fair funding system across local government which would properly empower local authorities to deliver what is needed to support, sustain and develop their communities and economies, any steps taken towards devolution will have a hollow ring. Even worse, if funding mechanisms are driven by the current competitive bidding pots, which favour areas that are able to spend the most on shiny bids, they will run counter to the whole levelling-up agenda. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for saying that the sheer number of funds have become onerous and that we certainly need to look at that. There is a further danger in this “bidding bingo” way of funding local areas: it is yet another way of imposing the Government’s policy on growth and infrastructure in local areas and does not make for true devolution in any sense of the word.

We may have wished that provisions for reorganising local government had been the subject of a separate devolution Bill, an issue I have raised before in your Lordships’ House. Given that this does not appear to be on the horizon, we will be seeking amendments to transfer greater powers to local areas. I welcome the implicit recognition that devolution can drive economic, social and environmental development in local areas, but questions remain over whether the specific model of combined county authorities is right for every area, and whether all the current constituent parts of local government will have their importance recognised and their voice heard as the new structures develop. Local residents and leaders will always know best their own areas and the powers they need to deliver on their ambitions. Amendments for this part of the Bill will aim to allow greater flexibility for towns, cities, counties and the people who live in them to determine their own future.

Amendment 60 is a probing amendment to discover what a CCA can include as part of a two-tier council area—will all or only part of it be allowed? The amendment is designed to help us understand whether the Government will prescribe the nature of a CCA area to include all constituent councils. This has been tabled because there has been significant confusion about the geography of CCAs and what is and is not in scope. For example, does the CCA have to include the whole of an upper-tier authority area? In the case of my home county, Hertfordshire, must it include the whole of the county? The Minister will know that this is complicated: in some areas, counties already include unitary areas, and some county areas have enormous populations and significantly diverse demographics.

In previous devolution rounds, we have seen a confusing spectrum of scope—from being instructed on what will be in and out geographically, to documentation saying that it is for local government to decide. The second option is clearly preferable to all of us, but even when that is the stated initial intent, the goalposts are often moved during the bidding rounds to be more prescriptive than was initially thought.

Amendment 99 probably belongs better with the group of amendments relating to consultation on CCAs. If consultation is needed for the formation of a CCA and/or its dissolution, as we contend in other amendments, should there not also be consultation when a CCA is to be amended? Later regulations could determine the qualifying parameters for this, so that extensive consultation is not necessary for minor changes. This and similar amendments seek to determine the principle of public engagement on local government structures. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to table this amendment to explore the area that can be included in a combined county authority. As I understand it, a combined county authority is a bit of a misnomer. Last Wednesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to an amendment that a CCA could include, for instance, the unitary authority of Wiltshire and the city unitary authority of Swindon. Equally, when I asked her what would happen in Devon, she said quite clearly that the county and district authorities of Devon and the unitary authority of Plymouth would be included. These are not necessarily combined county authorities: they are unitary and county and district combined authorities—if that is determined, we hope, by the people who live there and the councillors elected to represent them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the area of a combined county authority, the new type of local government institution being provided for in Part 2 of this Bill. Provisions in this part support the delivery of the local leadership mission of the levelling-up White Paper, to enable by

“2030, every part of England that wants one”

to

“ have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt so early in the Minister’s response, but could he define more clearly what the “highest level of devolution” actually means?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I shall do my best on that.

Noble Lords will be aware that 10 combined authorities have been established since 2011 in our city regions. However, we recognise that such authorities might not be so appropriate for non-metropolitan areas. The new model of combined county authorities is more appropriate for non-metropolitan areas, many of which have two-tier local government. It enables the establishment of a single institution covering a functional economic area, or whole county geography, which would be a suitable institution to provide effective leadership over an appropriate geography to qualify for a devolution deal.

I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about local government funding, but it might be helpful if I added a little to the information I gave the Committee in the last group of amendments. Our intention is to set out a plan for streamlining the funding landscape, as I mentioned, to provide greater flexibility for local authorities and make it easier to navigate opportunities for growth. This will include streamlining local growth funds, reducing inefficiency and bureaucracy and giving local government the flexibility it needs to deliver for local economies. As part of this work, we expect that there will be fewer small competitions. Where competitive funds do exist, we will look to streamline bidding and support greater alignment between revenue and capital sources. We will also consider the monitoring and evaluation requirements to ensure that places have robust, proportionate, ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans for the impact and delivery of investments and spending.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to allow part of a two-tier county council area to be included in a combined county authority, rather than the whole county council area. This would not be consistent with the policy we set out in the White Paper, whereby we will devolve to an institution covering a whole county geography or functional economic area. I will come on in a moment to the rationale for that model. In a combined county authority, such as the intended East Midlands CCA, the upper-tier councils within the area covered by a combined county authority are the constituent members of the CCA. There is no upper-tier council that covers part of a two-tier county council’s area; the only upper tier council is that two-tier county council, whose area covers a wider geography. As such, as the two-tier county council will be the constituent member of the combined county authority, the whole area that the council covers must be part of CCA’s area.

Moreover, allowing part of a two-tier county council’s area to be part of a combined county authority would not be consistent with the levelling-up White Paper’s principle of devolution being to institutions covering functional economic areas or whole county geographies, over which a number of functions should be exercised for maximum effect. Splitting the responsibility for such functions could also lead to discrepancies—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Can the Minister explain, then, where the geographies of a county area do not coincide with the geographies of an economic or travel-to-work area? Often, they do not. What I have heard is that you can either have a functioning geography of a county and its two tiers, or the alternative, but not a mixture of the two.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister has raised the East Midlands. On the northern tip of the East Midlands there is Chesterfield and north Derbyshire. Most businesses in that area would look into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority in terms of their business, and not into the county combined authority. It seems to be an administrative boundary designed down here in Whitehall rather than a true travel-to-work area. How would the north Nottinghamshires and Chesterfields be affected by this when, in reality, the economic performance and activity is actually into the South Yorkshire Combined Authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just one or two comments on this group. I have listened very carefully to this and the previous group and I think we have an opportunity for the Government to clarify a number of issues around consultation and, indeed, referendums. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said about referendums. What is needed is a statement from the Government, hopefully before Report, on what the nature of consultation should be. What would be deemed to meet a minimum requirement or threshold for there to be an official consultation?

Secondly, the Government need to be absolutely clear what their own powers should be in relation to a consultation: what they can require of a local authority or set of authorities. I welcome the fact that this discussion is taking place; it is really important. We have discussed before in recent years during the passage of previous Bills what local people have a right to expect of their consultation. I, too, in Newcastle, have been through a mayoral referendum, and the same thing happened. The decision was not to have a mayor, but, of course, we now have a mayor of the North East Combined Authority—for which, in fact, there was no referendum. Our referendum was within scope; I ask the Minister: are referendums out of scope?

Turning to Amendment 62, I was struck by one or two other very important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which the Government need to be a bit clearer about. The first was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock: travel-to-work areas. It all depends how big your CCA or other combined authority is geographically. A very important issue is raised in Amendment 62: whether the Government are thinking in terms of each CCA having a single economic hub. In a number of areas that would not be suitable. In my own part of the country, several travel-to-work areas apply. Hopefully, that point will not be forgotten by the Government.

Lastly, on Amendment 63, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made another very important point about the duty to co-operate. When during previous Bills we have debated the duty to co-operate, the Government have always been very positive about having that duty placed clearly on the face of the Bill. But a CCA is not just being required to co-operate with a neighbouring CCA, but with all the other bodies that may relate to it. Given the ability of the public sector to operate across boundaries, both geographical and in terms of responsibilities and powers, it matters that the duty to co-operate is made absolutely clear at the outset.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just make one or two additional comments to those of my honourable friend Lord Shipley, the main one concerning Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about public consultation. I have been involved in a number of statutory instruments on the establishment of metropolitan combined authorities where the public consultation involving “the public” has been minimal, but it was agreed to be satisfactory because it enabled other local institutions—be it businesses, local council representatives or the LEPs—to respond. That has been labelled “public consultation”.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is late. I will try to be quick. I want to pick up what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to as “operation blank cheque”. The bit of the Bill that we are looking at here and that my amendment refers to is described in a sub-heading as “Functions of CCAs”. It consists of 15 clauses, 11 of which start with:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”.


What is different about the other four? Well, in those, the same words appear but they are not the first words. The problem is that there is a concept, an idea, floating around, but with such a lack of precision that it is extremely difficult to pin down what we will get at the end of the day. My Amendment 116A amends Clause 30, which does indeed start with:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”


and deletes subsection (4), which would suspend the operation of political proportionality.

I very strongly agree with all the other speakers in what has been said so far and support their amendments, but regarding this amendment, what is Clause 30(4) designed to achieve and why should it achieve it? The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was not actually the original legislation. There was some preceding legislation introduced by Mrs Thatcher, who was fed up with Conservative councillors in opposition complaining to her about another large party, which shall be nameless, taking not just majority control but complete control of the committee system. That led, in their view, to serious injustice. Mrs Thatcher was persuaded of that point and the rules were introduced. Liberal Democrats at the time were strongly urging the same course of action. It was designed to stop an undemocratic abuse of majoritarian rule.

There would have to be a strong reason for suspending that in this arrangement. It will be a complex situation. We have enough experience here to know that getting a group of district councils and a county council together is not an afternoon’s walk in the park but a complex job, and the last thing that anybody needs to upset that applecart is the idea that there will be unfair or disproportionate representation, or “My council’s view is going to be squeezed out because of a distortion in the system.”

Others have spoken eloquently about that, but I just want to pick up the point about associate members. These are the individuals who can be appointed to join what are joint committees. This clause relates to the constitution of joint committees. It will have county councillors and district councillors. It may have associate members and they may have a vote in certain circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out that there is no limitation on who that could be.

We used to have an institution called aldermen. The majority party would appoint a sufficiently large number of its supporters to ensure that it never had any difficulty in the chamber in passing its budget or anything else. Quite rightly, the institution of aldermen has long since been consigned to the dustbin. However, we have got it back here, with associate members. It will be explosive if you mix that in with the complexity of getting district and county councillors around a table taking decisions.

My question to the Minister is: in what circumstances could doing that enhance the Government’s proposal for CCAs? It is one of the many occasions when Ministers decide the regulations, but there is no indication of what factors are to be considered which might justify having any confidence in this proposition. Should not the factors that the Secretary of State considers at least be in the Bill; for example, “The Secretary of State cannot exercise Clause 30(4) unless the following conditions are complied with”? The noble Earl might like to suggest those conditions, those limitations or constraints, because on Report, I would want to include them in an amendment.

Of course, this is not the only clause that I might have made this amendment to: Clause 28(5)(f) is another where proportionality is being suspended—or may be if, at his complete discretion, the Secretary of State decides to do so. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about why he thinks that it is necessary or even slightly advantageous. If he has a plausible reason for that, will he go on and accept that it has to be codified or constrained in some way? If he cannot do any of those things, will he please accept my Amendment 116A and delete subsection (4) from Clause 30?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I will not speak for long. This has been a very important debate, and very positive: across the Chamber, Members are in agreement that we need clarity from the Government about what they are proposing regarding the constitution of the CCAs.

There is one element that has not yet been raised. Where the constituent members are not equal in size, is that to be reflected in the constitution of that particular CCA? I will give an example that was raised in earlier groups. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about Devon. It has a county council; Plymouth is a unitary, as a city; so is Torbay, as a unitary district. Those three are very different in size, population and economic geography, which we talked about earlier. Are they equal members with a similar number of voting rights? As the Bill says, they can each nominate at least one, but will there be an expectation that they be proportionate to their size and responsibilities? That is not clear and needs to be clarified by the Government before we get any further.

Then there are the non-constituent members. I agree wholeheartedly with Amendment 71 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster: the easy way forward is to say that district councils are democratic bodies within the CCA and have a right to be full members. As I have said just now about constituent members, CCAs can and will have to decide proportionality, and they could do that with regard to the districts. It makes good sense.

Frankly, as somebody who has spent most of my life as an elected person, I find it insulting that a democratically elected body such as a district council is aligned with other non-constituent bodies and put in the same category as local business groups, chambers of trade or trade union bodies, which are not elected by the public. I can see why you would want other groups to be associated with the CCA, but, if they are not democratically elected and therefore democratically accountable, they should be in a different category.

This leads me to associate members. I personally think that they should not exist and I shall leave it at that. Why should they? Somebody tell me. Get individual, unaccountable to anybody—nobody needs to know who they are; perhaps they are somebody’s mate—on there to stuff the numbers the right way. It is just not acceptable.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

We are minded to support Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but we need to understand much more about the purpose and role of, and criteria around the appointment of, associate members. Without that, it is very difficult to determine whether there should be any provision for associate members to be granted a vote at the CCA table. We believe that the Government have been extremely opaque about this category of membership. So I ask the Minister: when are we likely to get more detail?

[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.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have explained, this group of amendments considers various aspects of the membership of combined county authorities and combined authorities, and the voting rights of members.

Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, seeks to require equal membership for all the members of a combined county authority, removing the flexibility that the Bill currently provides. I listened carefully to the noble Lord but I have to come back to a point that I made in an earlier debate: it is vital that the primary legislation on combined county authority membership retains this flexibility and enables the local area to make the decision about membership.

The practice within the existing combined authority model illustrates why. It is very common for the constituent councils of the existing combined authority model to have equal membership, but this is not always the case. For example, in the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, each constituent council nominates one member of the authority and collectively they agree another three members so as to achieve political balance. This would not be possible if the legislation was amended as proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I am a serving district and county councillor and a vice-president of the District Councils’ Network.

I will speak to our Amendments 78 and 85 and will comment also on some of the other amendments in this group. Many in this House who have connections with local government will be very aware of the significant issues in relation to formal audit over the last three years. This has been the result of a number of issues in the private sector audit regime that we now have, including the increasing complexity of local authority accounts and the resultant demands on training, the recruitment and retention of staff, and rapidly increasing fees, to name just a few factors that have been experienced by the private audit sector. In fact, it was estimated last year that only 9% of local authorities had been able to have their 2021 audits completed on time.

Audit is really vital, as the noble Lord said just now. It provides public reassurance and confidence for both members and officers, and more particularly for the public. It is disappointing that the Bill does nothing to address that issue. However, the amendments in this section are aimed at ensuring that scrutiny within the CCA is as powerful and independent as it can be, which should, in turn, mean that audit is effective and can develop a high level of confidence among members and the public.

Turning first to our Amendment 78, this is needed because of the proposals in the Bill that effectively exclude district councillors from being voting members of the CCA itself. I appreciate that we have some work to do to clarify that point. The fundamental impact of the decisions taken by the CCA must, therefore, be able to be scrutinised effectively by members with a detailed local knowledge of their area. As chairs of overview and scrutiny review the decisions of their own councils’ executive committees on a regular basis, they will have a good working knowledge of the strategic planning for their areas, and therefore will be able to assess the likely impact of decisions taken by the CCA.

There is a precedent for this. For example, in the policing panels, which scrutinise the work and budgets of police and crime commissioners, all districts in a PCC’s area are entitled to be present. It is not intended that this amendment would prevent other members being appointed to an overview and scrutiny committee—for example independent members, as referred to in Amendment 84, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

I turn now to our Amendment 85. This relates to the sharing of best practice on scrutiny, and there is some very good advice and support on scrutiny available from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. It will be vital to the successful operation of the CCA that best practice from around the country is shared among the committees. We appreciate that this is not necessarily the role of the Secretary of State, but it could be made clear in guidance to overview and scrutiny committees that they should give consideration regularly to how they operate and how they assimilate best practice.

I will now comment, if I may, on some of the amendments tabled by other noble Lords. We support Amendment 77, from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which is designed to strengthen the role of overview and scrutiny in relation to CCAs. The Labour Party has long been advocating that local public accounts committees could be a way of pulling together local scrutiny of the impact of both national and local policy-making and decision-making on local areas. This would be a first step towards ensuring that overview and scrutiny committees have a level of independence from the CCA. The membership of these committees also needs to be carefully considered.

Turning to Amendment 79, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the fact that overview and scrutiny committees must be able to carry out their work without influence, and I totally support that. The overview and scrutiny committees must be completely unfettered from any interference from the CCA, including such devices as setting out workplans for them or prohibiting them from scrutinising any aspect of work undertaken by the CCA. Neither should the CCA be able to determine the process used by the overview and scrutiny committees. For example, if the committees wish to call witnesses, including members of the CCA, they should be able to do so. We would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification that it is the intention that overview and scrutiny committees are entitled to carry out their scrutiny of the CCA in any way that they determine will achieve effective scrutiny.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raise some important issues around the way in which rural issues—such as housing, education, transport, rural economies and so on—often differ from those that are the main consideration of a CCA. We should support the freedom of a CCA to create any sub-committee that is relevant to the work that it undertakes. If it helps to have a rural sub-committee specifically listed to ensure that rural issues are considered by a CCA, that is no bad thing. This is particularly useful where the CCA covers an area that is largely urban but contains smaller rural areas, as it will ensure that issues relevant to rurality are properly considered and reported back to the CCA. A report from one of our own Lords committees, on rural communities, showed that, on the whole, local enterprise partnerships are not great at delivering for rural areas, so the need for that sort of committee of a CCA is well evidenced.

Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is a belt-and-braces amendment, if noble Lords will forgive the expression, to ensure that, should a Member have recently crossed the Floor from one political party to another—meaning that they would have had very recent contact with the mayor, their decision-making processes and strategy—they are not then placed in a position to be able to scrutinise the mayor’s actions. It truly is belt and braces because, in my experience, people who change their political party do so because of disenchantment with where they have been, so it is possible that they may be the best critics of the mayor and their administration. However, this amendment would ensure that there could be no deliberate manipulation of the scrutiny function.

Similar to Amendment 82, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would mean that, if there is no party with an outright majority on the CCA, the chair of overview and scrutiny should not be a member of either of the parties that may hold the majority together. Depending on local circumstances, this might be difficult if, for example, a third or fourth party is very much in the minority and may not be able to put forward a chair. In those circumstances, it might be necessary to make provision for an independent chair; the fact that we need to continue to discuss this means that there are issues here that continue to need resolution.

The LGA has made some extensive comments on Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It is worth recording what it has said about having independent co-opted members on audit committees; it is certainly in favour of it. It states:

“Having multiple co-optees enables them to have complementary skills (eg finance, risk management, governance) … The constitutional rules should still require the majority of audit committee members to be elected members. This is for two reasons”—


which are fairly obvious to me but perhaps they are not always so obvious. They are that

“audit committees are fulfilling a role delegated by elected members … who are jointly and severally ‘those charged with governance’, and … elected members represent the community and are in a unique position not enjoyed by independent co-optees to understand what the concerns of local people are in relation to assurance”.

So, although we would support the increase in transparency provided by an increased number of independent members participating in an audit committee for all the reasons that the LGA and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have highlighted, we question the need to have a specific number when the Bill already states that “at least” one member of an audit committee is an independent member. Perhaps it should be for the CCA to determine its preference for the number of independent members, based on the particular skills base that it feels it needs to carry out the audit role. In time, we feel that good practice would be developed by CCA audit committees as they understand what particular skills are needed in relation to CCA audit work; we are sure that they would be supported by national bodies such as the LGA in sharing good practice.

Another important issue arises here: the question of remuneration, which the LGA has raised. Independent members of a CCA audit committee are likely to be necessarily highly skilled individuals in, for example, finance, risk management and/or governance. While one could expect that they will give a certain proportion of their time for community benefit, it seems unreasonable to expect that they would carry out this role without any remuneration at all. Although the cost of the remuneration of independent members is likely to be minimal in the context of the overall budget of the CCA, consideration should be given to this at the initiation of the CCA so that the roles can be properly defined and recruited. The availability of the necessary skills in any particular area can be decided only in practice.

I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a member of Kirklees Council and one who has served on its audit committee for a number of years. Scrutiny and audit are close to my heart. My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised some important issues about scrutiny—about the importance of an appropriate person not being seen as a political nominee, because that would undermine the whole purpose of scrutiny, taking an independent view of the decision-making process in the combined authority.

The second thing, which has not yet been explored, is that scrutiny can be post decision-making and pre decision-making. In strategic decisions made by a combined county authority or a combined authority, the primary duty of a scrutiny committee ought to be pre-decision scrutiny, because that is one way of ensuring a very detailed look at what is proposed—through a semi-independent committee one step removed from the decision-makers in the combined authority. I look forward to what the Minister will say on that and whether emphasis could be put on pre-decision scrutiny, particularly in this role.

The audit function has been illustrated by my noble friend Lord Shipley, who pointed out the number of councils that are failing in their financial status because auditors fail to pick up what is going on there. There are two elements of audit, though, which, again, have not been explored today or indeed in the Bill. One is internal audit, which ought to be primarily the duty of elected members, and the other is external audit, where the appointed external auditors of every council have a very important role at looking at where deficiencies might occur and where decisions being made by the council pose a substantial risk to its future. I totally support the views expressed by all Members who have spoken so far about the importance of having independent experts on those committees from a financial, audit or risk sector to support and advise the committee, but in the end, it is the decision of the elected members. It is them who have to carry the can, quite rightly: if they make poor decisions and fail to expose issues of concern in their councils, they too must be held accountable. I look forward to what the Minister will say on those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, because time presses, my name is attached to the stand part debates on Clauses 58 and 59. I do not seek to repeat what has been said already about those two clauses, but I hope the Minister will give clear evidence for the need for both clauses, because I am unconvinced that they are necessary. I will make a further point in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said a moment ago: that the whole principle behind police and crime commissioners was that they were directly elected. If the ballot box is the main means for a police and crime commissioner to be appointed to their job, I do not think that that system can be meddled with in the way that the Government appear to want to meddle with it.

Indeed, to develop what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, of course a mayor with PCC powers can appoint a deputy mayor to have the PCC powers on behalf of the mayor. Actually, when we read the Bill very carefully—indeed, we debated this in earlier stages of consideration of the Bill—the deputy can also pass powers on to “any other person”. There are some restrictions in the Bill as to what that might mean, but the fact is that the words “any other person” simply take away the power of the electorate to make a decision as to who is the police and crime commissioner. For that reason, I support the propositions on Clauses 58 and 59 not standing part.

[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 ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did not say it has nothing to do with the districts or the county—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister. I just thought I would add to the questions now and not interrupt further.

Is this an admission by the Government that the current system of independently elected police and crime commissioners has not been effective? I cannot think of any other reason why the two separate roles should be combined unless it is felt that the separate role of the police and crime commissioner has not been as effective as the Government wished.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

In the interests of making life easier for the noble Baroness, perhaps I could add my question. What assessment have the Government done of the crossover of funding between local authorities and police services for community safety work and partnerships? That is a frequent model. When the noble Baroness says that the police and crime commissioner role has no impact on local authorities, surely, that funding flow is relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, and others, asked who will be accountable. I assure them that, even if there is a deputy mayor for crime and policing, the elected mayor will be accountable. That is important, because the mayor has been elected, and he or she goes back for re-election. Noble Lords have said that you cannot get rid of a deputy mayor who has been appointed, not elected.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am struggling with this logic. The combined authority mayor can appoint a deputy to be responsible for police and crime, but the elected mayor will take the accountability if things go wrong. Why, then, can we not have an elected police and crime commissioner? That is the logic of what the Minister is saying.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is not the logic. It is an opportunity for the directly elected mayor to be able to join up all these issues within their geographic area and deliver more joined-up services by working with others.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Following the Minister’s earlier remarks about the mayor being able to appoint a deputy to be responsible for policing, I was wondering: are there powers for them to appoint a deputy to be responsible for buses?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know about buses, but I imagine that there may be the ability for a mayor to appoint somebody to be responsible for transport in a large area. I will check that, but I am sure that it is within their powers. It is probably a very good thing to have in large geographical area, as the mayor cannot do everything in detail there. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 124 in this group, which relates to Clause 40, “Alternative mayoral titles”. I challenge the notion that a choice of titles is required on the face of the Bill. Powers to decide a title already lie with the CCA, under Clause 40, in line 25 of page 35, and to attempt to define possible titles is an unnecessary addition.

The titles suggested are,

“county commissioner … county governor … elected leader … governor.”

I am not clear where those four titles came from. I guess we could all add some more, but it is confusing since everybody else is using the word “mayor”. I do not understand why another title is necessary. If I look at the word “governor”, I immediately think of a school governor, the governor of a US state or the governor of a prison. I am not sure it helps public understanding of what is proposed with a combined county authority to have a mixture of titles for roles. The public will have great difficulty engaging with them, because the titles could be different in one place from another. The power is there for people on the CCA to decide what title they want but, frankly, if I had my way it would be “mayor” because that has become the term. For the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tees Valley and so on, the word is “mayor” and I am not sure it helps to have suggestions that they could be called “governors” or “county commissioners.” I hope the Minister may be able to look at that and come up with an explanation about why the Government want to confuse things so much.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for raising issues in detail regarding mayoral names—or not—and some aspects of elections and powers, because that points to the fact that although we have a very long Bill with a huge number of clauses, a lot of the detail is insufficient for us to understand completely what the Government seek to do and how they hope these new CCAs and mayors—or not mayors—will operate.

An important issue is in Amendment 103, about what happens if the current mayor stands down for whatever reason. That would be worth knowing for all of us who live in combined authorities.

The second important thing is about the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments. One would hope that a panel of members who are not of the same party as the mayor would interview and scrutinise the appointment of the person, who will have significant powers conferred on them simply because they are a mate of the mayor; that never seems appropriate. There are a number of other probing amendments in this group, including that of my noble friend about “governors”. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but it points to the fact that the Bill has not been as well thought through as it might have been.

[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 some detailed mayoral matters including by-elections, the scrutiny of mayoral appointments, police and crime commissioner functions, deputy mayoral roles and alternative titles for the mayor. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.

Turning to Amendment 103 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I assure her that there are provisions which will enable a by-election if the position of the mayor of a combined authority becomes vacant. Paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the filling of vacancies in the office of the mayor of a combined county authority. This would include provision for a by-election where that is the appropriate mechanism for filling the vacancy.

After Royal Assent to the Bill, the Secretary of State plans to bring forward regulations on the elections for mayors of combined county authorities, which will set out the procedures in more detail. I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Baroness and enable her to withdraw her amendment—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

If I heard right, the answer to the question of what would happen if the mayoral position were vacant was that the Secretary of State would, by regulation, have the power to decide whether it would be filled by an election or not. What would the “or not” mean? Did I misunderstand that point?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, the noble Baroness did not misunderstand. It is important that we wait for those regulations to come out. There could be a point where the mayor stood down a month before an election; there may be a period of time when there has to be a decision, as you would not have two elections close together. The regulations are what is important here. We will wait to see further detail that is being worked up, but I assure her that it is expected that there would be a by-election.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

As a result of what we have in this Bill so far, levelling up is going to be largely incidental to the provision of additional levers of central government control. The Government’s capacity to design and manage the whole process as they choose is going to be strengthened. Then, when it does not work, this Clause gives them the power to tear it up and replace it with something else—all in the name of levelling up, of course. I would like the Minister to accept Amendment 122A just for the fig leaf of devolution, empowerment and levelling up, so that it can remain in place as we plough our way through the remaining 82 groups. It is emblematic of a systemic problem the Government have, and I have to say that the amendments moved by the Minister are yet another branch of the same thing.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She has said that the decision will be made only if it is supported democratically. Yet Clause 33(4)(b) says that

“at least two thirds of the constituent members of the CCA”

can indicate that

“they disagree with the proposal for the regulations to be made”,

and Clause 33(5) says that the mayor, in providing a report to the Secretary of State, must give their response to those same proposals. I thought that democracy was about winning the argument, not finding a way around it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.

We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.

As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.

Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.

This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.

Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.

Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.

Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.

Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.

Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.

Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.

--- Later in debate ---

It is interesting that we are conducting this debate on the day of the Budget. About an hour ago, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities issued a press release entitled “Levelling up at heart of Budget”. It trumpets investment zones, in respect of which Westminster is to decide where the money will go; it trumpets levelling-up partnerships, in respect of which Westminster is to decide where the money will go. Westminster is very much keeping control of the purse strings. This is not any kind of devolution of power or resources. Those two things have to go together; otherwise, devolution is meaningless.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley for raising this important part of the levelling-up agenda. I of course also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for linking it to the estimable White Paper on levelling up which, in many ways, has pointed to the importance of full devolution being equated with autonomy over local funding.

At the moment—I have probably said this before in the Chamber—we have the delegation of powers and funding from the centre to local government, be it combined authorities or local councils. This is therefore an important debate because, if we really want to be on the path to devolution, we have to address the issue of more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government.

The Minister may wish to pause at this point and take time over the weekend to refer to a House of Commons report that called for more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government. To be fair, it is 10 years old but sometimes, these big changes take a long time. It was published by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was of course all-party. I draw the Minister’s attention to two elements of the conclusion, and I hope she will then have time to read more of it:

“Power and finance must go together if local government is to become an equal partner… any attempt to make the relationship between central and local government more balanced would be meaningless without giving local government its own source of revenue… to achieve fully the potential of localism, a key plank of the Government’s policy platform, local government requires financial freedoms.”


The report stated that the Government, under the same political colours as now, should consider giving local authorities in England a share of the existing income tax for England. The committee did not propose a change in income tax rates, but:

“The concept of tax transparency would allow local people to see more clearly what their taxes pay for locally and encourage them to hold local councils to account for their expenditure.”


I agree. There is obviously much more in that report.

The debate here is about having real devolution. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have it, why not Yorkshire, the population of which is bigger than each of them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Why not Hertfordshire, with a population of 1.2 million people? I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for drawing us back to the White Paper and the ambition contained therein. One of the key themes of discussion on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill so far has been the missed opportunity to tackle some of the critical financial issues that, in my view, are holding local government back from playing as full a part as it can in delivering the Bill’s stated agenda and missions. There is a significant lack of ambition in not taking this further, described by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as the elephant in the room. The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, rightly highlighted that a key aspect of this is the extent to which the Government seek to reduce the current chronic overcentralisation of decision-making in the UK by empowering CCAs with enhanced fiscal powers. A great deal more could be done in that regard.

In the probing and thoughtful report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the LGA carried out a comparative study of fiscal devolution in the UK, Holland, Germany and Switzerland. It concluded that the UK should be working with local government to explore the full extent of fiscal devolution and what it could add to ensure that authorities have the strongest financial muscle to deliver what they know their areas most need. Commenting on the Netherlands, for example, the report says that

“fiscal freedom means that the broad suite of local taxes available to Dutch municipalities, and their tendency to collaborate cross borders, gives local government more placemaking levers while also providing residents with greater transparency on council finances. Fiscal freedom means a difference between money for core services and for place-specific social and cultural issues. It does not argue for fiscal autonomy with the idea that local government can become fiscally self-sustaining units of tax and spend but focuses on the potential that revenue-raising could have for placemaking.”

That goes right to the heart of this argument.

Even with the so-called trail-blazer authorities in Manchester and the West Midlands, one often gets the impression that achieving the fiscal freedoms they feel they need to serve their communities is like getting blood out of a stone. In previous sessions we commented frequently on the regressive, unhelpful and expensive method of creating multiple funding pots that means councils have to waste their precious funds pulling bids together.

If the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, were adopted, or something very similar to it, it would set into legislation the devolution of fiscal powers that, in my view, should always have been in the Bill. On Budget Day, it is important to say that no one in local government believes that a magic money tree is coming our way. I quote the LGA report again:

“Fiscal devolution entails the same suite of local taxes as we currently have in the UK, except with a higher level of devolution of central taxes. Unlike with fiscal freedom, this would not necessitate the introduction of ‘new’ taxes, but rather a reconsideration of the obligations and duties of each level of government. If fiscal devolution deals were done on the basis of local need for finance, following this German model would mean local authorities could fund their own care services in line with their own requirements.”


Europe also benefits from federalised banking institutions. How much more ambitious could local government be if that were the case here?

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to all finance being controlled from London. I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the Labour Government have already developed this and are making great strides in developing local banking institutions. Incidentally, Wales is also undertaking a comprehensive review of council tax.

Earlier this week a Question was asked in your Lordships’ House on the huge potential of pension funds in contributing to fiscal devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the extent to which local government and local decision-making is controlled by national finance, with council tax set by Parliament, business rates set by the Treasury and even rents set by DLUHC. That does not make any sense. It is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, to end up needing a pothole fund. When that announcement was made earlier today in the Budget, my first comment was, “Why don’t you fund local government properly? Then we could fix our own potholes.”

These revenue-raising powers are important to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly pointed at self-sufficient, independent and confident local government, and finding ways of delivering that through a different fiscal settlement. That is really important. We are not a federal state, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, but surely an aim of the Bill must be to create the kind of state where we can have a much more effective system of fiscal devolution, with local government having the freedoms to fund itself properly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

157: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities to be allowed to choose their own voting system(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide that local authorities may choose the voting system used for local elections in their areas.(2) When determining whether to seek to introduce a new voting system a local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.(3) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors—(a) by thirds, or(b) on an all-out basis.(4) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors using—(a) first-past-the-post;(b) alternative vote;(c) supplementary vote;(d) single transferable vote;(e) the additional member system;(f) any other system that may be prescribed in the regulations.(5) Regulations under this section may make provision about— (a) how a local authority may go about seeking to change its voting system,(b) the decision-making process for such a change,(c) consultation, and(d) requirements relating to approval by the local electorate.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable local authorities to choose what voting system they use for local elections.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is by pure chance that this debate follows so neatly after the one we have just had about fiscal devolution and fiscal powers for devolved authorities. Unless we turbocharge our local democracy—and there is much in the Bill that takes powers away from local democracy—we will still be in the realm of “Westminster knows best” and “Westminster holds all the strings”, and we will simply become a subset of Westminster decision-making. Amendment 157 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris is all about improving the local democracy available to local councils and elected mayors.

I start by referring back to the long debates this House had on voter ID. To those of us who were suggesting that it might not be the best idea, the Government’s argument all along—in some cases, their only argument—was that it had worked in Northern Ireland for many years, and if it worked there it will work here. I want to apply that principle to this amendment.

The voting systems for local government in Northern Ireland are not first past the post but single transferable vote. If it works in Northern Ireland, as it has for many years, it can work here. But single transferable vote is not the only method of improving our local democracy and making sure that more voices are elected from more parts of our communities to take part in local decision-making. I will briefly go through some of the other systems and show the Committee how these are already in use in different parts of the country.

We will start with the additional member system. It is used for elections of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the London Assembly. This is a mixed system—some are elected by first past the post and others from a list system—but the outcome is more proportional to the votes as expressed by the electorate. So we already have an additional member system, not first past the post, in big elections in this country, and it works.

The second method is single transferable vote, as I have already described. It is a simple preferential voting system, just using a ranked system of one, two, three. It is used in Northern Ireland local government and the Assembly, and in Scottish local government elections. It works there; why can we not use it in English local council elections?

The third option is the alternative vote, which again ranks candidates, and this more proportional system is used in this very House to elect hereditaries if there is a vacancy. If there is more than one vacancy for hereditary Peers, the single transferable vote system is used. If it is good enough here, surely it can be good enough for local council elections in England. Let us be more like Northern Ireland.

The next system that could be adopted is the supplementary vote. Prior to its recent abolition, it was used to elect Mayors of London, the directly elected mayors in combined authorities, and police and crime commissioners. Very simply, it gives you two votes and two columns, and you can just stick your cross in one of each.

Those are all the systems that we can use in multiple ways. Mature democracies across the world seek to elect representatives in proportion to the expressed views of their electors. I do not like using this comparison, but I remind the Committee that the only other country that uses first past the post is Belarus, with which I am not sure we want to be aligned too much.

Democracy, and especially local democracy, works best when a range of views are heard. That is why all but a minority of democracies use some form of proportional voting system—except England, the home of democracy. The result could be the end of one-party councils or those with very large majorities; I include Liberal Democrat large-majority councils in this too. It is not healthy not to have different voices being heard when local councils make decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

But it was about a change in the type of election and there was a very clear result against it. I consider that to be a very clear result in support of first past the post.

Therefore, although I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, for all of those reasons I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her Amendment 157.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so that we can explore the issue, because it is a sort of twin part of fiscal devolution. This is not an arcane debate for election geeks; it is really important if we are going to renew our local democracy. The amendment is not asking very much; it is simply asking for local authorities to be allowed—there is an example of control from Whitehall—to choose their own voting system.

My noble friend Lord Stunell raised two important issues about first past the post. If electors feel that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, they do not bother to vote. You can see that in turnouts across the country. It leads to apathy and cynicism, which are the last emotions that we need to see in our voters when we know that we need to reinvigorate our local democracy. Change is going to be important if we are going to narrow inequalities, which is what this levelling-up Bill should be all about. However, change can be divisive, so if you have a broader representation of views and hear more voices, you have a better chance of drawing people together to agree to a change—not cutting down trees in the middle of the night, which is apparently what happened in Tory-run Plymouth council.

I will just say one or two things about the response from the Minister. I thank her for replying and claiming that first past the post is the only one that allows the link with electors. So what are the Government doing then allowing Northern Ireland to use STV, Scotland to use STV for its local elections and Wales to use different systems? If it is so bad and does not make a link, what is going on here? Local government is powerful in those countries, and we need to make it powerful here.

My last point is that the Minister, if I heard her right, said that if we introduce a system where local authorities can choose which voting system they wish to use, the current political makeup of a council would choose a system that suited them. But the whole point of a more proportional system is that you cannot do that. It is up to the voters to choose. Putting the power in the hands of the voters seems a jolly good idea. With that, I look forward to trying to change the Minister’s mind and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 157 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils; I am also the co-president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.

I remember clearly that we had a difficult meeting of the county association, in that the matters were contentious. It was dealt with online. I and my co-president went through the whole thing; all I can say is that it was entirely satisfactory. It was well organised from the word go and was well marshalled by the clerk of the association. The matter was carried off to everybody’s reasonable satisfaction; given that there were contentious matters, nobody complained.

I would just like to say that the world has changed. The world was changing beforehand; I was doing virtual meetings long before Covid came along. The fact that the technology was there and was sped up says a great deal about those who were responsible for getting things organised, particularly those in this House who organised things so that we could hold our proceedings virtually. It was enormously to the credit of those who seized the opportunity to do it.

However, if we are going to speed up Britain, one of the first things we will want to do is make sure that we make cost-efficient use of people’s time. The first bit of cost-efficiency is reducing road miles; we can start by decarbonising meetings. I am not very far from my local authority offices but I know that, by the time I have travelled five miles, found a parking space, probably paid for parking, crossed the road and gone into the council chamber—I am not a serving councillor; I just use that as an example—it will have taken me a good half an hour, with another half an hour on the way back, thank you very much. If you want busy people to devote their time and energy, you really have to make efficient use of their time; otherwise, they disconnect.

The other important thing here is inclusivity; other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have mentioned this. We are dealing with people who may be infirm or have mobility difficulties. This may involve young people in households with schedules that do not match; they may work away so it is hard for them to get back in time with normal commuting. Of course, you also have parents who are looking after young people and cannot get away. They cannot detach themselves from their household, never mind the infirm or those with other issues.

On the grounds of cost-efficiency and inclusivity, these amendments are very powerful. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this group and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for taking us through the history of where this issue was. I say again: things have moved on. We need to look at a modern, efficient way of working. This amendment does not say that you would have to have virtual meetings; it gives local choice on the matter. How come a parliamentary Select Committee can operate virtually if it decides that that is convenient, as I think is still the case, but a parish council—or a planning committee, for that matter—somehow cannot? This is inconsistent and makes no sense, so I very much support these amendments. I hope that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will consider them carefully and reflect on them; I know that he is an enormously fair-minded man when it comes to these things.

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, government Amendment 165 and the consequential Amendments 508 and 509 seek to give police and crime commissioners, including mayors who exercise these functions, and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the same powers to dispose of surplus land as local authorities.

The Government’s general principle is that public bodies should dispose of surplus land at the best possible price reasonably obtainable. However, we recognise that selling land at less than best consideration can sometimes deliver wider public benefits, which is why there is a long-standing framework under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 for enabling local authorities to dispose of their land for less than best consideration. Under this framework, the Secretary of State’s consent is required, but there is a general direction granting consent if the undervalue is below £2 million.

Prior to 2011 and the creation of police and crime commissioners, police authorities were covered by Section 123, but that is no longer the case. While police and crime commissioners now have broad powers to dispose of land as they see fit, there is no specific provision relating to disposal at less than best consideration. This perceived gap in police bodies’ powers was raised in the other place, and I know that this matter concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having now explored the issue further with the Home Office, the Government agree that police and crime commissioners should have the same disposal powers as local authorities. Therefore, this amendment extends the scope of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to cover these elected police bodies.

These amendments will give police and crime commissioners greater certainty that they can dispose of land at less than best consideration where doing so will deliver wider public benefits. It will further empower police and crime commissioners to act in the interests of their local communities. The associated consent framework—with consent to be given by the Home Secretary in the case of police and crime commissioners —will increase transparency and public accountability.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that these amendments are welcome and that noble Lords will support them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendment, which concedes a principle of public bodies—the police—being able to use less than best consideration for land no longer needed. I am unashamedly seeking to extend that, as a result of the MP for Twickenham, my honourable friend Munira Wilson, introducing in the other place the idea of enabling public bodies to dispose of land for less than best consideration. That was already available in a limited form but the idea here is that it is out of date because of the change in land valuations—that is what the Minister said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about his Amendment 474 and the complexity of the system. It is difficult for businesses to negotiate the terms which determine their viability; business rates cannot be negotiated; and the multiplier has risen substantially in the past few years, making the costs to businesses unaffordable in many cases.

Amendment 428 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley addresses a principle of business rates rather than the nuts and bolts. The key to levelling up and realising one of the ambitions of the White Paper—vibrant and successful town centres and high streets—lies in business rates. Too many town centres across the country are blighted by empty, boarded-up shops, which then become less attractive to local people wanting to shop there, causing a downward spiral.

I accept that the purpose of town centres is changing, as in fact it always has done. The balance of provision in town centres is increasingly shifting from the sale of goods towards services such as hair salons, nail bars and the like. However, the growth of e-commerce has put enormous pressure on traditional retail. This is where Amendment 428 comes in, because it would require a fundamental review in principle of business rates.

These are the reasons. The Government call it “bricks versus clicks” and “the tax imbalance” on the government website, which then refers to business rate revaluation, which actually does very little to redress the imbalance. I will give an example of one of the great e-commerce providers, Amazon. Its provision is in out-of-town warehouses and their rateable values are very low. An Amazon warehouse near me in Doncaster is paying rates at £45 per square metre—on average, because things change according to what is provided in a warehouse—whereas a small town centre shop near me has rates of £250 per square metre. We should think about that differential. The massive warehouse is providing retail goods, as is the small shop, but there is this huge disparity between the rates they are being charged, putting the town centre retail shop at a huge disadvantage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned in an earlier group that the Government are tackling this by reducing town centre business rates by 20% following the revaluation. I always get cross about the use of percentages, because they are ratios, so whether they are percentages of a large number or a small number makes a very big difference. A 20% reduction on this £250 per square metre still leaves them paying £200 per square metre. However, although the Government have raised the rates for e-commerce by 27%, they are still paying only £56 per square metre. The disparity is still enormous, leading to an unfair competitive advantage for the e-commerce sector.

The Government have rejected the idea of an online sales tax, and I can understand why. It will be complex. However, I urge the Minister to respond positively to my suggestion that the Government use the existing business rates system to provide for much fairer competition between e-commerce and retail in physical shops. E-commerce businesses have a huge advantage. Not only are their business rates low but some of them also manage not to contribute much taxation to the country. They lead to significant increases in the volume of traffic, moving the goods between warehouses or from warehouses to pick-up sites or people’s homes. Yet, if they use electric vehicles, which is a good thing, they are not contributing much to the upkeep of the roads. Whichever way you look at it, e-commerce retail is at a considerable advantage. That is not in line with the Government’s ambition, which I totally support, of having vibrant town centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, referred to incentives to help out-of-town warehouses. I think I have given the answer to that. The business rates for these e-commerce sectors must be in line so that there is fair competition between the two ways of providing retail goods.

Amendments 168B and 169, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, make a good case for the retention of rates income by district councils. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to that argument. On Amendment 169, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but I understood that there is already a grace period for uninhabitable buildings to be made habitable during which they are exempt from council tax. Maybe that is not the case, but I remember taking it through this House and I understood that to be the definition then.

It would also be helpful for us all to understand the definition of empty homes, empty properties, empty dwellings, because it is not always as it seems. Maybe the Minister will put me right, but my understanding is that empty properties are not empty if they are partially furnished. There is a whole debate around definitions of empty properties and uninhabitable dwellings that we probably need to understand more closely with regard to these amendments and the previous group in relation to council tax on holiday lets, short-term lets and second homes.

So that is my proposition to the Minister. We need a fundamental review of business rates because retail is changing fast. If substantial change to level the playing field is not made, the ambition for vibrant town centres will fail. I beg to move.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I was pleased to sign Amendment 474 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I also support the other related amendment in this group, Amendment 428, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Regeneration of high streets and town centres is particularly important in the context of levelling up. I cannot stress enough how important a thriving town centre and high street are for the morale of a city, for its togetherness and for its onward development. Many high streets and town centres in the regions, including in some areas in Derby, where I live, are struggling with low occupancy and empty premises. This must be resolved urgently if we are truly to level up the regions and bring back the economic dynamism that is required for further developments.

I know that the Government get this, and their plans for enhanced compulsory purchase powers and high street rental options could form part of the solution here. However, in my role as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group, I have canvassed many local stakeholders on what would really make a difference to high street regeneration, and the theme that comes at the top of the list time and time again is business rates.

The current structure of business rates makes it simply unviable for businesses to set up in certain locations. To expand on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, a property was being marketed on East Street, Derby last year at a lease of £35,000 per annum. It had a rateable value of £112,000 and rates payable of £56,000, so the rates were significantly higher than the rent. Another example, from the British Property Federation, is a property in a Hull for which the business rates bill was around three times higher than the rent a property in that location could reasonably demand. There are further cases of businesses not being willing to renew leases on their properties, even at zero rent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for setting out in Amendment 168B her suggested redistribution of the income raised by the council tax premium from upper-tier councils to district councils. The proposed premium will provide all councils, including district councils, with the opportunity, where they set a premium at the maximum level of 100%, to raise double the revenue from each second home in their area.

Revenue from council tax is essential for a wide range of councils, providing them with funding to make available a range of public services which best fits the needs of the local area. Under this amendment, in an area with two tiers of councils the district council would be able to retain all the income raised by the council tax premiums. This would disturb one of the key components of the council tax system—that local authorities should calculate their council tax charge for local services on the same basis as each other, with equal access to the revenues generated. The long-term empty homes premium has been in place since 2013 and has followed this long-established principle. We trust councils to make their own decisions on where their funding should be spent, and we do not consider it appropriate to engineer the system to direct part of the proceeds of council tax to one particular type of authority in some parts of the country.

Different communities will have their own set of challenges and solutions to second home ownership and empty properties. For instance, this may be through additional funding for transport or education, which falls within the remit of county councils. The current approach provides flexibility for a range of councils and other authorities to generate additional income, which can be used as they see fit. If a council feels that funding should be put towards a particular goal such as housing, this should be discussed with the other authorities in the usual way.

A change in the distribution method for the council tax premiums would also create an imbalance between two-tier areas and areas covered by unitary authorities. For example, in a single-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Cornwall, the council would be required to share the proceeds of the premiums with the other precepting authorities, such as the PCC or the fire and rescue service. However, in a two-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Norfolk, the amendment would mean that all additional income was retained by the district council. Notwithstanding the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment, there would be no obligation to enable precepting authorities to benefit from the increased income. This may be advantageous to the district but would prevent the income being spent on services provided by other authorities in the area that can benefit the local community, such as road maintenance and better care for the elderly.

I turn to Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We discussed earlier in Committee that the purpose of Clause 76 is to provide councils with an opportunity to apply a council tax premium on second homes. As with all properties, second homes may be in a variety of different conditions. For the purposes of Clause 76, however, a second home would be caught by the provision only if the property was substantially furnished. Indeed, this is an important factor in differentiating such properties from those that might be impacted by the long-term empty homes premium, as set out in Clause 75. Where such properties are substantially furnished, I would not envisage that they are likely to be in a condition to require significant work as a result of dilapidation. Therefore, the premium council tax on a second home applies only where it is furnished. However, in specific circumstances the local authority has tax relief powers as well.

Notwithstanding that potential distinction, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the clause already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from the effects of the second homes premium. Similar powers are already in place for the long-term empty homes premium. Obviously, before making any regulations the Government would wish to consult on any exemptions and to provide everyone with the opportunity to say what should—and, perhaps, what should not—be exempt from the effect of the premium.

The noble Baroness’s amendment also proposes a right of appeal against the imposition of a second homes premium. I can reassure her that, under Section 16(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, council tax payers already have the right of appeal against any calculation of amounts they are liable to pay, including any premiums.

Finally, Amendments 428 and 474 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The Government are of course aware of the pressures facing businesses, including those on the high street, and have acted to support businesses up and down the country. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Government have only recently concluded a comprehensive review of the business rates system. A final report on the review was published at the Autumn Budget 2021, alongside a package of reforms worth £7 billion over five years. The review recognised the importance of the system in raising funds for critical local services in England, worth around £22.5 billion in 2022-23, and concluded that there was no consensus on an alternative model that would be of sufficient scale to replace business rates.

At the Autumn Statement 2022, the Government went even further and announced a range of business rates measures worth an estimated additional £13.6 billion over the next five years. As part of that package the Government announced that the tax rate will be frozen for a further year. This is a real-terms cut to the tax rate, worth around £9.3 billion over five years.

In addition, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief will be extended for a further year and made more generous. In 2023-24, it will provide eligible businesses with 75% off their bills, up to a maximum of £110,000 per business. This is worth an estimated £2.1 billion to ratepayers, many of which are on our high streets.

Furthermore, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will, for the first time and subject to legislation, introduce a transitional relief scheme for the 2023 revaluation. This will be funded by the Government and is expected to save businesses £1.6 billion. This will mean that the 300,000 ratepayers—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her reply, but she seems to be listing all the ways in which the Government are providing help to businesses via different reliefs for their business rates payments. If the business rates system is so bad that it needs substantial relief from the Government for those businesses to survive—and the amounts that the noble Baroness referenced were substantial—I can only conclude that the business rates system, as it applies to businesses in town centres, is broken. That is the reason for the argument that I have made, and why I hope that the Government will accept that business rates need a fundamental change; otherwise, the Government will be continually asked to provide relief to enable businesses just to survive.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think I explained to the noble Baroness that we went out for extensive review—the issue is that we and local services need business rates—and there was no consensus on how they might be changed and made different, such that a similar amount of money would be coming in so that local areas could provide services. We tried but came to no consensus.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Jeremy Hunt told us last week that his budget would save the average driver £100 next year, but that £100 will be spend in two weeks travelling into a ULEZ zone, and in three weeks in Birmingham’s clean air zone. In the process, this is creating public cynicism about the motives, with few convinced that this is anything to do with clean air. It is also undermining relationships between many members of the public, as well as between local and regional democratic institutions. Amendments 176 and 178B go some way to rebalancing these arrangements, but my main concern is to restore some public faith in local democracy.

[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 ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 511 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about capital finance controls in local government. All I would say is that every local authority is required to have an external audit by a professional audit company to undergo a thorough inspection of its finances. It seems to me that the easiest way round this issue is to extend the requirement of the external audit to include a detailed investigation of any capital financing arrangements. That would reduce or eliminate all the additional requirements in the Bill and put the requirement on the external audit company to do a thorough audit of the council’s finances. If problems are exposed, the issues can then be resolved. This would mean that other local authorities which behave prudently are not caught up in the fairly strict regime that is being proposed.

Turning briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I totally support his Amendment 177 on improving standards of consultation for public bodies, particularly local authorities. There ought to be—I am sure there is—a standard for consultations that every public body, particularly local authorities, ought to adhere to.

On business improvement districts, I say that it is shocking to me that they could be established without full consultation and understanding by local residents. I would say, just as a point of history really, that our local councils used to have a big voice from local business. Businesses used to want to be elected to serve on their local council, where their voices could be heard and they could influence decisions that were made. Sadly, that tradition has disappeared, and there are fewer and fewer businesspeople who seek election to local authorities. This has led to the use of another way of trying to engage businesses in improving small areas such as this by giving them powers through the business improvement districts. So, yet again, these districts bypass local democracy, which is why I support the proposals in Amendment 178.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for moving Amendment 177. I cannot respond on specific local authorities, as he may realise, but I think that noble Lords have had a good discussion about said local authorities.

Statutory frameworks and clear rules for consultation already exist in some service areas, such as planning, and provide guidance on the required length and scope of consultation. There is a statutory publicity code, which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. Councils can carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans. Greater involvement for local people can only be a good thing, and local authorities should be free to adapt their approach based on local need and requirements for these non-statutory consultations. A requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties would impose additional costs on local authorities, which might encourage less consultation and engagement, rather than more. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment and not press his other amendments in this group.

Amendment 178 concerns business improvement districts—or BIDs, as they are often called. It is best practice for a BID to promote its actions so that levy payers and the community can see what is being achieved. Many BIDs keep an up-to-date website and engage regularly via social media to discuss their work. BIDs are intended to be business-led, business-funded organisations. It is right that the businesses that will be required to fund the BID make the decisions on whether there should be consultations.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about local authorities on BID boards. There are local authorities on BID boards in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Newcastle, as well as in other places.

Regarding the review of BID arrangements, as I have said, the legislation does not preclude residents and members of the community from being consulted on a BID proposal or represented on a BID board. Many authorities are on BID boards in their local areas. We are not looking to review business improvement districts; in fact, we are looking closely at work that is being done on community improvement districts, which include community groups, local people and businesses. That work is being run by Power to Change, and we are keeping a close eye on the pilots and following them with interest.

Amendment 511, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would apply across the Bill and would require the Secretary of State to give local authorities advance notice where provisions creating new responsibilities for them are to be commenced. In any circumstances, those gaining new responsibilities should be aware of them in good time. However, we do not consider that this amendment is needed. As I hope has been clear from our responses earlier in the debate, the Government entirely agree on the importance of collaboration with local authorities for our reforms to be successful. We are already working with local authorities on many of our reforms and will continue to do so. I can therefore confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing responsibilities for local authorities without the appropriate preparation, including supporting them both to understand those responsibilities and to manage any transition. In many cases, this work will include further consultation with local authorities and others to shape regulations and inform supporting guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked a couple of questions. I will look at those and give her a written answer. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. The Malvern Hills are of course an outstanding place of beauty in the West Midlands, and it is important that the trust is allowed to do its job as effectively as possible. This is yet another example of the way in which the Boundary Commission has been forced do its work, because of the constraints put upon it, where it goes across natural boundaries. In the case that the noble Baroness raised, the management of the Malvern Hills Trust is vital. It is also clearly important that residents have confidence in the arrangements of the trust and in the fairness of any levies they may have to pay. I hope that the Minister may be prepared to take a look at this and possibly come back on Report with a sympathetic response.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing them in front of noble Lords today. I want to focus on just one aspect of this. It is about not just whether the Government agree to these amendments and facilitate all the action which noble Lords have already spoken about but whether they back away from the current position, which is putting a ceiling on the ambition of local planning authorities in achieving net zero, and indeed in trying to set a purpose that is in any way in alignment with the nationally set targets of getting to zero carbon by 2050.

Many local authorities are straining at the leash to make their communities zero carbon and to ensure that they take steps to protect the well-being of their residents from flooding and extreme weather events, and from the costs and harm that they can see happening now and foresee coming in the coming decade or two if they do not take vigorous action to tackle climate change and mitigate the worst consequences of it. Unfortunately, time and again, via the Planning Inspectorate or government pronouncements, local planning authorities are prevented from taking those actions by the imposition of a national framework which is not in alignment with the equally national statutory framework to reach zero carbon by 2050.

If the Minister feels that, somehow or other, the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not the right one, that is fine, but can she, in the first instance, say that she and her Government will not continue to deliberately suppress the ambition of local authorities to achieve that national target and come forward herself, or encourage her Government to come forward, with a way to facilitate progress along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has so well set out today?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the amendments in this group and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing our attention to this issue before we start addressing the clauses that concern national and local planning policy.

Strategic planning depends and rests on planning legislation such as this and on national and local planning policies. We need to provide the tools in planning legislation and at national planning policy level to produce the focus and levers that we require at local level to pursue net zero—which I have not heard a voice against in this debate so far. We all know how important it is, but we need the levers and tools at local level to achieve it.

That is not going to be as simple as it sounds. Planning is a forward-looking approach: it is for new development or change to old development and does not do as much for the existing built environment. I hope that when we discuss the national management development policies the Government will indicate where they will provide a strong policy in favour of achieving net zero through planning legislation and policy. Currently, the National Planning Policy Framework has the goal of

“presumption in favour of sustainable development”,

which is about 10 to 15 years old, and it was the start of the journey towards achieving a firm commitment to tackling climate change and achieving the Government’s aims of zero carbon by 2050. We need a step change in planning policy if we are to achieve that. Unfortunately for the Government, the tools they put in planning legislation and policies are cross-departmental if they are going to achieve anything.

For example, housing development requires highways infrastructure. Is such infrastructure going to enable more traffic? Even if we have transferred to electric-generated vehicles, that will still create considerable carbon emissions, both in the production of the vehicles and in the production of the electricity, for the foreseeable future. What is the policy going to be there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 179 and 271 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seek to introduce a duty for planning authorities to consider climate change when developing planning policy and in making planning application decisions by adding a “purpose of planning” provision to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and a complementary duty in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Government recognise the great challenge of climate change and that the planning system must address this effectively. Through the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government have committed to reduce net emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels by 2050. We have also committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it. We passed the Environment Act, which sets ambitious, legally binding, long-term targets to restore nature. The Government published their second environmental improvement plan in January this year, setting out the actions that will drive us towards reaching our long-term targets and goals.

Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already sets out that local planning authorities must design their local plans

“to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.

This is restated in the Bill and is found in proposed new Section 15C of the 2004 Act, to be inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill. Similar requirements are included for other types of plans, such as waste and mineral plans and neighbourhood plans.

Alongside this, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should support climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that plans should be prepared in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. The framework also makes it clear that plans and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment more broadly. As a matter of law, the framework must be taken into account when preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Its effect on decisions will be enhanced through this Bill, through the provision made for a suite of national development management policies that will have statutory force.

More broadly, the National Planning Policy Frame- work couches the role of the planning system quite firmly in the terms of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, recognising the environmental, social and economic dimensions of this and the inter- dependencies between them. It is not clear that a statutory purpose for planning would add to this in any meaningful way. We recognise that more can be achieved, though, and that is why the Government recently consulted on immediate changes to the framework relating to renewable energy and sought views on carbon assessments and other changes, which would strengthen the framework’s role in this vital area. A full review of the framework, taking the responses to this consultation into account, will take place following Royal Assent, and we will review the strategic objectives set out in the planning policy to ensure that they support the Government’s environmental targets under the Environment Act, the net zero strategy and the national adaptation programme.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Skidmore review. We will publish a response to it very shortly. As committed to in the net zero strategy, we intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, the Government do not feel able to support them, given the existing legislative obligations and current and future requirements in national policy, which will be given added force as a result of other provisions in this Bill.

Amendment 179A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, looks to define the purpose of planning and the meaning of “sustainable development”. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, this can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As part of achieving the three overarching objectives of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—the framework sets out policies on good design, sustainable transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, and community services and facilities. It recognises the importance to health, well-being and recreation that open spaces and green infrastructure provide. It also contains policies for how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places.

So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the needs of the area, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, and mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. It also means that the strategic policies should provide for housing needs unless protected areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for restricting development—for example, green-belt land. To reiterate, the framework must, as a matter of law, be taken into account when preparing development plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I accept what the Minister said about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. She listed the things that have to be balanced, but the issue is how that balance takes place. In my experience as a local councillor, climate change is often at the bottom of that balance; economic development and the need for growth and jobs are at the top, and housing development is there, but climate change is much less important in the eyes of planning policies, planning inspectors and local plans. Can the Minister explain how the climate change element will be given greater importance and priority?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to begin with, I do not agree that local authorities across the UK are not taking net zero and sustainability seriously. We know that local authorities across the country are making great strides towards our net-zero future. There are some brilliant examples of local action, innovation and excellence in this area, so I do not agree with the noble Baroness. When we get national planning policies that make these issues important nationally, councils will have to take them seriously and align their local plans with them. I would not want anybody to think that local government is not taking this seriously, because it certainly is and it is doing a huge amount to deliver our net-zero targets.

In December we published a consultation on updating the national planning policy, focusing largely on changes to housing policy that we intend to make in spring. This consultation closed on 2 March this year. We also sought initial views on some wider changes, which we will take forward into a fuller review of the framework. This fuller review will consider the scope to go further on a range of areas, including ensuring that the planning system capitalises on opportunities to support the natural environment, respond to climate change and deliver on the levelling up of economic opportunity—so there is more to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

As a Scot by birth living in England, I support my noble friend the Duke of Montrose in his Amendment 181. It is good that in this clause, as my noble friend said, the Government are committed to consulting in specific circumstances. However, too frequently we are not seeing the results of the consultations in a timely fashion, particularly before any regulations under this part of the Bill may be drafted and come before the House. Therefore, I lend this amendment my strongest support.

My noble friend also raised collaborating with the Scottish Parliament with a view to obtaining legislative consent. We have had two recent regrettable circumstances where the Scottish Parliament—and in one case, the Senedd—withheld their consent. This could be avoided if discussions took place with the relevant committees of the Scottish Parliament at the earliest stage and throughout the course of the Bill. I am thinking particularly of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has exercised the House at quite some length, and the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill. The withholding of legislative consent could have been avoided by the Scottish Parliament if the Government had liaised with them and the relevant committees at a much earlier stage.

With those remarks, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Part 3, Chapter 1 of the Bill, entitled “Planning Data”, asks more questions than it answers. I will be grateful if the Minister can answer some of them.

First, what is the purpose of requiring an approved national planning software? Is it so that the Government can more readily access planning data from across the country? If so, to what purpose do they want to put the data that they acquire in that way?

Secondly, how many different planning software systems are in operation at the moment? Digitising planning is a complicated operation, so you would not expect that many but, if there are, have local planning authorities already expressed a clear preference to use a single system? This takes me to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in that, if the Government are requiring a single approved planning software, there would be considerable costs attached to local planning authorities transitioning to a new software system. You would want to balance those costs against the benefits. The Bill makes no obvious benefit of using a single system. Another issue is about compatibility. If the current software systems are compatible, is this a solution seeking a problem? There may not be a problem if they can already speak to each other.

My third concern with Clause 79, and the stand part question expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is that planning applications have to be retained for a long time. I cannot remember for how long; I think it is 30 years, but it may be longer. If that is the case, all previous planning applications going back a certain length of time would have to be put on to a new system, so that the systems could talk to each other. As all noble Lords know, there are planning applications made on the same place time and again and in different forms. I want to understand the purpose of this: why and who benefits?

Another of my concerns is this. I am in favour of digitising; I think it has huge benefits for many people, particularly planning professionals, in this case. It would be much easier to have it all online. However, if it is going to be a digital-only system, as seems to be the thrust of this group of clauses, the Government will be guilty of digital exclusion.

The Government must recognise two things. First, many people access all their digital needs only through a mobile phone. Accessing a planning application, with all its complexity, through a mobile platform will not provide the level of detail that they want. Secondly, many parts of the country still do not have either sufficiently good broadband or mobile signal. Digital exclusion could be a growing issue, especially in planning. People get involved in planning applications, big and small, and I am sure that the last thing the Government want is to exclude residents for different reasons—accessibility or knowledge of use.

I have asked many questions, but I hope the Minister is able to answer them. While digitising planning systems has many positives, they have to be weighed against some of the many negatives that exist.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her valuable contribution to this debate and for focusing our attention on these provisions. In the light of her remarks, it is probably best for me to start by explaining the importance of Clause 79.

Too often, planning information is hard to use for all the purposes that it should serve. Clause 79 is designed to address this problem. Planning authorities often receive large amounts of information which requires manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. These manual tasks take valuable time away from planning authorities performing their core role of making decisions that matter to communities.

There are three key effects of this clause. First, it works with Clause 78 to ensure that complying with data standards does not create a new bureaucratic burden for planning authorities receiving information and then having to render it compliant. Secondly, it gives planning authorities the power to require information in a manner that best suits their systems and the data standards to which they are subject. Thirdly, it protects against the risk that some may attempt to use the requirements under Clause 78 to inconvenience local authorities’ decision-making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.

Clause 79 also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Publication of a notice on the planning authority website or through specific communications will be required to inform participants of what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. In circumstances where the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.

I will deal briefly with the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. There is no obligation for planning authorities to refuse non-compliant information. However, for the reasons I have just outlined, we expect planning authorities to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that we have taken steps to protect those who are not able to submit using the means specified by the planning authority or who cannot comply with the data standards in that submission. Where the provider of information has a reasonable excuse, information cannot be refused. Planning authorities will be under a duty to accept—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics about the problem that these clauses are trying to solve. What is the extent of the difficulty such that, when applicants submit their planning applications to the planning authority, they then have to be manually entered or have to use a different system? Do we know the extent of that problem?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl very much for that information. The danger then is that, if an old software system containing planning applications from before the new software was introduced is incompatible and is therefore not transitioned across, it will not be readable by the new system for future use. That issue ought to have been considered.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a very relevant point. The point that has been made to us quite forcefully is that a lot of the software that is already in use is clunky and outdated, and that somehow a solution needs to be found. Clearly, the state in which systems are at the time any new system comes into play will vary from local authority to local authority. I will investigate that point further and, if I can elucidate the issue, I will gladly do so.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I want to ask a question based on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He said that the crucial point of the Bill and these clauses is the role and primacy of the two documents—the development plan and the national development management plan—and where they stand in that relationship. Clause 86 makes it clear that the NDMPs take precedence over the development plans if there is a conflict. But where does a third document stand, which the noble Lord also mentioned, the NPPFs, which were introduced via the Localism Act 2011? The document replaced a two-foot-high pile of codes, practice notes and so on about planning. In the instant that it was introduced it was controversial because it reduced the amount of planning paperwork that people needed to have knowledge of and refer to, and it made access to the planning process much easier for lay people and for councils. It seems to have proved its worth and to be a useful document. Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, my question is: is this document now effectively a dead letter? If it is not, where does it stand in relation to the two documents which are given a mention in Clause 86 and in subsequent policy?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is probably one of the key groups of amendments on planning in the Bill, as it sets out the strategic framework under which local plans will be created and planning applications will be determined. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, started us on the right track by saying that we believe in a plan-led system; the question is, “Who leads the plans?” Which one is going to be most important —the national management development plan or the local plan? The local plan currently has primacy in planning legislation.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, local nature recovery strategies are one of the triumphs of the Government’s Environment Act, which I welcomed at the time, as did the whole House. We wanted to ensure that they had a little bit more edge and power than they had when that Bill went through this House. We now have the chance.

Local nature recovery strategies are not a nice to have; they are essential. They are essential not only for nature and the environment but for the future of our economy, which is supported by so many of the ecosystems that I am sure the Minister, given his ministerial experience, is more aware of than I am. This is something that is vital, rather than, as I said, a nice to have. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was right when she said that we have a problem here if the thousands of people who will be involved in writing these strategies are not convinced that any notice will be taken of their words.

However, I have some really good news here as chair of the local nature partnership in Cornwall and Scilly. Cornwall—not Scilly, although we are now involving Scilly in the final plan—was involved in a pilot local nature recovery strategy, along with four other areas. This was not seen by the various parties in Cornwall as being a pain to do, as something that the local authority and the local nature partnership had to urge, nudge and cajole them to do. It was something that people genuinely wanted to be involved with. The consultation exercise spread right across all sorts of organisations, individuals and households.

A strategy came out that was welcomed and that everybody wanted to happen. The great thing was that it was local. The Cornish aspects were particularly around things such as Cornish hedges, which are very different from other hedges elsewhere in the country. We also involve marine because, for a peninsula such as Cornwall, marine is so important. I was disappointed that the guidance that has come out does not mention marine. Marine is essential. It is part of the same ecosystems for those areas which are coastal.

My message is short: these local nature recovery strategies are vital to our future. We have, as we all know, one of the most nature-depleted areas in the UK. Even Cornwall, the environment of which is loved, has the same problems of retreating nature. This is the chance to have the turnaround in the environmental improvement plan. It is completely within the Government’s strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, the UK was at COP 15 in Montreal last year. We signed up to the global target of 30% being managed for nature. That is a UK target as well, as put out by the Government. Many local authorities, including in the south-west, have taken that target as well.

I urge the Government to take this step of ensuring that these plans really mean something. Let the thousands of people who will be involved and who will volunteer to participate know that not only will their voices be heard but their policies will be implemented.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on the conflicts that will inevitably exist between the national development management policies and local plans. I thank my noble friend for pointing out in great detail the difficulties that may arise.

At the heart of this is the fact that, at the moment, we have no idea what will be included in the NDMP. Frankly, that is fairly critical as to whether or not there will be conflict. It will depend on whether these will be very high-level national policies, as in the current National Planning Policy Framework. It will depend on whether they will set standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has suggested. It will depend on whether they will simply reflect what is currently national planning policy but put it into a statutory situation for local planning authorities and local councils to agree to.

In Committee on the Bill last Wednesday, the Minister suggested that we would have a round table to try to tease out the detail and meaning behind the Government’s proposals in the Bill. It is absolutely vital that that happens as soon as possible. Throughout our debate on the plan-led process, it became clear that, if the intentions of the Government for the national development management policies are not understood, there will be conflict—as this group of amendments makes clear—around the degree to which local people have power and influence over local plans at this stage, and around the degree to which planning inspectors who are set to look at the local plans that are drawn up have power and influence over local plans. That is why it is really important that we hear from the Minister as soon as possible. What sort of policies are going to be included in NDMPs? At the moment, it is a fairly blank screen.

I have only one other thing to say, which has been raised by my noble friend. New subsection (3) inserted by Clause 87, which is about revoking or changing the NDMP, says that

“the Secretary of State must ensure that such consultation with, and participation by, the public or any bodies or persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate takes place.”

I hope the Minister will be willing to take away “if any” in that clause and reflect how important it is for local plans to be accepted by local residents. That means that the NDMP has to be acceptable to and accepted by local residents, as it is going to dictate the content or the direction of travel of local plan decision-making. There is a lot that hangs on the content of the NDMP, so I hope that when the Minister replies she is able to give us some hints as to what it will be.

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

My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendments 185A and 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, which seek to remove or reverse the precedence given to national development management policies over the development plan in planning decisions where there is a conflict between them. I welcome this further opportunity to explain the objectives behind this aspect of the Bill.

As I indicated in our debate on this issue last week, national development management policies are intended to bring greater clarity to the important role that national policy already plays in decisions on planning applications. A clear and concise set of policies with statutory weight will make sure that important safeguards, such as protections for designated landscapes and heritage assets, are taken fully into account, without these basic matters having to be repeated in local plans to give them the statutory recognition they deserve.

These amendments deal specifically with what to do in the event that there is a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. The amendments would remove the certainty created by the Bill that up-to-date national policies on important issues, such as climate change or flood protection, would have precedence over plans that may well have been made a long time ago.

Some local plans are woefully out of date; for example, some date back to the 1990s. Only around 40% of local planning authorities adopted a local plan within the last five years. It would, in our view, be wrong to say that, in the event of a conflict, national policy does not take precedence over out-of-date policies in these plans, which is what these amendments would achieve. This point is particularly crucial because we wish to use national policies to drive higher standards, especially on good design, the environment and tackling climate change, and it is important that these take precedence in the event of a conflict with out-of-date policies in plans.

Nevertheless, I expect such conflicts to be very limited in future as we are making it easier to produce plans and keep them up to date, and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies. Given the important role that national development management policies will perform and their benefits in providing certainty, I hope noble Lords understand that we are not able to support this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that few, if any, conflicts should arise under this new way of working.

Amendment 186 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley would give national development management policies precedence over the development plan only where there was a “significant” conflict between the relevant policies. Where a local policy and national development management policy are both relevant considerations but not in any conflict, it will still be for the decision-maker to decide how much weight is afforded to these policies based on their relevance to the proposed development. Our clause sets out only what should be done in the event of a conflict between policies where they contradict one another. My noble friend brought up the green belt. Policies controlling development in the green belt are standard nationally and will be set out in the NDMPs. Local plans could—will—define the boundaries of the green belt, as they do now, so I do not think there should be any conflict between those two issues.

We have explained why we believe it is important that NDMPs are prioritised in the event of such a conflict, and we expect such conflicts to be limited, as I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What I am trying to explain to noble Lords is that there should be no conflict because they deal with different things. The national development management policies are likely to cover common issues that are already being dealt with in national planning policies, such as the green belt, areas at risk of flooding and heritage areas. They would not impinge on local policies for shaping development, nor would they direct what land should be allocated for a particular area. They are totally different things. Looking to the future, therefore, I cannot see what conflict there would be.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I just want to explore this further, if the Minister will agree to it. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is at the heart of this issue. Where there is an existing, up-to-date local plan, why should that not have primacy over the national development management policies, because it will have taken cognisance of those in developing the local plan?

Can the Minister help me here? In the NPPF, there are 16 national planning policies. Does she anticipate that those will be translated into the NDMPs? It is at that level that we need to understand this because, when it comes to local plans, the NPPF is part of them; as the Minister rightly argued, it is put into local plans. But then they are then interpreted locally, for local reasons, which is why I am concerned about an NDMP having primacy over up-to-date local plans.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The national development management policies are dealing with the top-level issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are out to review those issues of consultation. These issues have come back. We have not got the list yet, but your local plan will accept those as being there and will then deal with issues that are local. As my noble friend said, there will be issues such as the green belt, but they will take into account the national policies on green belt and deal only with very localised policies on it, so there should be no conflict. I do not see where that conflict can be. But we are going to have a meeting on this to further discuss and probably have, not arguments, but strong debates—those are the words—on these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

This is not a real point, because I should not make it, but I just remind my noble friend that the counties have large numbers of people who might just be willing to vote for her party. They do not much like being left out, and they are beginning to think that is what often happens, so there may be some self-interest in rewriting this part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, how do I follow that? I will not, as it is dangerous territory.

This is a very interesting and important debate because it is about creating part of the hierarchy of a plan-led process. At the moment, we have quite a mixed pattern across England. Obviously, London has the ability to make a spatial strategy policy and plan; so do just some of the metro combined authorities, as they are known. In 2018, there was a statutory instrument which enabled three combined authorities to create spatial strategic plans: they were Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West of England. The others do not. Why not?

Here is an opportunity to create a more coherent approach to spatial development strategies across the country. I am speaking as someone living in a metro area, in West Yorkshire. It does not have the ability to make a spatial development plan but is getting round it by creating lots of plans which it hopes will be adopted by the constituent authorities so that it, in essence, has one. That is not satisfactory because what is needed is an overarching approach that all the constituent authorities can agree on. At the minute, it is a series of plans for different elements—for example, flooding, transport or economic development.

It is not just the county areas which are being omitted from a coherent approach. I hope that, given this debate, the Minister will be able to give us some hope that there will be a bit more coherence attached to this for all the metro mayors and—as has quite rightly been argued—for the counties. It is a nonsense otherwise. I do not know how you can plan, certainly for economic development and transport infrastructure, unless you have an overall approach which a spatial development strategy would enable.

I was very taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about thinking about which elements we would want included in a spatial development strategy. He quite rightly included economic development in Amendment 200. I do not know how you could have a spatial development strategy without thinking about economic development and setting aside sites for business development. That must be included.

Having said that, you need to include transport infrastructure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, climate change must be a part of that as well. Alongside that, if you have housing sites and a broad approach to spatial development and business development, you need to think about public service facilities. At the moment, even in a big metro area such as where I am, these are often so piecemeal, and it is so frustrating. Why can we not have people think about what you need for schools, hospitals, and local general practices, for instance? What about thinking about provision for nature, which was the subject of the first group of amendments this afternoon on local nature recovery plans? That ought to be integrated into an approach to spatial development, as well as leisure facilities. All that needs to be there.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who talked about using travel to work areas as the boundary. That makes it extraordinarily difficult if those are not coterminous with the local authority boundaries which are being used. I will give noble Lords an example from my own experience. Travel to work areas in West Yorkshire include York, Barnsley in South Yorkshire and even Doncaster. People from Manchester come and work in West Yorkshire and Leeds and vice versa.

One of the challenges for the Minister is to try to come up with an answer to what boundaries are used because Schedule 7 talks, quite rightly, about the constituent authorities and members of a combined authority, a combined county authority or even—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben—just a county council. You need to know what boundaries you are using.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I think it is actually a bit simpler than that. The participating authorities that choose to be in the spatial development strategy choose to be in it and bring their territory with them. Everybody else, from my point of view in Amendment 205, are other authorities that are consulted. They are not making the strategy, they are consulted about it, so their geography does not matter so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My experience is that that was not quite how it worked. In West Yorkshire, Harrogate—which is just north of Leeds—was included, even though it is in North Yorkshire, because it is part of what they call the “golden triangle”. I think it is a challenge, and I hope the Government will just decide which boundaries they use—I presume it will be local authority boundaries, because that makes sense—and the others are just part of a negotiation.

Those are the key points I wanted to make. It is an interesting group to think about how it all works. I notice in the schedule it says that spatial strategies have to be mindful of, and consistent with, the national development management plans. I would like to hear from the Minister how spatial strategies will operate across a wider region, because if you are talking about transport—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, picked up on this—you need to think in a wider area than just a small combined authority area.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns strategic planning and spatial development strategies. As these are to date a very rare form of plan, it might be useful to set out some background. The Government recognise that it is often desirable to plan over areas, as we have just heard, wider than a single planning authority in order to properly address the strategic and cross-boundary issues that have been brought up in this debate so far. However, it is important to stress that a spatial development strategy cannot allocate sites; instead, it can set broad indications of how much and what type of development should go where.

Once a spatial development strategy is adopted, local plans within its area must be in general conformity with it; that is, they must generally follow that strategy and its policies. Most of us will not actually have dealt with a spatial development strategy, because only one exists at the moment, and that is in London, which the mayor refers to as the London Plan. Other combined authorities are able to request the equivalent spatial development strategy powers as part of their devolution agreement. Three areas have done so already—Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, and the West of England, as noble Lords have heard—but for various reasons, none has produced a strategy as yet. Moreover, the Government have agreed to give a spatial development strategy power to the West Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.

Through the Bill, we are extending the powers to produce a spatial development strategy, on a voluntary basis, to other local planning authorities, as we are aware that in other parts of the country—such as Hertfordshire, Essex, Leicestershire and around Nottingham—some of them have already sought to progress strategic plans over recent years. The Government would like to support and enable these efforts at more strategic planning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate that we disagree. I thought the point was that we would disagree well in Committee. I have sat and listened to this debate for many hours. I just wanted to clarify why I think economic development is important: we will not be able to build any houses and nobody’s well-being will be helped if we stand still economically or go backwards. I do not relish austerity for the masses. Therefore, I think we need economic growth, mass housebuilding and the supply side to be tackled.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

It is with trepidation that I follow the last two speakers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Fox. I will say just one small thing about the green belt. The green belt, as part of local plan making, is reviewed and, as appropriate, areas are taken out of the green belt for housebuilding and development. That is what happens. It happens at the right time and place when there is proper public consultation.

I start with Amendment 198 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I have lots of sympathy with the idea of deliberative democracy. It is always worth exploring new ways of engaging with local people, involving them in developing ideas and understanding about what is going on, and helping to inform decisions before decision-makers finalise plans. I am concerned that the plan the noble Baroness lays out in Amendment 198 will probably work okay in a district council, but in an area such as the one where I am a councillor, for 450,000 residents, it becomes more challenging.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, this is an extremely important debate with a large number of amendments of great importance. Having recently been recruited to the rapidly increasing cohort of the over-80s, I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his amendment. Certainly the Liberal Democrats support the case that has been made.

I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, had to say in relation to his amendment about making an assessment for student accommodation. As a resident of Greater Manchester, I understand the issue very clearly. I am sure that the Minister will want to tell us about how it is possible to have such a requirement applied in a proportionate way, bearing in mind that for a neighbouring planning authority such as High Peak it may be a very small consideration, whereas for an authority such as Manchester or Salford it is very significant.

I wonder if I might impersonate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in respect of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and ask where the leasehold reform Bill is, of which the Government have spoken so much and delivered so little. I shall leave my remarks there. I think we need to hear from the Minister not simply that she does not particularly like the amendment that the noble Baroness has tabled but that there is actually a positive plan by the Government to tackle the issues the noble Baroness has identified.

I want to focus my remarks on Amendment 219 and Amendment 218, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Amendment 219 would require local planning authorities to have a local plan that reaches or exceeds the requirement for housing prescribed by the Secretary of State. Amendment 218 would nail this down further by requiring strict conformity with the Secretary of State’s targets, using a method of calculation specified by the Secretary of State. We should be clear that, taken together, these amendments would mean that local land allocations for housing would essentially be taken away from local planning authorities and placed back in the hands of the Secretary of State. This would be a reversion to the statutory situation that obtained at some very distant time in the past—some 12 months and three Prime Ministers ago. It is a policy position that was denounced by the previous Prime Minister as Stalinist, and was this week repudiated by the current Prime Minister when speaking on the BBC. He said he saw an urgent need for change to the existing policy, assisted materially by conversations he had had last summer with Conservative councillors all over the country, who spelled out to him its consequences and the damaging impacts it was having locally.

A close reading of the two amendments suggests that, actually, they may seek to go slightly further back, to something that is even more Stalinist than the preceding Prime Minister was suggesting. The drafting of Amendment 218 appears to say not only that falling below the target would not be permitted but neither would exceeding it, because it has to be in strict conformity with the targets that have been set by the Secretary of State—not a house more, not a house less.

Noble Lords who are proposing this pair of amendments are certainly quite right to point out that the current situation suits nobody, least of all the tens of thousands of families on council waiting lists or the many others for whom a house purchase is hopelessly beyond their means and for whom renting can only ever be an inadequate, insecure and expensive option, given the current size and nature of the housing stock. They are also right to point out that the current policy uncertainty has paralysed local plan decision-making, slowed site allocations, and infuriated the development and housing industries.

We need more homes urgently. Specifically, we need many more social homes for rent. If money was switched from the Help to Buy programme to investing in those homes, as we on this side have often advocated, that would make a start, but the supporters of these two amendments need to explain in more detail how going back to the status quo ante will deliver the outcome that they desire. Not once did the system to which they are now encouraging us to go back deliver 300,000 net new homes a year, or even near it. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, drew that to our attention. The old system was not delivering, so reinstating it seems unlikely to work miracles. Indeed, I shall quote the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in respect of another matter he spoke about: repeating something that you know does not work is verging on madness.

There are even more Stalinist options available, and maybe these two amendments point the Government in that way. There is no doubt that a centrally imposed national five-year plan for housing construction could deliver such numbers, but only provided there was state funding for anything over the 150,000 or so homes that would be funded by the private sector—and with the proviso that the party in government that put this policy in place was ready to forego its local democratic representation on the shrivelled local planning authorities that would be left.

There is an alternative—one that has proven to work in practice over the last 10 years, one that produces more land allocated for housing than the local plans have previously done for that area, and one that has popular consent, validated by a public vote locally. It is an alternative that meets local housing needs, has local popular consent and routinely exceeds government housing targets. You might think that that was a far better policy option than resurrecting a system of failed top-down targets that will not meet local housing needs anytime soon, raises huge opposition, and is constantly gamed and warped by developers, politicians and local interests, while Ministers in Whitehall can only stand around, flummoxed and frustrated at the failure of the plan to deliver. I am referring to neighbourhood plans, and here I need to redeclare my interest as a member of a neighbourhood planning forum. Now that neighbourhood plans are seen as a success—this was debated to some extent earlier in our proceedings—everybody claims to have invented them. I say only that it was quite lonely at the Dispatch Box in 2010, steering them through in the Localism Act.

There is a later group of amendments in which I shall have more to say about neighbourhood plans—I am sure noble Lords will be delighted by that news—and the impacts of some of the clumsy proposals in the Bill, which I think will damage and hinder their prospects. However, for this debate, I look forward to hearing the Minister set out what the Government’s plan for reaching 300,000 new homes will actually be. If it is not going to be Amendments 215 and 218 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, or spending absolute shedloads of money on a massive state investment programme, or facilitating a much-expanded neighbourhood planning programme, what on earth is it going to be?

Leaving the Bill as it is, as the Government would obviously prefer, may well be seen as their best expedient short-term fix for the forthcoming local elections. They may even hope that it might be a middle-term fix for the general election next year. I do not think it will achieve either of those things, but one thing is certain: it will definitely not be a long-term fix for the homes that are vitally needed in this country. Leaving the Bill as it is will provide no help at all for those stuck on endless housing waiting lists, for those desperately saving for a deposit at a time of rising interest rates, or for those stuck in overpriced short-term lets with no hope of rescue. It really is time for the Government to set out their plans. I look forward very much to hearing a constructive reply from the Minister.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments exposes the conundrum at the heart of planning for housing. At this point, I repeat my interests, as in the register, as being a councillor in Kirklees, with its up-to-date local plan, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. My noble friend Lord Stunell is of course right to say that the simple statement of a number of new house builds per year has failed and will continue to fail: top-down diktats are the last resort of a failed policy. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, helpfully reminded us, there are more than 1 million unbuilt homes with current planning consents. That seems to me to indicate that a top-down planning policy is failing to produce the number of new home builds that the country needs and wants.

Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, points to a challenge in housing development that is considered far too rarely: housing and planning policy should have a focus on fulfilling need. There is ample evidence of which housing units are needed, such as those for older people. As my noble friend Lord Stunell has said, we know that there is a desperate need for housing at a social rent. There are current applications from over 1 million people for social housing. Their chances of success are very limited indeed, as successive Governments have continued with the right-to-buy policy while ignoring the need to build replacements. The challenge of supplying housing that meets expressed need is not being addressed by the changes to planning policy in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments relate to housing need and the homebuying process.

I will address Amendments 207 and 219A together. Amendment 207 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to enable the Secretary of State to include older people’s housing needs assessments in documentation related to local plans and require that local authorities consider the needs for housing for older people when preparing such plans. Amendment 219A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, seeks to enable the Secretary of State to require local planning authorities to have regard to the housing requirements of the student population, developed in conjunction with local higher education providers, when preparing their local plans. I recognise the noble Lord’s personal knowledge of this subject.

I entirely understand the sentiment behind both amendments and offer words for the comfort of both noble Lords. I believe I can first do so by highlighting that national policy already sets strong expectations in these precise areas. The existing National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including older people and students, should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. In 2019, we also published guidance to help local authorities implement the policies that can deliver on this expectation. Therefore, as regards student housing, we already have a clear policy in place, backed up by guidance, to deliver solutions designed locally. Any proposals to amend this would be considered as part of our review of the National Planning Policy Framework once this Bill receives Royal Assent.

I listened with a great care and respect to all that the noble Lord, Lord Best, said to draw attention to the housing needs of older people. The Government are absolutely on his wavelength in that regard. He was right to point out that there should be a variety and diversity of housing options for older people, as underscored by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. To further improve the diversity of housing options available to older people and boost the supply of specialist elderly accommodation, we recently consulted on proposals to strengthen the existing policy by adding a specific expectation that, when ensuring that the needs of older people are met, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. We know that those are important typologies of housing that can help support our ageing population.

Furthermore, it would be remiss of me not to point out that there is already a provision in the Bill setting out that the Secretary of State must issue guidance for local planning authorities on how their local plan and any supplementary plans, taken as a whole, should address housing needs that result from old age or disability. This is a key statutory provision.

So, again, we already have a clear policy in place on this issue, and we are proposing, as I have explained, to strengthen it to further support the supply of older people’s housing. I hope that this provides the noble Lord, Lord Best, with the assurances that he needs to withdraw his Amendment 207 at this stage.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is already in the policy and how it is going to be strengthened, and the national planning policy guidance. However, so far that has not brought forth anything like the numbers that are needed, so perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how that policy—which is very worthy and which I support—can be put into practice?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I say to the noble Baroness that I will try to do so as I go along. First, though, I will address Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which would require local authorities to adopt policies to ensure that the marketing of housing accurately describes the nature of the tenure. I listened to all that she said about the need to review, or indeed do away with, leasehold tenure, and I hope she will forgive me if I do not repeat what I said on that subject in one of our earlier Committee debates. We shall also be debating Amendment 504GJG in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan on leasehold reform later on in Committee.

Buying a home is the largest investment that many of us will make in our lifetime, and we all want to be sure of what we are buying before we commit to purchase, so I absolutely understand the motivation behind the amendment. However, we do not believe that local plans have the legal remit to specify how property agents can market property in a local area. Even if they could, such an approach would create a complicated patchwork of requirements which would vary between one local planning authority area and another. That would be very difficult for property agents operating on a regional or national basis to navigate, and it would be confusing for buyers as well.

That is not to dismiss the concern that the noble Baroness has expressed—in the levelling up White Paper, the Government committed to working with industry to make sure that buyers have the critical information they need to know, including tenure type, lease length and service charges. The Government have also signalled our intention to legislate if this is required. We are currently considering options which will set a common approach to all property listings across England and Wales, providing certainty for buyers, sellers and estate agents, and we will set out further information in due course.

I turn next to Amendments 215 and 218, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. These amendments both relate to local authority housing need, and this is where I hope I can answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Amendment 215 seeks to require a local plan to secure a sufficient supply of housing to meet or exceed the authority’s area requirement for housing over the plan period. The amendment also sets out that an area’s housing requirement must be derived from the housing targets and standard method prescribed in guidance by the Secretary of State. Amendment 218 seeks to set out in legislation that local authorities must have regard to any housing targets and the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need when preparing their local plan.

While I entirely understand the sentiment behind these amendments, the proposals would impose unnecessary constraints by seeking to put into primary legislation matters that are already addressed effectively, I contend, through national policy and guidance. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that national planning policy already sets out that local authorities should make sufficient provision for housing, including affordable housing, and that they must take this into account when preparing their local plans.

Additionally, again in response to the noble Baroness, policy and guidance set out how local authorities should establish their housing requirements, and they make it clear that the standard method for assessing local housing need should be the starting point for establishing housing requirements in the plan-making process, in all but exceptional circumstances. That is not a straitjacket and nor is it laissez-faire; our planning policies already allow authorities to choose to plan for more homes than required to meet need, and we have consulted on proposed changes to national policy designed to empower local authorities to go further where that is right for their area.

It is right, however, that local communities can respond to local circumstances. To introduce more flexibility to take account of local circumstances, we are proposing some changes through our consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. These are expressly designed to support local authorities to set local housing requirements that respond to demographic and affordability pressures while at the same time being realistic, given local constraints.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we will be talking about neighbourhood plans later this evening if we get there—I hope we do, otherwise on Thursday—and we can return to the issues that he has raised on that topic. But I would just like to make a general point about housing targets: local housing need is not a housing target. The standard method for assessing local housing need is used by councils to inform the preparation of their local plans. Local areas are then free to take into account constraints and opportunities when determining their actual housing targets such as green belts, AONBs, and so on, that prevent them allocating enough sites to meet need. There are some councils that choose to plan for more homes than their local housing need number; nor does the local housing need method dictate where homes should go. It is up to councils to decide what sorts of homes can be built where.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group, Amendments 213A and 312I, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, look to ensure, as she explained, that local planning authorities should consider the health and social care facilities needed for their area when considering future development. I am sure that we can agree that it is important to ensure that we have the right health and social care facilities in place where they are needed: that is why this is already a consideration as part of planning policy, guidance and legislation.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that when setting strategic policies, local planning authorities should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision for community facilities, including for health infrastructure. The Government have set out in planning guidance how the need for health facilities, as well as other health and well-being impacts, can be considered as part of the plan-making and decision-making process. Plan-making bodies will need to discuss their emerging strategy for development at an early stage with directors of public health, NHS England, local health and well-being boards, and sustainability and transformation partnerships/integrated care systems, depending on the local context and the implications of development on health and care infrastructure. The National Planning Policy Framework must, as a matter of law, be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

We have also set out, in the consultation on reforms to national planning policy, that we are intending to undertake a wider review of the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system, and, as part of this, we will consider updates needed to reflect the importance of better environmental and health outcomes. In addition, as part of the new infrastructure levy system, local authorities will be required to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy. This will set out the local planning authority’s priorities for spending levy proceeds.

Section 204Q(11) requires levy regulations to determine the consultation process and procedures that must be followed when preparing an infrastructure delivery strategy. This can include which bodies must be consulted in order for charging authorities to determine their infrastructure priorities for spending the levy. Such bodies could include integrated care boards to ensure that health infrastructure is considered in the preparation of the infrastructure delivery strategy. We can also make provision that integrated care boards must assist charging authorities with the preparation of an infrastructure delivery strategy. That is Clause 93.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this group is intended to make minor, technical and consequential amendments to the reforms in the Bill connected to plan making.

Amendment 216A is a minor and technical amendment to Schedule 7. It clarifies an ambiguity in relation to new Section 15CA, to be inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by Schedule 7 to the Bill. The amendment, which will insert new subsection (3A) into new Section 15CA, clarifies that local planning authorities may be made liable for the costs associated with observations or advice delivered by a person appointed by the Secretary of State under new Section 15CA(3), which in practice will be in relation to the proposed local gateways.

Noble Lords will note that the intention was always that, in relation to remuneration and allowances payable under new Section 15LE(2)(j) in Schedule 7, it should be possible for local planning authorities to be made liable for these costs. This amendment simply ensures clarity as to where liability for remuneration or allowances under new subsection (2)(j) may fall. The position following this amendment will broadly mirror arrangements for other relevant appointments, for example in relation to independent examination of plans and local plan commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State.

Amendments 242A, 242B, 242C, 242D, 242E, 242F, 242G and 242H set out consequential amendments required to various pieces of legislation in connection with our reforms to plan making. Through the reforms to Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as introduced by Clause 90 and Schedule 7 to the Bill, the concepts of “local development document” and “development plan document” will be replaced by

“local plan, minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”.

Various consequential amendments have been tabled to ensure that these changes to terminology are carried across to other legislation.

Schedule 8 already sets out minor and consequential amendments of this kind. These further changes will be inserted into Schedule 8 and amend various pieces of legislation to ensure that other key legislative provisions would continue to have effect in light of our reforms. These include, for instance, the Local Government Act 1972, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Commons Act 2006, the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I have a query, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on so carefully explaining the long list of amendments. On the first amendment, Amendment 216A, is that a new requirement for local planning authorities? If so, then surely it should fall under the new burdens agreement between the Government and local authorities and should therefore be funded by the Government.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am told that if it was a new burden, it would be. We do not know whether it is going to be a new burden, but if it were to be a new burden, it would be.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

And if it was not a new burden, it would not be?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Exactly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I would be grateful if the Minister could write and let me know.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will write.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to offer Green support for all these amendments. On the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, it is worth reflecting that if you design a space, a community or a building that is accessible and welcoming to everybody, that will be a really good building for any person to enjoy. This is the same principle that applies to accessible public transport and many other areas.

I mostly want to speak to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I commend him both on tabling this amendment and on his excellent introduction to it. He was perhaps reading the mind of the Committee on Climate Change, because he must have tabled this amendment before its report about three weeks ago, which really stressed the nation’s utter failure to prepare for the climate reality that is now already locked in—what is now known in shorthand as adaptation. Another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said:

“This has been a lost decade in preparing for and adapting to the known risks that we face from climate change”.


It is very clear that what we should be doing now is making sure that we design, build and deliver buildings, infrastructure and communities that are actually fit for—as the noble Lord said—the next century. To take a practical example of this, the APPG on Wetlands has done a great deal of work and spread the word about how crucial wetlands are. We think about all the issues the Government keep facing all the time on sewage and what is spilling into our rivers and oceans. Sustainable urban drainage systems and just the smallest-scale wetlands—something that I have seen NGOs presenting with—can be a way of enriching biodiversity and addressing the kind of issues that this amendment does. They also create a much more pleasant environment for people and do something to tackle all the issues we have with water distribution in our country.

It is not just the Committee on Climate Change. Yesterday your Lordships’ House gave strong support for the amendment to the Energy Bill saying that we absolutely have to deal with retrofitting—with the adaptation that is necessary for existing homes. That very much addresses this amendment as well.

I will offer one constructive suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and something to think about. We have now got to the stage where pretty much everyone, including the Government, is talking about the climate emergency and about biodiversity in nature. These are just two of the very big issues we face in terms of the planetary boundaries. A year or so back, the Stockholm institute concluded that we have exceeded the planetary boundary for novel entities, which is shorthand for pesticides, plastics and pharmaceuticals. I suggest that the next step—which everyone will be talking about in a few years, but we can get ahead of the curve now—is to say that we need design codes that ensure we are living within all the planetary boundaries, which includes things such as geochemical flows and protecting fresh water: a whole range of issues that come under the planetary boundaries model. If we are indeed to be able to survive and thrive on this poor, battered planet, we have to design to live within those planetary boundaries.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is quite right to raise the issue of accessible and inclusive design. Everyone benefits where design is accessible and inclusive for everyone, so all planners and all local plan strategies should bear that in mind as a prior consideration. The noble Lord has our complete support.

We must say two things to the Government that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said several times today. We need the content of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the national development management plan before we get to Report, otherwise we will have to include in the Bill content that may later appear in either of those two important plans. We cannot operate in this vacuum of lack of knowledge and information about the content of two absolutely fundamental building blocks of strategic planning. We need to keep raising that—I think it was also raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—and I hope the Minister has heard the pleas from across the Committee.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, not just for his amendment but for his continued work to ensure that we keep issues of inclusivity at the forefront when considering all aspects of the Bill, particularly planning. Levelling up must relate not just to tackling inequalities between the regions and places in the UK but to ensuring that no group is excluded from opportunities that are open to the rest of us. That is why the amendments in this group are so important.

We absolutely support the principle behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 217 and will definitely support the consideration of observations and advice relating to inclusive design as local authorities go through their plan-making process. But for the sake of practicality, if this amendment is accepted, there may be a need for further guidance about whether local authorities could be exempted on individual developments if they are able to demonstrate adequate reasons for that. I certainly do not suggest that they should be able to do so on many grounds—they would have to be very exceptional circumstances—but if that was not included, there may be examples, such as where heritage assets are involved in the development or something like that, where there would need to be some consideration of other factors. But it is a very good amendment, as is Amendment 302, which is an unequivocal statement, which we absolutely support, to ensure that inclusive design is enshrined in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

If Ministers are so impressed with that that they now insist that all those voluntary decisions have to be compulsory, they are putting another inhibition on the required expansion of neighbourhood plans, and they will rapidly push communities back on the defensive. We shall get back to where we were, where the developer proposes and the community opposes, and the whole process will get logjammed again. I believe Ministers should look again at both these provisions, or they may find that the neighbourhood plan goose stops laying the golden eggs of increased housing provision.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell is the expert on neighbourhood planning, and there is nothing I can add to what he has just expounded. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said. In particular, my noble friend raised important questions about the statement by the Secretary of State last week about future planning proposals that will affect this Bill.

Finally, my Amendment 227 is just an extension of Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about development plans within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment in my name would enable neighbourhood development plans to limit housing development in those vital areas of the country entirely to affordable housing—and affordable housing in perpetuity—so that there is a stream and supply of new housing in those areas that is appropriate, relevant and affordable, if “affordable” is the right definition. In this case, it means affordable for local people who live and work in those areas; evidence of that has already been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, neighbourhood planning has been a great success story. I went into it with my council, probably at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and it was difficult to begin with, because it was very new and communities did not understand it. What I think is good about neighbourhood planning now is that all that groundwork has been done by many councils across the country, working with many communities. Therefore, for new councils and new communities coming on, I think it is going to be a lot easier as we move forward.

I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who is obviously a guru on neighbourhood planning, for their support. As I say, I am also fully in favour of it, as can be seen by what has happened in Wiltshire. It has been a great success story; it has given many communities a much greater role in shaping development in their local areas and ensuring they meet their needs.

The Bill retains the existing framework of powers for neighbourhood planning while at the same time providing more clarity on the scope of neighbourhood plans alongside other types of development plan. However, we recognise that the take-up of neighbourhood planning is low in some parts of the country, and we would like to see more communities getting involved. This is why the Bill introduces neighbourhood priorities statements. These are a new tool, and they will provide a simpler and more accessible way for communities to participate in neighbourhood planning.

On Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, perhaps it would be helpful if I set out some detail about the intended role of neighbourhood priorities statements in the wider system. A neighbourhood priorities statement can be prepared by neighbourhood planning groups and can be used to set out the community’s priorities and preferences for its local area. The provisions in the Bill allow communities to cover a range of issues in their statements, including in relation to the use and development of land, housing, the environment, public spaces and local facilities.

Neighbourhood priorities statements will provide a formal input into the local plan. Under new Section 15CA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill, local planning authorities will be required to “have regard” to them when they are preparing their local plans. This will be tested at examination. While some communities will use them solely to feed into the local plan process, we also expect that they will operate as a preliminary stage to preparing a full neighbourhood plan or a neighbourhood design code. In these ways, neighbourhood priorities statements will feed into the planning process. Furthermore, they may also act as a springboard for other community initiatives outside the remit of the planning system.

Amendments 227, 229 to 232 and 234 deal in different ways with the scope of neighbourhood plans. On Amendments 227 and 231 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, we acknowledge that delivery of affordable housing within national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty can be a challenge and that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in supporting provision. However, I do not agree that these amendments are necessary. Clause 91 specifies what matters communities can choose to address within their neighbourhood development plans. It does not prevent communities including policies relating to the provision of affordable housing in the plan area. All policies in neighbourhood plans, however, must meet the statutory tests, known as the basic conditions, before they can be adopted, including that they must have regard to national policy.

I draw the Committee’s attention to specific measures we have taken to address this issue. Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a rural exception sites policy. This allows for affordable housing to be delivered on sites that would not otherwise be developed in order to meet specific local need for affordable housing, the majority of which will be required to remain permanently available to those with a local connection. In 2021 the Government published planning practice guidance to further help bring forward more of these sites in future.

Furthermore, I point to our decision to allow local authorities and neighbourhood planning groups in designated rural areas to set and support policies to require affordable housing from a lower development threshold. The threshold can be five units or fewer, compared with the threshold of 10 units in other areas. We will consult on how the small sites threshold should work in rural areas under the infrastructure levy.

I turn to Amendment 229 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. Under the reformed planning system, it will continue to be the role of the local planning authority to set a housing requirement number for neighbourhood plan areas as part of its overall development strategy. As under the current system, where neighbourhood planning groups have decided to make provision for housing in their plan, the housing requirement figure and its origin would be expected to be set out in the neighbourhood plan as a basis for their housing policies and any allocations that they wish to make. The allocation of housing has not changed; the neighbourhood takes the planning housing requirement from the local plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has said, across the country we have seen neighbourhoods adding to that number rather than taking away from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

The only amendment I have not spoken to is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is right: where there are 20 mph limits, the traffic often does flow more quickly. On the other hand, there are areas with 30 mph limits that should probably be retained, unless you get complete gridlock; one thinks of arterial routes into towns. But that is possibly a debate for another day, and I doubt that the noble Baroness would necessarily agree with my analysis.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I was reflecting that we have barely mentioned levelling up in the last two Committee days. Yet my noble friend has helpfully raised the importance of relating everything we do to the levelling-up missions, which include references to accessible public transport in order to enable accessibility to employment. That was timely.

My name is on Amendment 468, which is about accessible railway stations. I will not repeat what my noble friend said because I cannot add anything, except that I endorse her praise of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and their consistent determination to keep accessible public transport at the forefront of our thinking. If public transport is accessible to the least mobile, it is much better for everyone else, those who are mobile; it makes it better for everyone.

I will briefly speak to Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because some planning issues are related to it. Everything he said is quite right. The NPPF, which we have mentioned several times, already has a policy on retaining public rights of way, cycle networks, bridleways and so on. Therefore, many local plans will incorporate them, including that of my own council, which

“will support development proposals that can be served by alternative modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking”.

The council says:

“The core walking and cycling network as shown on the Policies Map will provide an integrated system of cycle routes, public footpaths and bridleways that provide opportunity for alternative sustainable means of travel throughout the district and provide efficient links to urban centres and sites allocated for development in the Local Plan”.


I thought that all local plans would incorporate such policies, although, from what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, this is clearly not the case. He pointed to the division of responsibilities for highways between the counties and districts, for planning purposes. Therefore, when plan-making, I hope the Government will have a requirement—they may already have one, but if so, it needs to be underlined—to incorporate the highways policies of the responsible council concerned. That would solve at least one of the problems raised.

The fundamental problem with a lot of our planning development policies—I raised this in a different context on the last Committee day—is implementing them. As with my council, we can have grand and worthy policies on retaining the public rights of way network, cycleways, bridleways and all the rest of it, but when that comes up against commercial development interests, I can tell noble Lords now that those interests always win. We have to find a way of balancing that better.

Of course, if a public right of way goes through a commercial developer’s site, it will want to adjust it, but this always has to be in the best interest of the public right of way as well; however, that often does not happen. For example, a development site in my locality abuts the M62, and a historic public right of way went through the middle of it. Of course, the developer did not want to retain it, and the proposal was to divert it so that it ran along the M62. Who would use that? Some of us managed to get it put elsewhere on the site—but that is what we are up against. This is my plea to the Minister, and it is a big challenge for all the wonderful policies we have discussed: how can we ensure that they can be implemented when they are up against commercial interests? That is the key because currently, commercial interests have the upper hand in the end, and in my experience they always win.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me that all new planning applications are required to have an electric vehicle charging point, because that would make sense. My council requires this. This could go into the NPPF, and, if it is not possible—because flats are being considered—there could be a requirement for public provision in the locality of the development.

My noble friend Lady Randerson raised a big challenge about the differential VAT charges. This is outrageous: I had not realised that public charging points have higher VAT attached to them than domestic ones. If we are really going to encourage electric vehicle use, which we must, surely a tax incentive is one of the ways to do so. With those words I look forward to what the Minister says.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to make my debut on the LURB. I am sorry that it has taken so long, but I may be back again in due course, should there be more transport amendments. Today, it is my job to address this group of amendments, which relate to transport; there are four, and I shall address each in turn.

I start with Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which relates to cycling and walking and to the role of active travel in local development. I think that all noble Lords agree that the Government recognise the importance of walking and cycling and the role that the planning system plays in enabling development in sustainable locations, supported by active travel infrastructure. It is already the case that national planning policies must be considered by local authorities when preparing a local plan and are a material consideration in all planning decisions. The Bill does not alter this principle and will strengthen the importance of those national policies which relate to decision-making.

The existing National Planning Policy Framework is clear that transport issues, including opportunities to promote walking and cycling, should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and when considering development proposals. The NPPF also states that policies in local plans should provide for attractive and well-designed walking and cycling networks with supporting facilities, such as secure cycle parking, drawing on local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. The NPPF also places environmental objectives at the heart of the planning system, making it clear that planning should protect and enhance our natural environment, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and support the transition to a low-carbon future. The Government have recently concluded a consultation on changes to the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible.

I always react with some trepidation when my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham shares his thoughts with your Lordships’ House. He has an enormous amount of experience in this area—and, it would seem, in most areas of government. He challenged me to explain why we think the guidance will achieve our aims. I believe that it is more than just guidance; the NPPF and the new national development management policy set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. These are material considerations in planning decisions. The power in securing positive change for communities is substantial and should not be referred to as just “guidance”.

There is another step forward—perhaps slightly towards where my noble friend would like us to be—with Active Travel England. Many noble Lords will know that Active Travel England was set up relatively recently, and its role will expand over time. It will become a statutory consultee on certain major planning applications from June this year. That means that local planning authorities will be required to consult ATE on planning applications, where developments meet one of the following minimum thresholds: where it has 150 residential units; where it is 7,500 square metres of commercial area; or where it is a site with an area of 5 hectares or more. Furthermore, ATE will also take an active role in supporting the preparation of local plans and design codes.

It is also worth reflecting that local plans must be put in place quickly, and so we must avoid imposing a plethora of additional statutory requirements which local authorities must have regard to, especially when clear expectations are already set through national policy. There is one other—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister, but could she explain to the House where the balance lies between commercial interests and their development, and the policies that she has rightly described as very positive and as needing to be put into place? In my experience, the balance is currently in the hands of the commercial interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly to put this debate in an important context. Before I do so, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Best, on eventually achieving the victory which he sought when the 2016 Act was going through; it was not the best piece of legislation on housing that Parliament has seen. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said—that we should unfreeze the local housing allowance or, if we cannot, increase the discretionary housing grant, to enable those who find that they cannot meet the rent to have more support.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that “affordable” is a misnomer, but there is a fundamental choice that we have to make, which is: the higher the rents, the more social houses you can build; and the lower the rents, the fewer social houses you can build. That is simply because of the way that social landlords are funded. A Government decide to have a capital fund available for new builds. A Government of a different persuasion may have a higher figure than the current one but, whatever that figure, the number of houses that can be built is dependent on the rent levels which the social landlords can charge.

A Housing Minister has a choice: you can have lower rents, social rents or genuinely affordable rents, but you will get less output. When I had responsibility and was faced with this spectrum, I went for slightly more output but slightly higher rents, to meet the demand for new houses and to build more houses that would last 60 years. I recognise that others may choose to go the other way on the spectrum, but you cannot get away from the fact that this is the choice. If you want to have affordable rents reduced to social rents, the consequence is that you will have fewer houses. I make this intervention at the end of this debate just to put it in a slightly broader context.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in my name that I wish to speak to briefly. However, prior to that, I say that my noble friend Lord Stunell made an important point about how all the amendments here are trying to resolve the issue of what is affordable. So-called affordable homes are those built by the commercial sector as part of a development—a planning obligation—yet the challenge for us all is to provide homes at a social rent, which is roughly estimated as 50% of the market rent.

It is a tragedy for this country that successive Governments seem to have abandoned provision of homes for social rent in any large numbers. Local authorities have been severely constrained in building their own social housing, and the provision of homes for social rent has largely been left to housing associations. We then come to the conundrum which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just rightly pointed to—that the capital that housing associations receive from government depends on their flow of rental income. Therefore, do you have more or less? Either way, everybody agrees that there are insufficient homes for social rent.

About 30 years ago, my authority had 42,000 council houses at social rent—it now has 21,000. That is the scale of what has happened. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stunell is absolutely right that about half of them are now back in the market as private rented properties at a higher rent for folk but without any of the support packages provided for homes for social housing rent within either a local authority or a housing association. That is a huge challenge that this country needs to tackle. One of the key factors in levelling up is a decent home—it is in the levelling-up missions. Millions of people in our country do not live in an adequate, safe home appropriate for their family, and we need to address that scandal.

On affordability, my noble friend Lord Stunell expertly laid out the issues, and I do not wish to say anything, except that obviously I totally support him. I wish to raise one issue about affordability that is a bit of a side issue. It seems that any property built as part of a commercial development which is deemed affordable should be affordable in perpetuity. My own council adopted that policy—I have to say as a result of pressure from my own party there—so that, when the house is bought, the 80% factor remains. The least the Government could do is to include that as part of a definition of affordability.

--- Later in debate ---

All citizens surely have a right to see legislation clearly in its current state. This amendment would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that an up-to-date consolidated text is made available on the official website at all times. Would that not be appropriate and right? I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, in this debate. My contribution is quite modest compared to their overarching and sweeping criticism of Clause 99 but, just by way of flanking fire, perhaps I can say that it covers eight pages of the Bill, which is more than the whole of Part 1, which sets up the mission statements. That seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate application of drafting time, when we consider the level of detail not present in Part 1 and the level of detail here. That is perhaps the only point at which I would wish to challenge the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, in her request for yet more detail. I honestly do not think this Bill needs any more detail on street votes.

Nevertheless, I have tabled Amendment 253A, which aims to ensure that where approved neighbourhood plans are in place, they cannot be overturned by a street vote. It is, to that extent, rather in the same vein as Amendment 248, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He set out that there should be a clear hierarchy between street votes and development plans so that local development plans trump street votes. My amendment takes a different approach to neighbourhood plans. It simply adds to the list of places where street votes cannot be held—which exists in the Bill—those areas that have valid neighbourhood plans in force. In other words, within areas where there is an approved neighbourhood plan, street votes are not to be an available mechanism.

Like the two previous speakers, I do not really get what value there might be in street votes as a concept. I see some places where they may create or might enable some worthwhile flexibility at a micro level below the reach of borough-wide development plans. However, I admit that I am struggling to imagine what a good example of that might exactly be. It has been suggested, by the Minister, apart from anybody else, that it provides the opportunity for low-level densification of homes in a street. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, commented to some extent on that, but I will just pick up a point made by the noble Baroness about biodiversity.

One of the things that recent planning changes have brought into view is that gardens should not be paved because of the need to maintain natural drainage. The more the footprint of buildings is increased, the bigger the run-off and the bigger the risk of local flooding at the least. Therefore, that connection will sometimes be a consideration which needs to be taken into account.

It is easy to imagine some less benign examples of street votes, such as perhaps a west London street agreeing that sub-basements with cinemas and car parks would be perfectly fine there. If that was done on the basis of a referendum, the result of which—just to pick two figures out of the air—was 52% to 48%, there would not just be some discontented people living in neighbouring streets but perhaps substantial levels of discontentment in that street.

That brings me to ask a question about who gets to vote. Presumably they are people registered on the electoral roll. That is just as well, because in that west London street the big houses probably also have five or six servants—chauffeurs, cooks and chefs—and, of course, the let-out as far as the voting goes is that they are probably not UK subjects. The noble Baroness made a good point on behalf of renters: in a community, particularly an inner urban area where a transient population is normal, who votes, when they vote and what the qualification is to vote is important.

One of the many pluses of a neighbourhood plan, particularly the process leading up to its adoption, is that all those nook-and-cranny micro details can be considered and a consensus built as part of that plan. That is itself subject to a public endorsement and a referendum. It seems to me fundamentally wrong to have a situation in which such an endorsed, publicly recognised and approved plan, with a level of local public participation that far exceeds the adoption of a local development plan by a planning authority, could be overruled or subverted by random revocation of bits of it in the street votes.

My argument is straightforward. Essentially, where a valid neighbourhood plan is in force, all the work on microsites and flexibilities will have taken place already in drawing up that plan. Whatever the merits of the principle of street votes, they would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and expense within a neighbourhood plan area. My amendment avoids that overlap and the inevitable confusion it would cause in the local community if its democratically prepared neighbourhood plan was set aside, even if only in one part. I hope to hear that the Minister agrees with that and will accept my amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I think we can say that there has been a less than enthusiastic response to the proposals in Clause 99, and I endorse everything said by the three previous speakers. Rather than laying out any other reasons in great detail, which other noble Lords have done, my questions for the Minister are these. First, what is the problem to which this is the solution? Secondly, what is a street? I know there is a clause defining a street, but I should really like to know whether Manchester Road in Huddersfield, which stretches for seven miles, counts as a street, or Halifax Road, which goes from Halifax to Dewsbury. Is 10 miles a street? I need to understand what a street is.

That leads to my third question. We have discussed at length in the past few days the purpose of planning and what is required of our planning system to enable development, but also to enable communities that work and to protect our environment. Currently, any planning application for more than one house needs a construction management plan but there is no reference to that in Clause 99. In any development of the sort that I think is being considered—back gardens or whatever—there is also the question of linking to the existing utilities, particularly water and wastewater removal in some areas. We need to know how sustainable that will be or whether there will have to be sustainable urban drainage to achieve it. Where I am now, nearly all the developments must have attenuation tanks built into them to do what they say: hold back the water to reduce the risk of flooding. All that would need to be thought about, as well as the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised about biodiversity.

The Government, in their wisdom, changed permitted development rights of change of use from offices to residential areas. Because that could be done without proper process, one of the big issues that ensued concerned parking—or the lack of it—because there was no provision and no consideration had to be given to it, so none was applied for and there was a big problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a helpful suggestion, which I am happy to feed in.

On Amendments 252 and 253, in the name of the noble Baroness, the Government recognise that leaseholders will often have an interest in proposals for street vote development. Leaseholders will be able to be part of a group that can bring forward a proposal for a street vote development order if they are registered to vote in a local council election at an address in the street area on a prescribed date. If a proposal passes examination, a referendum will be held on it. Subject to the outcome of consultation, the Government envisage making a provision so that individuals, including leaseholders, who are registered to vote in the local council election at an address in the street area, as well as commercial rate payers there, will be eligible to vote. Again, we intend to consult on this proposal and on our proposals for referendum approval thresholds as part of a wider consultation on the detail of the measure.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise. The noble Earl said that commercial developments in an area would have a vote, but how would they be on the electoral roll? Clause 99 says they would be.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It is not that businesses would be on the electoral roll. If I misspoke, what I meant to say was that residents who are registered to vote in a local council election at an address in the street area on a prescribed date will be eligible to vote as part of this arrangement, as well as commercial rate payers in the area.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

So could Tesco, for instance, have a vote, if there was a little Tesco Express on the street?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The intention is that, if there is a commercial business paying commercial business rates, it should be allowed a voice in this process.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

This gets more interesting by the day.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

No doubt this will be the subject of further debate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s question and his interest in that amendment; I understand why he felt he should have asked the question. My advice is that, despite its size, this additional schedule represents a minor and technical change, which is necessary to ensure the effective operation of the street votes process and to ensure that it is integrated into the wider planning system. However, I am happy to write to him with further and better particulars.

I hope that the Committee will feel more comfortable with the provisions as I have explained them, and that the government amendments will be accepted when they are reached.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Near the beginning of my speech, I asked the Minister if he would be able to define a street. Could he do so now?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I am so sorry I omitted to reply to the noble Baroness; I will write to her. It is a question I ask officials myself. It is an issue which will be decided in the consultation because, as she rightly said, there will be instances where a street, as such, does not exist. For example, you might have a small community of houses where the owners or residents may wish to apply under this procedure. In short, this is an issue to be determined under the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

257B: Clause 101, page 124, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) residents of the local area who may be affected by the application, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local residents before determining an application under this section.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 257B is to Clause 101, by which the Government will centralise to the Secretary of State some of the most important planning decisions that will be taken in any locality. The example that I will use is that of the proposed use of former airfield accommodation for housing asylum seekers. I do not want to debate the principle of that today—it is a proposal by the Government. What I am interested in, and concerned about, is the proposal from the Government as to how such a decision will be made. This relates to some of the most important planning applications that will ever occur in a locality. As we have heard over the last few meetings of this Committee, there is a well-thought-through, well-laid-out and well-understood—on the whole—planning process to determine applications either for a new development or a change-of-use development. The proposal here is to try to bypass that, because it would be difficult.

We live in a democracy, and the whole purpose of a democracy is for the voice of the people to be heard and for decisions to be made, having heard the voice of the people—of residents. I feel really strongly about this. In my experience, the worst thing that happens in a locality is when somebody in authority tries to impose a solution. It never works—and the experience of the Government so far shows that this will not work. The proposal for Linton-on-Ouse airfield in North Yorkshire to be used for accommodation for asylum seekers had to be fairly rapidly rescinded because of local objections. There is a way of doing things—and, yes, it takes time, but time is a healer. It gives a way of hearing voices that are, at first, perhaps angry, but can then be made less angry, or perhaps even ameliorated, through discussion and hearing both sides of a proposal.

Currently what happens with any planning application, but particularly big planning applications is that, first, it is notified in a formal way and word gets round in informal ways. A timetable is laid out for how the planning application will be considered, including a period in which objections can be made by local people. Then there is an opportunity at a meeting of the planning committee to hear the proposal and any objections. I think that most planning committees now allow, and encourage, members of the public to speak to the committee so that their voices and concerns can be heard. If planning officers are involved, one of their skills is to try to find a way through a difficult proposal by hearing the voices of those who live in the locality and of the planning proposal applicant. They try to find a way through so that, while nobody will be totally satisfied, there is less dissatisfaction. The decision is made in an open way—it is webcast, these days, well reported and understood—and a list of planning conditions are laid out so that all the issues that local people are concerned about can be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

However, regretfully, as has been shown by the current process for nationally important and urgent development, we must have a system in place which enables any Government to react quickly in circumstances where a development which by its nature must be delivered urgently and is in the national interest can be delivered. Creating a system which mirrors what we have already will not benefit our communities when we need to make planning decisions urgently. With these reasons, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness of why I cannot accept this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his careful response to the concerns that have been raised. I said at the outset that I understand that some planning decisions must be made rapidly in the national interest.

However, unrestrained power for an undefined purpose of national importance, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, is at the heart of this. The Executive are taking too much power without being clear on why an urgent decision is needed. If the Government had come forward with a speeded-up process for urgent decisions, shortening the planning process because something is urgent but still enabling people to have their voices heard, I would be more inclined to support that, but not them just saying that, basically, the Secretary of State can make the decision.

I end with this because it is near—well, nearish—me. Linton-on-Ouse was an abject failure of this process. A decision was made to use that accommodation. Nobody was asked, nobody was told. Lots of people said, “Oh, right, we’re not having this then”, as they do in Yorkshire and no doubt do elsewhere. They decided to have a public meeting and put an end to it, and that is exactly what happened, whereas with thoughtful, informed decision-making, the Government may have been able to get to a solution. The Minister’s proposal that this is the only way to get a timely, proportionate, faster and more effective route has not been borne out in practice.

I get upset when the phrase “illegal migrants” is used. The people coming across the channel are asylum seekers. If some of them have their asylum applications refused, they will at that point be illegal migrants, but otherwise they are asylum seekers.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 257B withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for raising these important points about buildout.

I will address the noble Baroness’s amendment first. Too many developers choose to land bank having achieved planning permission on a particular site. We know from Local Government Association data that there are more than 1 million housing units with existing planning consent that have not been built. The question we need to ask is: why, when as a country we are desperate for new houses, are we failing to take action to ensure that sites are developed promptly? Is the Minister able to provide any explanation for the long delays in developing sites? Will the Government provide proposals to prevent such delays?

I think we are all keen to have more housing units built, so we should focus on any delays in the system and try to improve buildout. From local experience I am aware of some of the reasons for delay. Where there are several sites with planning consent in the same locality, developers choose to delay construction in order not to have too many units on the market at the same time. That is an understandable commercial decision, but it delays the building of units of housing, which we desperately need. Developers also, understandably, want to create a steady flow of sites to develop as part of their business plans. These extend into several years, so it is not surprising that there is a slow output of new homes. What actions do the Government intend to take to address this issue?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 261 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, proposes two fundamental changes to Clause 104, which modernises the procedure for serving completion notices in England. While I appreciate the intention, I remind your Lordships that completion notices—when served by a local authority or the Secretary of State—must provide the recipient with an opportunity to complete development. It is a “use it or lose it” power. Removing this opportunity for the developer to use the permission, as this amendment does, raises the prospect that compensation from the loss of the permission will be necessary as it is a revocation of a planning permission. I believe this would make completion notices less appealing to local planning authorities.

The second proposed effect of the amendment relates to the removal of finished parts of a development where a site could not be completed in full. Local planning authorities already have the power to require the removal of unfinished developments by order under Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up one or two important issues. In the clauses already in the LURB, we have introduced two further provisions to ensure a better buildout rate of planning permissions in this country. First, the Government will require housing developers to report annually to local authorities on their actual delivery of housing. This will enable them to identify where sites in their area are coming forward too slowly. It will also help to inform whether to sanction a developer for failure to build out their schemes promptly. Secondly, the Government have introduced a new power that will allow local planning authorities to decline to determine planning applications made by developers that failed to build out at a reasonable rate earlier permissions on any land in the authority’s area.

To strengthen the package further, we will publish data on developers of sites over a certain size in cases where they fail to build out according to their commitments. Developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise development schemes’ absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. The NPPF will highlight that delivery can be a material consideration in planning applications. This could mean that applications with trajectories that propose a slow delivery rate may be refused in certain circumstances. We will also consult on proposals to introduce a financial penalty against developers that are developing out too slowly.

I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on houses that are not what a particular local authority wants. I believe that is up to the local authority. If the local authority has a local plan saying that it needs specific types of housing in the area, it needs to make sure that the planning applications that go through will have that in them. Local authorities know their area best, so it is up to them to make sure that their local plan is up to date and reflects what is required.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the information she has provided about sanctions and so on. I wait to see how firm those sanctions are. On the issue of local planning authorities having the power, basically, to dictate to a commercial enterprise what is developed on a site that the commercial enterprise owns, I would love to hear what powers the LPA will have in that regard.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The whole system is designed, after the LUR Bill, to be plan led. Therefore, planning applications should be in accordance with, first, national policies and, as importantly, local policies. If local policies say that you need, for example, houses for older people or disabled people, one should be agreeing only those planning applications that have those types of tenure within the developments that are coming forward through planning. If the system is plan led, I would have thought that the inspector should stick to the locally produced plan. On that basis, I hope this reassures the noble Baroness opposite that Amendment 261 is not necessary.

Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ensure that the development of large housing sites—defined as sites of 500 or more dwellings or more than five hectares in size where the predominant use will be housing, or designated as a large housing site within a development plan—is diversified in such a way that it provides a mix of new housing that reflects local needs, including social housing, in line with a local authority’s local plan requirements and national development management policies. While we agree with the sentiment of this amendment, we believe that there are better ways of achieving its objectives. The Government are of the view that diversification is best achieved by making this a stronger material planning consideration in the assessment of any housing application, and by requiring a buildout and diversification statement in all prescribed applications. We believe that this is best achieved via a new national development management policy, as that can be applied more flexibly compared to legislation and therefore address the different planning circumstances and housing needs that occur across the country, and that such a measure should not necessarily be limited to larger housing sites.

That is why the Government announced in December 2022—as part of the consultation Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy—that developers will be required to explain how they propose to increase the diversity of housing tenures to maximise a development scheme’s absorption rate, which is the rate at which homes are sold or occupied. We invited views on the design of this policy, which will help to inform our thinking as part of our fuller review of national planning policy later this year. In these circumstances, while I very much agree with the objective of this amendment, there is a better way to achieve it via national planning policy, and I believe that it should be applied to a greater range of housing sites. This will ensure faster buildout rates and the diversification of those housing sites.

Government Amendment 261A will amend Clause 105 to strengthen the existing powers and hold developers more to account for unreasonably slow delivery or non-implementation of planning permissions. Currently, Clause 105 gives local planning authorities the power to decline to determine planning applications made by a person connected to an earlier planning permission on that same land which was not begun or has been carried out at an unreasonably slow rate. This amendment will enable authorities to exercise the power where an applicant is connected to an earlier permission on any land in their area which has not begun or has been built out unreasonably slowly. This change will send the message to developers that local planning authorities, as well as the communities they serve, expect new residential developments to come forward at a reasonable rate before new planning permissions are considered. This amendment will give greater powers to local areas to tackle cases of slow buildout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who cannot be here this week, I will introduce her Amendment 283, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have added our names. As it is her amendment, I will not do what I normally do and speak off the cuff. I have some notes from her, and I will, unusually, read from them.

A number of statutory consultees receive requests to provide expert information and opinion on planning applications and other planning cases. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned some of them. The main statutory consultees include Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Historic England and Highways England.

The volume of planning application requests has increased by 38% over the six years up to the financial year 2021-22. It is estimated that this trend will continue. Natural England alone received almost 18,000 requests in the last financial year. In 2019 the main statutory consultees estimated the total cost of providing this advice at approximately £50 million. Obviously, costs will rise with volume.

Amendment 283 inserts a provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow statutory consultees to charge developers and others for the provision of such advice and information about planning applications and other planning cases put forward by developers and others to local planning authorities. This provision would bring the cost-recovery arrangements for the majority of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act, in line with the proposals in Clause 118, which will allow cost recovery in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Amendment 283 lays out what particular provisions the regulations may make, including who should pay, how much and when. It also defines an “excluded person” who cannot be charged, unless that person is the applicant for the planning permission. Broadly speaking, in at least the first instance, it seems that the charges would be for the planning applicant or developer to pay, and charges would not be levied on the planning authority. It is all very straightforward and essential if our hard-pressed statutory consultees are to provide a prompt and efficient service to both planning authorities and applicants in the face of the growing case load.

The Minister has ostensibly agreed, as the Government have laid what seems like a similar amendment, Amendment 285C. However, proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment could be interpreted as prohibiting a statutory consultee charging fees to a planning applicant in respect of the provision of advice to a local planning authority by any route. It could even prohibit current scenarios where a developer is willing to meet those costs under a voluntary agreement, for example under a planning performance agreement or a service level agreement. If that is not the intention in proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment, the ambiguity needs to be removed.

It would be good to have confirmation today from the Minister that the Government intend to ensure that the statutory consultees can recover their costs. I ask the Minister whether she might be prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other interested Peers between now and Report to identify a mutually satisfactory and unambiguous version of these two amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 287, which would achieve a planning fee system that would cover costs for local planning authorities. It largely mirrors Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lady Thornhill. I concur entirely with his arguments, but have some additional points to make in support of the plea to enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.

Too often planning applications, especially those that are complex, such as a major commercial development, have a set fee that nowhere near covers the costs, simply because there is so much more to planning applications than simply considering the plan details submitted at the first stage. I give an example of a recent application near me for a very large commercial development of 1 million square feet—probably a bit more than that—with a fee of £300,000. That is, and sounds, a considerable sum. However, in the end there were more than 200 different elements of the planning application to consider, 96 of which were amendments to the original plan. One of those, which I endeavoured to read, was of itself more than 100 pages long.

Understandably, these applications are hugely complex and require considerable expertise within the local planning authority to understand and respond to them. They are not just about the design and features of the building itself—there is also highway access, road safety, landscaping, biodiversity, trees, noise and light pollution, and the impact on the landscape. In my local authority, they have to consider drainage and, in this instance, 14 attenuation tanks had to be built in the end to deal with run-off from the development. Hugely complex issues are being considered, and it all has to be done within that set fee, regardless. It took nigh on two years for that application to be fully considered and ready for a planning committee. Clearly, the fee failed to cover the costs of the details of the application.

There are implications to all this. The Royal Town Planning Institute reckons that there were 42% cuts in planning budgets over the 10-year period from 2008. There have been increases since, not all of which have been directed towards day-to-day planning officers. Digitisation was one of the issues rightly being considered by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, the information is that local council tax payers are subsidising planning applications. If I told local people where I am that that was the case, they would rightly be very concerned, when other vital services have insufficient funding.

The RTPI research showed that one in 10 planning officer roles was unfilled. The reason for that is that so many expert planning officers find life much better rewarded—in many ways, not just financially—in private practice. The draining of local planning officers from the system is putting immense pressure on dealing with planning applications, and the timeliness of those, which again is hindering the Government’s aim to build more housing. None of this is helpful to achieving that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Grenfell fire tragedy of June 2017 has rightly ensured that many of us in this Chamber have put our minds to the outrageous way in which the construction industry failed to meet existing building safety regulations and how material manufacturers knowingly sold flammable cladding materials to be put on high-rise blocks of flats. That is not me saying that; the inquiry into the Grenfell fire said that.

We have over the past six years in this House tried two ways, so far, to address those issues, first through the Fire Safety Act and then through the longer, more detailed Building Safety Act. Right from the outset, I and others have said quite clearly that, whatever happens in putting right the wrongs of 20 years or more, the leaseholders are the innocent victims in this situation. They have done everything right in their lives and nothing wrong, and they should not be asked to pay a penny piece towards putting right the wrongs that have been done to them, which were concealed from them when they entered into a contract for their property.

We have, with the Government, tried hard to put this right. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who have been on this route march, as it seems, from the beginning, trying to find the answer to the question, “As the leaseholder must not pay, who must?” The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, asked the right question—of course, he always does—which is, “Has the Government done enough?” Some of us, including him at the time, said we did not think so, and so it is proving.

Not only we in this Chamber but thousands of leaseholders are saying that the Government have not done enough. Not only is the construct in the Building Safety Act of the waterfall of responsibilities failing to ensure that remediation takes place promptly or at all, but, meanwhile, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, many leaseholders have awful tales to tell about anxiety caused, mental health that has broken down, financial burdens that cannot be met, ensuing bankruptcy and life chances blunted—and no responsibility of theirs.

Why would any of us involved in legislation allow thousands of our fellow country men and women to be put in this position, where they are being seriously adversely affected, in emotional, financial and social ways, and not do anything—or enough—about it? The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly said again that the Building Safety Act, despite our best efforts, excluded certain groups of leaseholders: those living in blocks under 11 metres, enfranchised leaseholders and, indeed, some buy-to-let leaseholders. That is clearly not acceptable, because those leaseholders are suffering immensely; the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, gave a vivid example of that.

So the challenge to the Government and to the Minister, which I hope she will take up and respond to, is: what, then, can be done? The Government have tried to put in place a series of funding mechanisms and responsibilities, but that is clearly failing to help thousands upon thousands of leaseholders.

The Minister was unfortunately—or fortunately, for her—was not part of the long discussions on what became the Building Safety Act. We were promised at the time that leaseholders would not be expected to pay, but that is clearly not bearing out in practice. Therefore, I hope the Minister will go back to her department and ask those fundamental questions. The Government’s purpose, as expressed by the Secretary of State Michael Gove, was that it was morally reprehensible for leaseholders to pay. If that is the case, let us put that into practice and find a route through, so that no leaseholder pays anything. They have done nothing wrong and they should not be expected to pay.

In his proposed new schedule to the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has made a very detailed proposal about the polluter pays principle. I concur with the principle that those who cause the damage—the construction companies and the materials manufacturers—must pay. We have to find to find a way for that to work in practice. I am hoping that the Minister will come up with some answers.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has once again raised the issue of second staircases in high-rise buildings and houses in multiple occupation, which we debated during the progress of what became the Fire Safety Act and also the Building Safety Act. Most of us said that, yes, that was the expert advice from the fire service chiefs and that is what we should do; but, unfortunately, that was not accepted by the Government.

I agree with the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I go back to the key to all this. My view—and that of all who have spoken, through all the outcomes that followed the Grenfell fire tragedy—is that, however the remediation of these buildings, of all heights, is resolved, when it comes to the leaseholders, whether enfranchised or unenfranchised, whatever happens, they must not pay. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in his Amendments 274, 318, 320 and 325, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, returns us to subjects that we debated extensively this time last year in what was then the Building Safety Bill. I say to the noble Earl, with the greatest of respect, that this House and the other place considered his arguments carefully last year and rejected them. I really do not think that this Bill is an appropriate place to try to reopen these issues.

Last year, the Government opposed the noble Earl’s scheme and proposed an alternative, the leaseholder protection package, which was agreed by your Lordships and the other place. As your Lordships will be aware, the leaseholder protections in what is now the Building Safety Act 2022 have been in force since June 2022 and form part of the Government’s response to the need to fix defective buildings, alongside a number of other measures that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out recently in a Statement in the other place, which was repeated for your Lordships.

Those protections are complex. I would be very happy to have a meeting with interested Peers to discuss the Government’s actions in detail if that would be helpful. If any noble Lord would like to do that, they can get in touch with me or my office and we would be very happy to set that up. But, as I said, the protections are complex and it is true that it has taken time for the various professionals working in this space to get to grips with them. None the less, there is now progress on getting work done, getting mortgages issued on affected flats and moving the conversation forward with the insurance industry to ensure that remediation can be undertaken and that building insurance premiums, which had been excessively high, reflect this reduction in building risk.

I want to be clear with your Lordships: the leaseholder protections are working. The first remediation contribution order to get money back for leaseholders has been made by the tribunal and is being enforced now. In response to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I can say that there have been a further 12 applications for remediation orders to the First-tier Tribunal and nine for contribution orders; that is up to the end of December—we do not have any further updated figures.

The Government’s recovery strategy unit is litigating against large freeholders, and leaseholders have the peace of mind that the remediation bills they were facing—sometimes for more than the value of their home—are no more. I emphasise to your Lordships that changing the basis on which leaseholders are protected would set back by months the progress of remediation work, which is finally happening at pace, and would create further uncertainty in the market.

In addition to the inevitable delay to remediation that would be caused if the noble Earl’s proposals were adopted, I must emphasise that the objections set out by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, when he spoke from this Dispatch Box last year, are still relevant. The building-by-building assessment process that he proposes would be both costly and time-consuming, which would not be in anyone’s interest.

While the noble Earl says that his scheme seeks to avoid litigation, our experience shows that the level of complexity and the sums at stake in this field mean that litigation is inevitable—and will necessarily take place in the High Court, rather than the expert tribunal already dealing with disputes under the leaseholder protections, increasing costs and the time taken to resolve cases. I should also make it clear that the Government’s package of measures in this space goes much further than the leaseholder protections set out in the Building Safety Act.

At this point, I would like to answer a few questions. Both my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the point of “under 11 metres”, which I know has been an issue raised. I think I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that the views of the independent experts are clear: there is no systematic risk in buildings under 11 metres. However, we continue to look at these on a case-by-case basis and provide any help to those leaseholders accordingly. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham would like to let me have the letter that was sent to him, I would be happy for the team to look at it.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, government Amendment 509B provides that these new clauses will come into force two months after Royal Assent. I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that the measures proposed through the three amendments in this group will enable appeals and other Planning Inspectorate procedures to progress more quickly and efficiently. I therefore request that these amendments are accepted. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these three amendments, which enable planning appeals to be heard virtually, where the choice is being made by an appointed inspector. I wholly support the opportunity for virtual hearings. Currently, as the Minister explained, there are two options for appeal hearings: one is by written procedure and the other is by a full public hearing. It is usually the choice of the appellant which procedure they use. So someone appealing against, say, a planning refusal can ask for it to be heard in a public setting. I would like reassurance that that will still be the case.

Some members of the public find it easier to join virtually, and that is a really positive move. I accept the argument the Minister has made that it opens it up for more people to take part. Equally, though, there are always some who find that difficult, especially if they live in more remote areas where access to good-quality broadband is not possible. I am thinking of colleagues I have who live in North Yorkshire; when I have Zoom calls with them, it is hit and miss. I would just like reassurance that those people would be able to engage if they wanted to.

Now I have a question about the future. Some planning appeals are so important that, in my view, they are better heard in a public session. If there is a wide interest in the locality, a public hearing in person gives more reassurance to a local community than one that is held virtually or by the written procedure. The reason I argue this is that if you are in a room full of people, you feel the mood and sense what is going on much better than you do in a similar virtual hearing.

I support what has been said, with those provisos. Lastly, local plans have, obviously, planning inspector involvement. Is it anticipated that these too could be heard virtually, or will that still be largely in person?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I know it is not the practice in your Lordships’ House to have long discussions on government amendments. I do not intend to do that, but I want to make some comments on these amendments, because I think they are interesting.

On Amendment 285A, I make the point that varying proceedings should always be the subject of very effective communication, not only because we have professionals engaged in these processes but because the public are involved and need to understand exactly what is happening. Where there are changes, even more effort should be made to communicate why they have been made. I raise again the issue of resourcing of PINS. A lot of clauses in the Bill are putting another heavy burden on the Planning Inspectorate, and those issues need to be taken into account.

Secondly, as we have heard, Amendment 285B indicates that the Government wish the planning process to allow people to participate remotely in planning proceedings at the grant of the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government can see the value of this—I am very pleased that they can—I ask the Minister why what is good for planning proceedings is so inappropriate for the rest of local government? We have had debates on this previously in the Bill.

The Minister made the point that participating virtually increases diversity of participation, which I completely agree with. It also saves unnecessary travel; we have had those discussions on previous clauses. We are all trying to get down to net zero, and people do not have to travel if they can participate virtually. In addition, it helps those who live in bigger geographical areas. My borough is very small geographically, so it is not really a great hardship for anyone to have to come to the town hall for a discussion on a planning application or anything else. However, if you live in some of the parts of the country where that is not such an easy journey, particularly at certain times of the year, it can be much more difficult. So, I am confused about why we seem to think that this is a really helpful process for one part of local government activity but not for the rest of it. I also probe why the amendment says, “require or permit”. I am concerned about “require” and whether the planning inspector is going to be able to insist that this happens virtually, and how that is going to work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to feeling the mood in planning meetings. That is a variable experience, from my experience in local government. Sometimes it can be useful to do that, and sometimes you would not want to be anywhere near feeling the mood in a planning meeting—but that is another matter. I echo the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether the intention is that this should apply to local planning inquiries. That is a whole other issue that needs further consideration.

By the way, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responded quite extensively on the ability to have local government proceedings virtually, and that is on the record. I would just appreciate a response from the Minister on why this is right for planning but so wrong for everything else in local government.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me respond to a couple of those points. On the difference between a case officer and a planning inspector and how you bring in the appellant, at the moment the case officer handles the administration of a planning appeal case, which includes the appointment of a planning inspector, but they also determine the mode of the procedure after seeking input from the parties and the inspector. Therefore, at the moment it is the case officer who talks to the parties and the inspector, and who then makes a decision taking all of that into account. We are suggesting that the planning inspector, who is the decision-maker or recommendation maker for called-in and recovered cases, will assess the details of the case and representations received from all parties in just the same way, so they would be seeking input from all parties before they made that decision.

On local plans, the major party in that will be the local planning authority or the local authority, and I cannot see those discussions being taken online. I suppose a local authority could ask for that, but those are usually quite long and arduous meetings that sometimes go on for weeks, so I am pretty sure they would be public.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My understanding, then, is that in the instance of a local plan hearing, the local planning authority would decide whether it should—the Minister is shaking her head, so I have misunderstood. Therefore, the appointed planning inspector makes the decision whether it will be in public or online.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I therefore seek assurance that those members of the public—and in some cases members of the council, presumably—would be able to ask for it to be held in person if that was more relevant and appropriate.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is exactly what I was saying. Although the decision would be made by the inspector, it would be taken only after speaking to the person asking for the inspection, which would be the local planning authority. So it is important that it has a large input into that, just as any appellant in a normal planning appeal would have input into the discussion on how it was going to be dealt with. However, I cannot see a local plan inspection being held online. As I said, as with the current procedure, the appellant will be asked and the council will have a chance to comment on the appellant’s choice of procedure. That is because we need to make sure there is fairness to all parties, but the inspector will have the final decision.

On how Planning Inspectorate meetings, hearings or inquiries differ from local authority meetings—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked—the measure clarifies the Planning Inspectorate’s existing practice of operating in-person and virtual proceedings as appropriate. This is necessary just to reduce the risk of challenge. We are not changing anything in the legislation; it can do this anyway without us changing anything. That is unlike some local authority meetings; Planning Inspectorate events through hearings or inquiries do not represent decision-making forums but allow interested parties to make representations. Hearings and inquiries enable planning inspectors to gather evidence, which they use to inform their approach to a case with a view to issuing either a decision or a recommendation to the Secretary of State, whereas planning meetings are decision-making meetings.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

288: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Public consultation on planning and women’s safety(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed, open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety.(2) Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Determination of applications: general considerations) is amended in accordance with subsection (3).(3) After subsection (2A), insert—“(2B) In dealing with an application for planning permission for public development, a local planning authority must establish a review of how the proposed development would impact women’s safety. The review must, in particular, consider the impact of proposed development on—(a) open spaces,(b) layout of buildings,(c) unlit or hidden spaces,(d) visibility of entranceways, and(e) blind spots.(2C) The local planning authority must prepare and publish a report setting out the results of the review.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to open a public consultation to establish the impact of proposed changes to the planning system on women’s safety and would require local planning authorities to review the impact of new developments on women’s safety.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have discussed for many hours now the importance of a plan-led process and the outcomes of planning. Planning has the power to create great, safe, appealing places. Equally, poor planning has the ability to create places that do not feel safe and do not appeal to many of our fellow citizens. Amendment 288 asks the Government to have a consultation once the Bill is enacted in order to consider in the planning process the particular angle of women’s safety. In saying that the focus is on women’s safety, I do so in the knowledge that anyone who is particularly vulnerable, be they old, less able, or children or young people, would benefit from a focused look at safety in public places in the planning process.

I equally acknowledge that, during a planning application, the safety unit of the local police force will often be asked for advice and commentary on what is being proposed. Frequently in my experience, that considers fencing, alleyways and so on, but this amendment is trying to extend that. The consultations that I am seeking would have a broader look at whether the places that we create will be safe for women, particularly on their own, to use. There have been a number of recent tragic examples where clearly walking across a park at night is not safe.

I was particularly alerted to this issue when I read a research report published by Turley, a planning consultancy. Its argument, which I summarise, is that women are disproportionately impacted by poor design in public spaces, which makes women feel more vulnerable. I guess that, if I asked the women in this Chamber whether they cross the road at night when the other side is better lit, the answer would be yes. Do they avoid overgrown hedges where it is particularly dark? Yes. Do they avoid going down the shortcut of the alleyways, or the ginnels, as we call them? Yes. Our planning process has resulted in places where women feel less secure, and if they feel less secure, they are less likely to use public places. If public places are public places, they ought to be safe for everyone.

What I am seeking is that, by giving greater thought to women’s safety, we plan out, before places are built, areas which are less safe for women. In a survey, 55% of women stated they would not use public transport after dark and 34% stated that feelings of insecurity have stopped them travelling at times. A report by UN Women UK found that 70% of women have felt harassed in public spaces due to the issues that I have just raised of dark places, poor lighting, overgrown hedges, high fences and that sort of situation.

It has consequently been argued that women cannot fully enjoy towns and cities, especially, if they do not feel that they can travel through them safely. The sad fact is that there have been several recent terrible examples where women, even though they were not alone, were viciously attacked. If it were within our grasp to avoid creating places where this happens, surely we would want to grasp that and deal with it very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

Ultimately, safety should be embedded in the design process to have the most impact. If this important matter is considered at the planning application stage alone, this may lead only to minor changes to final designs. Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit of this amendment, the Government must oppose it as national planning policy guidance and the law already require local planning authorities to take the issue of women’s safety into serious consideration when plan-making and decision-making are taking place.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her full-hearted support for this amendment and the approach that it is taking. I thank the Minister for her full reply. Yes, planning applications are currently considered in relation to safety, but the difficulty is: through whose eyes is safety being considered? What I am trying to suggest to your Lordships’ Committee in this amendment is that women have a particular perception of safety which probably is not shared by many men.

Earlier I asked a general question: how many women here would cross the road to somewhere that is better lit? There were nods all around. That is not because planners previously had deliberately designed something that was going to be unsafe. They designed something they thought would be safe, but they did not see it through the eyes and perceptions of women. That is particularly what I am pointing to. It is a shame that the Minister, who I am sure would have agreed with much that I said, did not feel able to support this amendment.

Finally, we have the wonderful reference to the NPPF— as yet unpublished. The NPPF, says the Minister, will make reference to women’s safety and has particularly considered the safety of women and girls. But, unfortunately, we will not see the content of the NPPF until the Bill has been enacted. If you ask me, that is not acceptable. This amendment and others have asked particularly for issues of general importance to be thought about. The answer is that it may well be in the NPPF, but the Government are not publishing this until they have made all the decisions on this Bill. I urge the Minister yet again to get this NPPF before the House by Report because that will enormously aid our discussions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 288 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville was unable to remain in your Lordships’ House to this late hour and has passed me some notes to which I will speak, if that is okay. She wished to speak in particular to Amendment 289, to which she added her name, and wishes the noble Lord, Lord Randall, a speedy recovery.

As others have said, the wild belt definition was proposed by the Wildlife Trusts. Any Government committed to nature recovery, biodiversity and our environment ought seriously to consider what they have to say. As we all know, biodiversity is at an all-time low. Our previous desire to see neat and well-kept hedgerows, farmland and gardens has had a devastating effect on our wildlife, of all types and sizes. To help biodiversity recover, it is necessary to ensure that areas of the countryside, both rural and urban, are maintained in a “wild” state. These will be included in the local nature recovery strategies for each area and easily identified in these plans.

A wild-belt area must be protected as such, from planning use and planning decisions. It is too easy to refer to a piece of scrubland as unsightly and of no particular use and to concoct a plan to turn it into something else. This misses the point altogether. That which is wild—and therefore unsightly, in the eyes of some—is likely to attract wildflowers and insects and become the home of small mammals and birds, all of which will increase the biodiversity of an area and protect and enhance nature’s recovery.

The Environment Act makes provision for the creation of local nature recovery strategies. By ensuring that wild-belt areas are included within these strategies, we can protect them from predatory development. They can, however, be used for farming and other land uses which will protect and not hinder nature recovery, such as nature-friendly farming and habitat restoration for carbon offsetting.

Amendment 386 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also proposes wild-belt designations by local authorities, which would enhance the local environmental outcomes reports. Everything possible must be done to ensure that biodiversity is increased across the country. I support Amendment 386 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on the Bill, it is probably appropriate that I declare my farming and land management interests, as set out in the register.

I turn to Amendment 289 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and so eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 386 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I thank all noble Lords for laying these amendments and provide assurances that I share the same view as my noble friend Lord Caithness on the importance of helping nature to recover.

While these two amendments both refer to wild belts, they take somewhat different approaches. I will begin by addressing Amendment 289, which seeks to secure a land designation of a wild belt. This would provide protection for sites being managed for nature’s recovery, identified through local nature recovery strategies. I thank noble Lords for the recent constructive debate on local nature recovery strategies, which covered quite similar ground. As my noble friend Lord Benyon reassured the Committee, the Government share the desire for local nature recovery strategies to be reflected appropriately in local plans so that the planning system can play a more proactive role in nature recovery. This is something we committed to explicitly in the recent environmental improvement plan.

Where we differ is on the necessity of making amendments to this Bill to achieve this. Instead, we will rely on existing duties created under the Environment Act and the guidance which the Government have committed to produce. The language of this proposed amendment—to “act in accordance” with a new designation based on the local nature recovery strategy—would be more binding than previous amendments. While the Government are determined that the planning system should play an important role in nature recovery, the system still needs to balance this priority with other priorities. Requiring, in legislation, that planning must “act in accordance” with plans for nature recovery would hamper the ability of planning authorities to strike this balance.

Last month we published the regulations and statutory guidance needed for responsible authorities to begin preparation of local nature recovery strategies. We are now working to put in place the guidance on how local authorities should consider LNRS in their local plans. This will be published this summer and will deliver on the commitments we have made. Therefore, while I appreciate the intention of Amendment 289, the Government are not able to support it. I hope that the noble Baroness, on behalf of my noble friend, will be able to withdraw it.

Amendment 386, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation to allow local authorities to propose wild-belt designations for the purpose of improving the results of environmental outcome reports. EORs sit alongside the Government’s commitments to support nature’s recovery and are intended to ensure that decision-makers have the facts they need when deciding whether to move forward with a specific plan or to permit a specific development. EORs will consider a range of environmental factors, including the influence of protected or designated spaces on the effects of the development, and the model of outcomes and indicators will allow the Government to reflect environmental priorities, including matters such as the preservation of wilderness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, talked about the need for a joined-up approach. The local nature recovery strategy statutory guidance explains how areas for nature recovery should be identified, including how conditions should be spatially connected for nature recovery and existing areas of importance for nature. I know from my own experience on the Select Committee for land use—my noble friend Lord Caithness also raised this—about management. We need to see much better management, particularly of green-belt spaces which are neither very green nor have much biodiversity in them. This is a real opportunity for those areas to do a lot of what these amendments are proposing.

Noble Lords also referred to the commitments the Government have made on this issue. The recent levelling up White Paper reinforced that local nature recovery strategies will be reflected in plan-making. It has been mentioned several times, but the National Planning Policy Framework expects plans to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and the stepping stones that connect them, and the areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration and creation.

While the concept of a wild belt is intriguing, introducing a designation that is required for the purpose of improving the results of an EOR risks distorting the purpose of environmental assessment, which is to provide relevant environmental information in a digestible way to support effective decision-making. Therefore, I am not able to recommend that the Government support these amendments, but I hope I have provided noble Lords with the assurances they seek in order to withdraw them.

While Amendments 386 and 289 take different approaches from each other, and from the Government’s stated position, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we are working towards the same aim—nature’s recovery—and that the approach we are taking through the powers under the Environment Act and subsequent guidance will achieve that aim.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

I just feel that we could have done this in a much simpler way. This stand-part debate may serve no purpose at all other than to ask whether it is too late to think about doing things in a simpler way, rather than trying to sweep the CIL and Section 106 away, then reintroducing much of it but putting it into a more complicated and riskier scenario, as the infrastructure levy appears to me to do.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this may be the third occasion on which we have discussed the infrastructure levy, which simply illustrates how important a part it will play in future development if it is passed. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the proposal for an infrastructure levy. It seems to me that there are too many variables in the infrastructure levy to give certainty to local communities, planning authorities and developers.

Growth development value on large-ish or medium-sized sites which are going to be developed across a number of years—300 houses over eight years, maybe—can significantly change in that period, as can the viability of the developer, because of lots of external factors. I had a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he asked why we have this complicated system where viability assessments take place at various stages during the development. How can the change that will inevitably happen during a development period provide with some certainty the affordable housing a local area needs, for instance? One of the huge risks of the infrastructure levy is that, rather than increasing the number of affordable homes that are built, it will reduce it, because of the risks to local communities and councils, and to developers, across the planned period.

From what I have heard from the Minister, the purpose of the infrastructure levy is to provide more certainty for developers and to take away the requirement to sign legal and Section 106 agreements. However, it does not—we heard in the earlier group that we are retaining Section 106 for some aspects and deliveries. At the heart of this issue is the challenge of how local infrastructure, as part of a new development, is funded, who funds it, and what qualifies as infrastructure. Planning authorities will have the unenviable task of determining the proportion of infrastructure levy to subsidise housing against mitigating the impact on the community for school places, GP surgeries, open spaces, biodiversity, green spaces, play areas, and so on, all of which will have to be funded through the infrastructure levy.

I have said already that one of the risks of the infrastructure levy is the uncertainty that will be created. As I understand it, and maybe the Minister can help explain it, when a local plan is being developed, the infrastructure delivery strategy will have to be determined at the same time. That leads me to some questions. Where does the infrastructure delivery strategy fit in relation to local plans that have been agreed and are being implemented? Does a new one have to be developed on the back of the long and painful process of developing a local plan? Do we have to have another infrastructure delivery strategy on top of that, bearing in mind that local plans are in existence for 10 years? How does that fit in, because when local plans are developed, they will have had in mind a previous regime for funding infrastructure?

I have another pertinent question. As rates are going to be set by local planning authorities and councils, they will inevitably reflect local economic circumstances. The example of the rates agreed for community infrastructure levy—albeit that excludes Section 106—is informative in this regard. In a Yorkshire metropolitan authority that I will not name, of the charges for CIL that were calculated, the charge per square metre for the highest of the three tiers was £80. I then looked at a district council in Hampshire, where financial circumstances are better, and the highest tier there was £235 per square metre. It concerns me greatly that there should be a huge differential between a relatively poor Yorkshire metropolitan council area and a relatively well-off area towards the south of the country.

The differential rate is so large that I do not see how councils in the north, or areas where it is more difficult to extract funding from developers because of land values, will be able to fund the levels of infrastructure that are required. The risk is that those areas have less funding from the levy to implement affordable housing and all the other public services that normally come out of development, whereas better off areas could provide better facilities. That is one huge risk, and a worry for me.

I have some questions on that for the Minister—I hope she will be able to answer them. I read through the technical paper on the infrastructure levy but I could not see anywhere where the department had done some calculations as to what the rates are anticipated to be in different parts of the country. I am sure the department will have done that, otherwise you would not make this transformational move. It would be good to hear from the Minister what those acceptable estimated rates are. Currently, as we know, about 66% of funding from CIL and Section 106 goes on affordable housing. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what proportion of different rates across the country it is anticipated will be spent on so-called affordable housing.

I come to my third question. Developers are interested in maximising their profits—quite rightly, as they have commercial interests. They will find ways, as they do with Section 106 and CIL, to challenge the requirements through viability assessments. The best thing that could happen is that those assessments disappear. Perhaps the Minister can talk a bit about that. If all this is to be dependent on viability assessments, the prospect of raising more funds for subsidising housing and community benefits out of development schemes is more pie in the sky than reality.

The trouble with all this is that, as with many other parts of the Bill, there is insufficient information to make judgments about whether the efficacy of the new powers as against existing schemes—which are known, tried and tested—will work.

The big question for me is that the Government are hoping that the infrastructure levy will fund more so-called affordable housing, which, certainly in my authority, is now required to be in perpetuity: the 20% reduction in market value has to be passed on by a covenant on the house in perpetuity. You get a better bang for your buck from that, so I ask the Minister whether this, too, could be a requirement of any infrastructure levy subsidy of affordable housing. There are more questions than answers, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I take that point. We have talked about the different rates from different development typologies, and we expect local authorities to set different rates. As the noble Baroness said, they do that with COUNCIL for different development types. We have published research that shows the range of possible rates for different case study areas, and I have put the results of that research in a letter.

For all these reasons, the Government are introducing the new infrastructure levy through the Bill and it is the correct thing to do for the country. There are too many local communities that, with the CIL system and the Section 106 system, are not getting what they deserve from the developments in those areas. So a new system, however difficult it is or however long it takes to deliver, has to be the right way to go.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister makes a very important point about the infrastructure levy, as opposed to Section 106 and CIL. Could she provide us with some evidence that the infrastructure levy will raise more money than the existing system?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will look to the evidence but, as I have clearly stated many times, we are expecting the same if not more housing, particularly affordable housing, from this infrastructure levy. I just say to my noble friend Lord Lansley, as I have said before, that we are not getting rid of Section 106 agreements, but will use them only in very restricted circumstances. The main issue from this is that affordable housing comes out of the Section 106 system and into the infrastructure levy system. When the whole country moves to the infrastructure levy, it will make affordable housing a much more important issue when it comes to how we use developer contributions in the future.

I move on now to government Amendment 361A. This makes three consequential changes to other Acts of Parliament to ensure that the new infrastructure levy will be treated in the same way as CIL in relevant legal contexts. First, Section 101(6) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that a local authority’s functions in relation to levying rates may be exercised only by that authority—in other words, those functions may not be delegated—but CIL is not a “rate” for this purpose. This means that a local authority may delegate its CIL functions.

Amendment 361A replicates this approach in respect of infrastructure levy functions. I emphasise, however, that the Bill contains important safeguards for democratic accountability. For example, new Section 204K(6) makes it clear that a local authority may approve its infrastructure levy charging schedule only at a meeting of the authority and by a majority of the members present.

Secondly, Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that “local finance considerations” can be a material consideration when determining planning applications. Local finance considerations include CIL, which can therefore be a material consideration when a planning application is determined.

Government Amendment 361A treats the infrastructure levy in the same way, allowing infrastructure levy receipts—anticipated and received—to be taken into account when determining planning applications. This does not override the primary aims of the infrastructure levy to support the development of an area by providing infrastructure, including affordable housing, or its meeting of other purposes, as set out in regulations, in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I cede everything to my noble friend Lord Young when it comes to experience and wisdom in this matter, but I am very attracted by the idea of running the pilot proposed by the Bill. It has long seemed to me deeply inequitable that when it comes to property development, the landowner gets so much for the uplift and the community gets so little. We very much need to explore and try out ways of setting that right, and this seems an excellent thing to try. I share my noble friend’s reservations that aspects of it may turn out not to be right, but that should not prevent us having a go. My amendment just says that if it proves to be a success, and I shall keep my fingers firmly crossed that it is, it would seem foolish to let it die after 10 years without giving Parliament the opportunity to let it continue.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, very much for the best explanation of community land auctions that I have heard. I have searched the internet to find a good explanation but have heard the best one this afternoon from him.

The issue is how we capture for local communities the uplift—a very large uplift in many cases—in land values once planning consent has been given to a site. This is one way in which it could work and it has some attraction to it. However, living as I do in West Yorkshire, where land values are not like those in Surrey, Hampshire or Berkshire, the inevitable consequence of community land auctions is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said: to the well off, more shall be given while to the least well off, little shall be given.

As far as I can tell, this will exacerbate regional inequalities. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, this is a levelling-up Bill. Living where I do, I was really looking forward to lots of proposals in it to reduce regional inequalities, but this is one example of where it will do the opposite. Somehow we have to find ways of extracting the very considerable uplift in land values once planning consent is given for housing.

Where I live, we still have many former industrial sites in need of costly remediation, and those land values will not be there for a community land auction. The provision will work only on greenfield sites, which is contrary to what we are trying to achieve. It will increase regional inequalities, which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill. If we can find a better way of extracting land value once planning consent or planning allocations have been given, that is where we should go. I am not convinced that this is the way, interesting though the proposal is. “Let us see the evidence” is what I would like to say. I know we are going to do a pilot, but somebody somewhere in the department has done some thinking and provided some evidence. Let us see it before we make a decision on this, because otherwise it is a dive into the unknown.

My last point is that there have not been good examples recently of local authorities getting involved in commercial practice—in fact, the contrary is the case. That is where this would take us: local authorities bidding for and buying land at a certain value and then hoping that, once they sell it on with planning consent, the extra can be extracted. That is putting a lot of faith in the commercial expertise within local authorities, which I am not sure they have. If I was putting a bet on developers and landowners against local authorities, I know which one would win.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to the levy we have been debating, the Government are interested in testing other mechanisms that could improve land value capture.

Community land auctions are an innovative process of identifying land for allocation for development in a local planning authority’s area in a way that seeks to optimise land value capture. Their aim is to introduce transparency and certainty by allowing local planning authorities to know the exact price at which a landowner is willing to sell their land. The crux of our approach is to encourage landowners to compete against each other to secure allocation of their land for development in the local plan by granting a legally binding option over their land to the local planning authority.

The competitive nature of community land auction arrangements incentivises landowners to reveal the true price at which they would willingly part with their land. If the land is allocated in the local plan upon its adoption, the local planning authority can sell the CLA option, keeping the amount that the successful bidder has paid and capturing the value that has accrued to the land as a result of the allocation. The successful bidder must then pay the price set out by the original landowner in the option agreement to purchase the land. The detailed design of community land auction arrangements will be set out in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In a moment, I will address my noble friend Lord Young’s clause stand part notice but, for now, I hope that that is useful background, by way of introduction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, although it is not a matter for the register of interests, I declare a particular interest in this group of amendments in that I grew up in an area developed and managed for many years by a development corporation. At their best, they provide focus, finance and pace for new development. If we are serious about tackling the severe housing crisis, which we have discussed so many times in your Lordships’ House, and ensuring that we create the conditions and environment for the new forms of employment we need—I am reminded of recent discussions in Question Time about the need to develop new battery capacity at speed—we should welcome the move to enable this way of tackling new developments at scale.

However, we must ensure that, as we do so, we learn the lessons of the past, including the not-so-distant past: with all the safeguards we need to ensure development at pace does not ride roughshod over proper and appropriate process and accountability. We also need to ensure that there is appropriate membership of, and links with, those who are democratically elected at local level, so that the public can be reassured they have a recourse via the democratic route.

May I ask the noble Earl the Minister a few questions before I begin consideration of our amendments about the way that development corporations are framed in the Bill? First, the Bill refers to one or more local authorities having what is called “oversight” of the development corporation. Of course, as advocates of localism we welcome this, but can the Minister be more specific about whether that means that the local authority will be the accountable body, which is a different term? This important distinction would help us to understand whether it is the Government’s intention that development corporations are autonomous in terms of finance or whether financial decision-making and probity will still require a council process. If it is the former, I am not convinced that there is sufficient detail in the Bill about how probity will be achieved. Bearing in mind the very considerable sums of public money that will potentially flow through development corporations, it is absolutely crucial that we are all clear on this issue.

Also in relation to finance, the Bill creates substantial new powers of borrowing for development corporations. Will they be subject to the same prudential borrowing regime as local authorities? If it were not so late, I could talk more about public accounts committees and local public accounts committees and how that might be a solution, but I will save that for another day.

Secondly, regarding how development corporations are to operate in terms of planning powers, will they be responsible only for the planning of new development within the designated area? To explain further: should the designated area contain existing development, does the council remain responsible for day-to-day matters of planning, such as infill development, extensions, tree preservation orders and so on, or is the whole gamut of planning within the application area the responsibility of the development corporation once the designation has been made? Can the Minister also clarify whether, in two-tier areas, the district council takes on the planning powers of both tiers—for example, the minerals, waste and flooding powers of the county as well as district planning powers? Would the county council keep the minerals and flooding powers without housing powers, or would all those powers transfer to the development corporation?

Lastly, in terms of membership and chairmanship of a development corporation, it is not clear to me whether this is left entirely to local discretion or whether it will require government departmental sign-off. Will it be a requirement that each local authority that comes within the designated area of the development corporation will be entitled to representation on that development corporation? Can the Minister give any further clarity on that? I am happy to have a response in writing at a later date.

Amendment 403 attempts to establish a principle that the development corporation should be accountable to local residents. When councils undertake development, whatever the scale, the public have all the protections that have been built into the planning system through the route of democratic accountability. Our amendment probes how that will be replicated in relation to development corporations. I note that the new Amendment 403A, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, makes a similar point in relation to ensuring that the public get value for money.

In view of discussions in your Lordships’ House just yesterday relating to the very significant development taking place under the mayoral development corporation in Teesside, I think it is particularly important that the accountability route for the public in relation to both the development itself and the public funds invested is much clearer than it is at present. We strongly believe that development undertaken by a development corporation should have to be in accordance with local plans, subject to master planning, where it is implementing development at scale, and subject to the same reassurance of independent examination as is required of councils.

Our Amendment 404 would give the public the opportunity to make representation at an independent inquiry.

Our continuing concern about this Government’s failure to deliver any scale of housebuilding that would help to tackle our housing emergency has prompted our Amendment 406, which probes the Government’s intentions in relation to a programme for new towns. We have had many discussions in Committee about the role of members of local councils in the development of their areas. Too often in the past, these vital community bodies—parish, town and other community councils—are left out of the loop. Their role at the heart of their communities is key to ensuring that there is a voice for local people as developments move forward.

Our Amendments 407 and 408 will introduce a requirement for local councils to be represented on locally led urban development corporations. In my questions to the Minister, I outlined our concerns over how the finances of a development corporation are to be publicly accountable. Our Amendment 409 reflects that concern and asks that the Secretary of State is much clearer than the Bill currently is about how the finances of development corporations are to be transparent, how they will be monitored and how they are to be accountable to the public. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this short group is actually very important. Clause 156 in Part 8 is an introduction by the Government of a new type of development corporation: locally led. Development corporations have been around in various guises for a long time—new towns, Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park are examples—with very variable degrees of success in achieving their stated aims. Development corporations are the vehicle for public-private partnerships, often to develop former industrial sites. In that sense, the principle is supported by these Benches. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is quite right to challenge some aspects of the planned changes. We support her Amendments 404 and 405, which would ensure that the public have a right for their voice to be heard. This is, after all, the levelling-up Bill, where public engagement, involvement and participation are emphasised.

It is absolutely right—fundamental, in my view—that locally elected representatives are at the heart of development corporations, for the very reason that they are the route by which members of the public can take their concerns, raise complaints, get answers, challenge decisions that are being made and hold the board to account for the public money that is being spent. Unfortunately, that is not the case with some existing development corporations. Wherever public funding is involved, as it is in development corporations, there has to be public and transparent decision-making and then public accountability for those decisions. Hence Amendment 403A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley.

Unfortunately, one development corporation, the Teesside Development Corporation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is making headlines of the wrong sort, in both the Yorkshire Post and the Financial Times, for the apparent failure of transparency and accountability. Teesside is a mayoral development corporation—I asked this question yesterday in the Chamber, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, responded—where it seems that the mayor has the sole right to appoint the board membership of the development corporation. I think that was the response I got, but maybe that is not the case, in which case I hope that is put right. This practice is totally contrary to good governance, where openness and inclusivity have to be the hallmark. The extension of development corporations to include locally led ones is an opportunity for the Government to review best practice in governance, transparency and accountability and make the appropriate changes so that all development corporations meet the highest standards of open and transparent governance.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting, but before she sits down, can she address this point? One of the key arguments made—in that group of amendments to which the noble Baroness referred—by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and by myself and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Thornhill, was about the huge disparity in business rates between online retailers and high street town centre retailers. I will repeat a comparator that I have mentioned previously. A well-known online retailer—not many miles distant from me—pays £45 per square metre in business rates on its premises, whereas a small town high street shop near me pays £240 per square metre. It is that vast difference that is penalising our town centre shops. This is the heart of the problem that this clause is trying to address, and we are supportive of that—but unless we deal with this big difference, nothing much will change. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do about business rates.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the government amendments here. From what she said, it seems to me that there is a dual purpose to the amendments. One is contained in the section relating to national security, which I understand but I wonder why it has appeared in this Bill and not in other Bills related to national security, one of which went through this House not long ago.

The second group of amendments is about aiding the development of land where land ownership is not known. I would like the Minister to help here, because the ownership of a lot of land is not yet recorded by the Land Registry—it is recorded only following a change of hands, through a sale or transfer in some way. I would like to understand from the Minister quite how ownership of land is to be established without the Land Registry having already had that recorded. I understand the direction that the Government intend here, but it seems to me that there is a gap, unless I have misunderstood the purpose of some of those amendments.

Will she explain, first, why this national security element has appeared in a levelling-up Bill, unless it is to do with regeneration? Secondly, if she could help with establishing land ownership that has not yet been recorded by the Land Registry, I would be grateful.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Before my noble friend gets up to respond to this debate and at the risk of upsetting the mood of the Committee, I remind noble Lords that we have done three groups. We have another 19 to go and we are going to finish tonight, so unless anybody does not wish to have any sleep, I suggest we perhaps cut our speeches down just a little bit if we can.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I do not know whether I dare speak now, but I am going to. I will not dare venture into the issue of smoking or non-smoking, except to say that I agree with my noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Randerson and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

I want to raise two issues because they were raised in the Business and Planning Act and the regulations that we discussed at the time and have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Moylan. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly brought to our attention Amendment 460, about the use of barriers to delineate a pavement licence from the rest of the highway. It was agreed at the time, and we should ensure that it is included in the regulations under this Bill. It is vital that there is a clear line between where a pavement café ends and the pavement for other users begins, because it stops drift by people using the pavement café area and helps everybody, particularly those with disabilities, so I totally support that argument and I am sorry that it is not included in the Bill.

Secondly, I support Amendment 451, about payment to local authorities for the use of the highway. Hard-pressed local authorities are apparently having to give away public assets for businesses to use without any payment. We would not expect that of any other commercial arrangement, so why should we expect local authorities to support businesses without any payment for the use of the public asset, i.e. the highway? I totally support the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on that score. I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to say that local authority highways, which local authorities have to clean and maintain, are worthy of a fee from those who use them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, following the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I rise to speak in favour of government Amendment 467F and at the outset say that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham, who leads for the Church of England on education, very much regrets that he cannot be in his place.

We are grateful to the Department for Education and the department for levelling up for working together and with us in the Church to fulfil the Government’s commitment to bringing forward legislation to safeguard statutory protections relating to issues arising from the occupation of land by Church academies. The decision not to progress the Schools Bill might have meant that this uncontroversial but important change to legislation would have been lost, so it is very good to have the amendment in this Bill, which will maintain the important legacy of educational endowments that provide land for the purposes of a school with a religious character. This is important for all schools with a religious character, not just Church of England schools, and it will remove a significant barrier on the journey to academisation for Church schools, which is vital in the Government’s policy aims, as such schools make up one-third of the entire school sector and seek to serve local communities up and down the country.

As boards of education implement their strategies for the development of the family of Church schools in each diocese, they need to have confidence to do so in a way that ensures the security of that provision for the future. That still requires further work on governance arrangements which we are developing in partnership with the DfE through the use of the Church model articles, but it also requires legislation with regard to the way land is held on separate charitable trusts for use by academy companies. This amendment provides that legislation and captures clearly the issue as described in the fact sheet that accompanied the now withdrawn Schools Bill.

We therefore welcome this amendment to preserve trustees’ existing land interests once schools whose sites are held on educational endowments become academies. This amendment is a vital step towards ensuring that school sites continue to be used for original charitable purposes, enabling schools with a religious character to engage with the changing educational landscape. It will give greater certainty to the sector, the Catholic Education Service, the Church of England Education Office and our dioceses that together serve nearly 2 million children today and are at the heart of communities across our villages, towns and cities. It ensures that the distinctive Christian ethos of Church schools will be protected in the long term by reassuring the sector that on conversion to an academy, the nature and purpose of the trust deed of the school site will continue to be preserved if the academy needs to relocate. We therefore wholeheartedly support this amendment.

[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 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 Pinnock (LD)]

I cannot resist being able to speak about letterboxes. To be honest, letterbox height is important. Even those of us who are seasoned leaflet deliverers do not have the same daily meeting with letterboxes of various heights as the posties do.

From the point of view of the people who are doing their daily rounds delivering mail, we ought to have letterboxes not just at the right height but of the right width, horizontal not vertical, and where you can push thin letters through without their being crumpled up. The hard brushes and spring-loaded letterboxes should be condemned to oblivion, in my view.

Just as important is the number of Royal Mail deliverers who find, when they put their hand through a letterbox to deliver a letter, that there is a dog at the other end that takes a snap at their fingers. When people in my ward help with delivery, we give them a ruler to push through. I can show you the bite marks on the ruler. Dogs are behind those letterboxes and therefore there ought to be safeguards at the other side of the letterboxes for those who are delivering.

I had to go to one house in Yorkshire that said on the door, “Beware of the cat”. When you tried to deliver a leaflet, a paw came out, with claws out ready to strike if you were not quick enough. Beware of cats in Yorkshire, and beware of dogs everywhere.

Although we are making light of this, it is important that it is addressed: that we get letterboxes at a height where posties do not have to break their backs to deliver Royal Mail. Get rid of those horrible hard brushes—there is no need for any of that, and let us get the height right. That will be to everybody’s benefit.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I support everything the noble Baroness just said. From long experience of canvassing and getting bloody knuckles as you try to withdraw your hand from the letterbox but the spring bites them, shortly before the dog’s teeth just miss your retreating hand, I think there would be support across the House and general congratulations if the Government were able to do something along these lines, but I suspect it should not require retrofitting. Chewing up people’s front doors would just be too expensive, but any new front door should certainly not have any of these devices on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 491 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Currently, most government funding for affordable housing focuses on net additionality of new homes. This is much needed but it can lead to a loss of development potential and a lack of investment in the physical quality of existing communities. Without housing-specific regeneration funding streams, regeneration is virtually impossible to fund in lower-value areas, where there is little scope for cross subsidy from market scaling.

Last week, Homes England published its strategic plan, emphasising a renewed focus on regeneration. It was welcome to see this plan recognise the key role that housing associations should play in place-making, as well as the importance of sustainability in new communities. However, there is a lack of clarity about whether this would be accompanied by new regeneration funding or a flexibility around the use of AHP funds to deliver regeneration. This amendment, which also seeks clarity over the Government’s regeneration proposals, would be a step in the right direction. At present, there is a lack of strategic direction in the Government’s plans to deliver housing-led regeneration, yet regeneration is crucial if the Government are serious about delivering their economic and skills agenda while also helping to deliver quality and sustainable affordable homes across the country.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I hope noble Lords will bear with me because there was some confusion over the position of this group in the list. Some of us had an earlier list, where it appeared much later.

I have tabled Amendment 504GJH, about the state of schools and hospitals. At the heart of levelling up is the need to provide good-quality education to young people across the country and that means good-quality buildings in which children can go to school. Where schools are in disrepair and cannot be used appropriately, children are at a disadvantage, particularly, say, in secondary education with science blocks that are out of date so that children will not be able to do modern science experiments.

The quality of school buildings in this country is very important and a department report from December 2022 highlighted the critical level of disrepair in many of our school buildings across the country. This prompted me to lay this amendment to this part of the Bill. The annual report said that officials have raised the risk level of school buildings collapsing to “very likely” after an increase in serious structural issues being reported, especially in blocks built in the post-war years, 1945 to 1970.

The type of structure used has led to the quite rapid deterioration of those buildings. I said earlier that I was a school governor for a number of years. The school had a science block built in the early 1970s that was condemned for these very reasons, so I know how accurate this is.

If we are talking about levelling up and regeneration, at its heart should be public services, school buildings and the quality of the education delivered within them. It is school buildings that I am pointing to today. The report said that the risk level for school buildings had been escalated, as I said, from “critical” to “very likely”.

The difficulty is that, because so many school buildings were built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with this sort of metal structure, there is a huge call on government funding. It is called a light frame system, I think; it is a steel structure anyway. Every one of us will have buildings like that where we live. I want this Bill to focus on doing something about school buildings and hospitals that we know about. The Government have committed to 40 new hospitals—five more have just been added—because they are falling down. That is not right. We are talking about regeneration and levelling up. Having school buildings and hospitals collapsing shows the level of investment that will be needed if we are genuinely going to try to level up across this country.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 476, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks to give a minimum height for letterboxes. It is important to ensure that doors in homes include letterboxes at a height that does not cause injury, risk or inconvenience. We have researched the safety and accessibility of letterbox heights to establish the evidence with which to amend existing statutory guidance applicable in England. The Government are committed to reviewing their building regulations statutory guidance and any references to third-party guidance on the position of letterboxes. We intend to include the recommended height for letterboxes in statutory guidance.

I turn to Amendment 487 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Clause 124 and Schedule 11 to the Bill introduce the infrastructure levy in England. The new infrastructure levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current system of developer contributions, meaning that there will be a greater contribution from developers towards the type of infrastructure to which the noble Baroness referred. Under new Section 204Q in Schedule 11, local authorities will be required to produce infrastructure delivery strategies. These strategies will set out how they intend to spend their levy proceeds. In preparing these strategies, local authorities will be expected to engage with the relevant infrastructure providers to understand what infrastructure will be needed to support new development in their areas. In this way, local authorities will be able to take a more strategic view of the infrastructure that will be required to support development in their areas.

On Amendments 489, 490, 491, 493, 494 and 495, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government agree that regeneration is important in our new towns, coastal towns and market towns and recognise the contribution that markets can make to the vibrancy and diversity of our high streets, which is essential to levelling up the country. In this legislation, we are committed to going further in supporting places to tackle blight and to revive our high streets within these areas. The legislation builds on a far-reaching existing support package for high streets and town centres, including £3.6 billion investment in the towns fund, £4.8 billion investment in the levelling-up fund and £2.6 billion in the shared prosperity fund, along with support from the high streets task force.

On Amendment 496 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, this Government have recently set ambitious new targets for air quality through the Environment Act 2021. These will drive action to reduce PM2.5 where concentrations are highest—often within our busiest towns and cities—reducing disparities as well as reducing average exposure across the country. The Environment Act 2021 established a framework for setting these and any future environmental targets. There is already a comprehensive legal framework governing air pollution, which works in a coherent and complementary way with established national emissions ceilings and concentration targets for a wide range of air pollutants from a variety of sources.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I have worked in various guises on trying to preserve the sea link between Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for some 25 years now. The Isles of Scilly Steamship Company is trying to undermine what is absolutely essential but has not been able to happen over 25 years: private funding of that ferry service. I believe that this cannot happen at the moment. Never mind the fares for the future: fiscally, it will not work as a scheme. That means that the money will be lost and, after 25 years, the “Scillonian” will not be replaced and those islanders and their economy will be cut off from the mainland. That is why this amendment is important, and I too hugely thank the Government for the generosity and understanding that they have shown to the islands and west Cornwall in terms of the levelling-up funding.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests: I am a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This group of amendments focuses on the areas that have benefited, or not, from the initial round of the levelling-up fund. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, there are many examples of levelling-up funds failing to reach those parts that the Government’s own White Paper assesses as being in need of targeted funding over a sustained period.

Throughout our considerations of the Bill, I have said that this vast tome, the levelling up White Paper, should be at the heart of what we are discussing and what the legislation should be doing. As I said in Committee and at Second Reading, it seems to me that the Government have lost their way. The White Paper is not perfect, but it makes a good start in setting out what levelling up should be about. One of the phrases in it is that levelling up should be “broad, deep and long-term”—I agree. Experience of previous iterations of levelling up, from city challenge to neighbourhood renewal and several other policy interventions in between, has demonstrated that scattering plugs of funding is not sufficient to ensure that communities that have not shared in the nation’s prosperity begin to do so. The cycle is not broken without dedicated and long-term investment; that is what the White Paper says. The fundamental approach currently being pursued is inadequate to meet that challenge.

The Government have so far distributed funding via a bidding culture, which, as many noble Lords will know, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands has criticised, calling it a “begging bowl culture”. Such a bidding culture is also costly, in time and money, and leads to many more losers than winners. One example, which I think I have given before, is a major city in Yorkshire investing a six-figure sum in its bid for levelling-up funds only to receive a big fat zero. It seems to me that this process needs a fundamental rethink. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was right to use the example of the House of Commons Select Committee on this very issue, but the National Audit Office has also raised concerns about the use of levelling-up funds and how the bidding culture has worked —or not.

If the Government were serious about levelling up, only those areas that are amply described in the levelling up White Paper would qualify for funding. The Minister may be able to tell us whether only those areas described in the White Paper will qualify for funding. If not, we are moving away from the purpose of levelling up.

The second element of change needs to be for local authorities. Those that qualify via the assessment and the metrics in the White Paper should be asked to produce plans that tackle the inequalities at the heart of their communities in a sustained way—that is what the White Paper says needs to be done. It would mean more emphasis, for example, on skills, access to employment, and barriers, such as lack of childcare and transport. However, given what the Minister said in Committee, I am not sure whether the Government are ready for such big changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is right to pursue making the use of levelling-up funding more transparent and, as Amendment 3 says, ensuring that the funding is linked to the missions. For me, at the heart of levelling-up and regeneration legislation should be linking funding to the missions. If they are not linked, I do not know what the purpose of this Bill is.

At this point, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises a good example of what happens when there is an inequality of immense proportions. My noble friend Lord Teverson supported him in that, and he was right to do so. There are countless examples of such disparities across the country, which the levelling-up fund should be dealing with.

These amendments are fundamental to the effective levelling up of the many parts of this country that have suffered inequalities—some of considerable proportion compared with the rest of the country—over many years. If the noble Baroness wishes to move her amendment to a vote and divide the House, we on these Benches will support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 1, 17, 304 and 305 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, are all linked to a proposed new requirement for government to lay a statement detailing the application process for round 3 of the levelling-up fund. That has already happened in the first two rounds of the fund. We published information on the impartial assessment and decision-making process, alongside a full list of successful applicants. We have also provided feedback to unsuccessful applicants in both rounds. We will continue to improve the process used to award funding, taking on board the feedback we have received, which will be reflected in our approach to the next round of the fund.

We have also published our monitoring and evaluation strategy, which makes clear how the fund will evaluate impact against a range of criteria, including healthy life expectancy, well-being and pride in place. On the timing of the statement of the levelling-up missions, which is mentioned in Amendment 1, we have committed in the Bill to publish this within one month of Part 1 of the Act coming into force. We argue that this is already an appropriate and prompt timescale.

Amendment 3, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks at how levelling-up funds are supporting the levelling-up missions. This Government are committed to transparency. The Bill will place a duty on the Government to publish a clear statement of their levelling-up missions and to report annually on their progress against them, including, where relevant, the contributions made by particular projects and programmes. We have also already published transparent criteria for assessing projects and initiatives to be funded via key levelling-up funds and have published all funding allocations made to places.

In relation to the levelling-up fund specifically, in round 2 of the fund we asked applicants to set out which of the 12 levelling-up missions their bid supported. Several of the criteria used in the levelling-up fund evaluation strategy align closely with our missions, including pride in place, health and well-being. Alongside that, transport forms one of the three investment themes, and more than £1.1 billion has been awarded to improve transport infrastructure in the first two rounds.

It might be useful to give some examples of what has happened. Torridge District Council made a bid for the Appledore Clean Maritime Innovation Centre. That will create North Devon’s first university research centre, which will help regional skills by providing a regional skills base, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. It will also establish the area as a leading research and development destination for clean maritime. Another example—I will not go on, because I could give noble Lords a large number—is the Porth transport hub, which will open later this summer. It will improve transport connectivity by providing seamless public transport connectivity for that town. These are the things that are happening.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also asked about the rest of the money that the Government are spending and whether it will be spent in connection to the missions. I can say that £40 million from the DfE has gone into education investment areas, one of our priorities in the missions, while £2.5 billion has been allocated to the transforming cities fund and many billions more to the city region sustainable transport settlements and the bus service improvement plans. There is also £125 million from the Home Office for the safer streets fund. These are all connected to our very important missions.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, quite rightly asked about simplifying the funding landscape. We have already made significant progress in streamlining funds. Between them, the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund consolidate what was previously a complex landscape. We are committed to publish a simplification plan setting out how we will go further, immediately and at the next spending review, to simplify the funding landscape far more.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also talked about evaluation. We have an overall departmental evaluation strategy, which was published last November. Over the past 18 months, the department has significantly increased the resource dedicated to local growth evaluations, and that will continue—so we are looking particularly at including towns funds, the levelling up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund.

The noble Baroness also asked why it has taken so long to share information about the levelling up fund round 3. It is important that we have taken the time to reflect on the first two rounds, which is why things are changing. We have learned the lessons from those two, and we wanted to do that before committing to round 3. We will talk about it further in the near future. The Secretary of State signalled at the LGA conference last week that he intends to bring a completely new approach to the levelling up fund round 3, reflecting on everything that has happened up until now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and thank her for her commitment to striving for fairness and equality and to eradicating child poverty for the nation’s most disadvantaged children.

An effective way in which the Government could improve our children’s health and well-being is to tackle child poverty. To do that, there must be a clear strategy. What better way to do that than by placing this amendment as a mission in the levelling-up Bill, to reduce the proportion of children of all ages living in poverty? Surely it is an obvious place for this amendment to sit.

The evidence on child poverty and its disastrous effects is becoming increasingly apparent. The Households Below Average Income report published by the DWP states that 350,000 more children were pulled into relative poverty in 2021-22. That means that 4.2 million children—29% of our UK children—were in poverty, up from 3.6 million in 2010-11. This is worrying because it will only continue to rise in 2023, given the cost of living crisis and the high mortgage rates hitting families harder and harder by the month.

Research has shown that there are geographical disparities across our nation, but there are also significant differences between the child poverty rates in ethnic groups. Children from black and minority-ethnic groups are much more likely to be in poverty—48%, compared with 25% of children in white families.

It is also disheartening to know that work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Unbelievably, 71% of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works. Is that not depressing? Between 1998 and 2003, reducing child poverty was made a priority. There was a comprehensive strategy and investment in children. The number of children in poverty fell by 600,000. That is what you call a mission of levelling up.

As I keep saying, childhood lasts a lifetime, so it makes financial sense to invest in our children as early as possible. Perhaps having a Cabinet-level Minister for children would help this mission. This year, research by the Child Poverty Action Group showed that child poverty cost the economy almost £40 billion a year.

In order for children to function at their best, especially in school, they need a proper, balanced diet. Shamefully, we are seeing a nutritional postcode lottery for our children. For example, some fantastic work is being done in London, meaning that all children in primary schools will receive a free school meal. In boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, all secondary school children will do too. Yet, if you travel outside of London to areas known for economic deprivation and high levels of child poverty, we find that the same children in need of a decent meal are unable to receive a free school meal, unlike their counterparts in London.

Without lifting children out of poverty, levelling up will not have the long-term positive impact that the Government hope to achieve through the Bill. If child poverty keeps at this high level and keeps on growing, children’s prospects will suffer, cancelling out any other positive aspects of the Bill. I plead with the Government and all noble Lords to support this amendment, whose mission is to reduce the number of children of all ages living in poverty in all its forms, as one of the Bill’s levelling-up missions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to persuade the Government to be more specific about the missions and metrics of levelling up. I wish to speak initially to Amendment 8 in my name.

I remain very disappointed that the Government have failed to include their White Paper missions in the Bill. It makes me ask whether there is some shame on the Government’s part in stating clearly in legislation that our country has the worst levels of regional inequality of any part of the European Union, and whether the Government are committed to addressing those inequalities with determination and sustained funding.

Amendment 8 challenges the Government to include in the Bill the missions so clearly set out in the White Paper. All my amendment does is repeat those missions. They are not perfect, and they are necessarily the ones Liberal Democrats would include. We would perhaps include something more specific on health inequalities and life expectancy, which is one of the missions, and we would include child poverty more specifically than do the ones on deprivation in the White Paper. However, those are the missions the Government have chosen and they will do a good job—if the Government keep to them, and to the metrics in the addendum to the levelling-up White Paper.

I accept the argument that the Minister gave last time, that missions change over time. Of course they do, and my amendment makes it clear that they will and that the Government should change them. However, that an entire Bill should fail to list what the missions are seems to me a failure of government ambition and determination. At the moment, the Government will set out their missions after the Bill has been enacted. Perhaps the Minister will be able tell us whether they will include all the elements in the White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this group of government amendments, which are in response to the strong arguments made in Committee by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

It is astonishing that those who draft legislation continue to do so without recognising the implications of devolution. One would think that by now the lesson would have been learned. This is not the first time in this or other Bills that late-stage amendments to recognise the facts of devolution have had to be made. It would be good to hear the Minister confirm that in future the implications of devolution for draft legislation will be considered at an early stage, not at the last minute, but we welcome these changes that have been made.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I remind the House that I am the leader of the London Borough of Bexley and therefore have associated connections with London Councils and the Local Government Association. As leader of the London Borough of Bexley, my experience of devolution in London has been under three different mayors. I am a firm believer in devolution, but it must always be to the lowest common denominator. That spend must be to address local issues and allow local government to be answerable to the electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Tackling disparities wherever they occur must surely be the fundamental part of levelling up. Too often, the levelling-up funding awards have been a bit of a blunt instrument which assume that, because one area has a level of deprivation different from another, the second area does not need any support at all in relation to levelling up. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, concern the cost of living, based on regional variations that could exacerbate the challenges in the very areas already defined by the Government as suffering multiple inequalities. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, made a case for investigating geographical disparities in relation to the cost of living, which was the theme of my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment that was agreed earlier today.

The cost of living crisis is hitting some families and some parts of the country much harder than others. The Centre for Cities has done an investigation into the differences in the impact of the cost of living crisis on different parts of the country. What it discovered, which is not surprising, is that some areas of the north, the Midlands and the West Country are harder hit than cities in the south and the south-east. That mirrors the geographical inequalities we have been debating today.

I picked out these figures because they are from west Yorkshire. Bradford is already a significant area of child poverty and family deprivation. The Centre for Cities study, which has data from as recently as May this year, shows that on average a family household in Bradford is poorer by £111 a month. Huddersfield, in my own council area—a similar area for child poverty and deprivation—was also poorer by £111 per month. Every household in every part of the country will be worse off as a result of the cost of living crisis and all that goes with it. But when I looked at towns in more southern parts of the country, I found that they were worse off by, for example, £61 a month, £59 a month and £65 a month—about half the hit that families in Bradford and Huddersfield have had.

There is an issue here that I hope that the Government are thinking about in considering levelling up. The arguments we have heard in earlier debates demonstrate that areas with existing poverty and a further impact on family finances are harder hit than others where family finances are more resilient to a cost of living crisis. That leads me to conclude that those same areas should be the focus of the Government’s levelling up. It is no good saying, as the Government have done through the towns fund and the levelling-up funds, that Newark and bits of North Yorkshire are in need of levelling up. I am not denying that they would benefit from investment, but the places to which I am referring are multiply deprived and multiply under the hammer of the cost of living crisis, because of their earlier multiple deprivations.

If the Government are serious about levelling up, those are the places that need a laser focus of help, investment, planning and strategies to lift them out of the doldrums, so that they can experience the quality of life that more financially well-off areas experience. That is why this series of amendments is important. It underlines the fact that more financial troubles heap additional burdens on to these already deprived households. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister agrees with me. I live in hope.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am really pleased to address the important issue of the cost of living, dealt with in Amendments 19 and 274, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. The Government absolutely understand that people are worried about the cost of living challenges ahead. That is why decisive action was taken at the Spring Budget this year to go further to protect struggling families. Taken together, support to households to help with higher bills is worth £94 billion, or £3,300 per household on average across 2022-23 and 2023-24. This is one of the largest packages in Europe.

His Majesty’s Government allocate cost of living support on the basis of the needs of cohorts, rather than location. We are committed to helping those who need it most, wherever they are. There are existing mechanisms in place to monitor and evaluate regional, economic and social disparities, and these mechanisms are effective and ongoing, making the amendment, I suggest, redundant.

The UK2070 Commission leads an independent inquiry into city and regional inequalities in the United Kingdom, while the Office for National Statistics routinely produces a range of datasets with a regional and local breakdown, including on inflation. This, alongside the Government’s spatial data unit, which is transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and manipulate subnational data, means that these amendments, we believe, are not necessary.

Amendments 20 and 285, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seek to establish an independent board to assess geographical disparities in England, and would allow for its parameters to be specified by regulations. I have already been very clear that we are committed to enabling scrutiny of our progress on levelling up. Through my department’s spatial data unit, we are embracing and seeking to build on this engagement, including through work to improve the ways in which the Government collate and report on spending and outcomes and consider geographical disparities in our policy-making. As noble Lords will know from my responses to earlier groups in this debate, we have also established the independent Levelling Up Advisory Council, chaired by Andy Haldane, so we do not believe we need any further, unnecessary proliferation of public bodies in this space.

Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, considers the appropriate granularity of data. We agree with her that for certain missions and policy areas, this is extremely important. The spatial data unit in my department is already working closely with the Office for National Statistics to improve the granularity of place-specific data and strengthen published local statistics. For example, it published local neighbourhood area estimates of gross value added earlier this year, enabling comparisons of economic output to be made between very small geographical areas.

I hope I have convinced and reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and that she will not press her amendment and others will not press theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in my name asks the Government to define by regulation exactly what they mean by levelling up. We have the 300-page tome of the levelling up White Paper—I see a number of them around the Chamber—but, for all its detailed analysis of some of the associated problems and complexities of regional disparities in the UK, nowhere does it produce a succinct definition of what success will look like.

The challenge is to turn “levelling up” from just another political slogan—no doubt with a political project behind it, like “Take back control” or “Stop the boats”—into a genuine economic and social project that will make a real difference to real lives. This is becoming increasingly important as the cost of living crisis has turned the dial again. Research shows that the so-called red wall seats are now worse off in terms of life expectancy, income ratios and other factors than they were before the concept of levelling up was introduced by the Conservative Government, and that the north/south divide has been widening because of the cost of living crisis.

The Institute for Government has expressed concerns that the levelling-up plans will fail. Commentary on the 12 missions describes five as lacking ambition, three as too ambitious to be realistic, four as failing to define what success looks like, two as having too narrow a focus, and the one on R&D spending as failing to line up with the overall policy objective. The very people expected to deliver levelling up—local government and its partners—remain confused about what it means and the people they represent do not see any improvement because disparities are getting worse.

Research undertaken for the Centre for Cities, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned earlier, showed that only around 43% of people thought they understood what levelling up means and that people living in former red wall seats are more likely to lack confidence in the Government’s ability to level up their area. Almost half—49%—said that they were not confident that their area will be levelled up, with just under 4% saying they were very confident in the Government’s plans. There is also an urban/rural divide on confidence in the levelling-up agenda, with a significantly higher proportion of people in rural areas lacking confidence that their area will be levelled up. We reflected some of that discussion earlier today.

Even the metrics in the White Paper are not clearly defined. The LSE says that they are neither exhaustive nor definitive and:

“Addressing key omissions and shortcomings and embedding a more granular approach to metrics and building up … data infrastructure will be essential”.


The trouble is that you cannot measure what you cannot define, so a clear definition is essential.

We are absolutely not asking the Government for a definition that takes us in the direction of each place being the same, because they are not. The power of devolution is that areas succeed on their own terms and in being able to capitalise on their unique economies, features, places and people in a way that is right for them. A significant example that is close at hand is Germany, where political will and investment have achieved the remarkable reunification of the east and west through a partnership of the local and the national, with common cause. We fear that, without a similar clear ambition and mission here, the drive of the Prime Minister and Chancellor for a new period of austerity will stop levelling up in its tracks. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, increasingly I think that we need a clear definition of levelling up, partly because what I have in mind is certainly not shared by many others around the Chamber.

When I read the tome—the levelling up White Paper—it struck me, with all the maps and graphics in there, that the aim the Government had in mind was to have a clear, strategic focus on areas of multiple deprivation, as defined in the tome, and others, including poor health, lower skills, poor housing, lack of economic opportunity and poor transport, as the White Paper lists. I read it to mean that because some places had several of those factors, they were the places that the Government were going to focus their attention on as a strategy over a number of years.

I have cited previously what the White Paper says about the fact that long and deep-seated change is needed. I support that, if I have it right. What I do not think it means is that every small pocket of poverty can be addressed through levelling up, because even in the wealthiest places there are pockets of poverty. If we tried to do that, it would dissipate the clearer strategy. I am beginning to think that I am the only person who thinks that.

That was the sort of strategy that was labelled City Challenge, Single Regeneration Budget 1, Single Regeneration Budget 2 and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund. That was the strategy: pick out those places that were suffering multiple deprivation, put a plan together and make a big investment to see whether that would make a difference. Sometimes it did, but sometimes those places did not really improve—perhaps because the strategy was more about places and not about people. People need to be at the heart of any levelling up. Levelling up includes hard stuff, such as skills, employment opportunities, decent housing, health, and child poverty. It is difficult and long-term, and you do not see immediate results. That is what I think levelling up is, and I am not sure —having sat through long hours of debate on the subject—whether I am the only person who thinks that.

A couple of years ago, the Centre for Cities described what it thinks levelling up means. First, it suggested that it should include increasing standards of living across the country:

“There is no inherent reason why one part of the country should have poorer skills or lower life expectancy than another”—


I can go with that. Secondly, it spoke about helping

“every place reach its ‘productivity potential’”;

that is, the gap between its level of economic achievement and what it should be. For example, in parts of Yorkshire, there is quite a big gap, and that will be the same elsewhere.

We need to hear what the Government think levelling up is and where it is aimed. Is it what is in the White Paper, or is it, “Oh dear, we have to try to deal with pockets of poverty and deprivation everywhere”? That is a different strategy, in my head. Unless there is clarity about what the purpose of levelling up is, I think the strategy will become so broad and wide that lots of areas and lots of our communities will miss out. I certainly would not like that.

I guess the noble Earl has the short straw with this group; I really look forward to hearing what he has to say.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asks the Government to define levelling up. I can simply say that it is already very clearly defined. When launching the levelling up White Paper, the Government clearly defined levelling up as

“a moral, social and economic programme for the whole of government”

to

“spread opportunity more equally across the”

country.

As stated expressly in the very first pages of the White Paper and thereafter, levelling up is about, first, boosting pay and productivity, especially in places where they are lacking; secondly, spreading opportunities and improving public services, especially where they are weakest; thirdly, restoring local pride; and, fourthly, empowering local leaders. Those are the principal four headings—not so different from those articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, actually—and in the very first clause of the Bill, levelling-up missions are defined as

“objectives which His Majesty’s Government intends to pursue to reduce geographical disparities in the United Kingdom”.

Furthermore, the Bill will already place a statutory duty on the Government to confirm their missions through laying and publishing a statement of levelling-up missions. There is no need, therefore, to have regulations on top of that.

The Government are putting the framework for the missions into statute, and that arrangement is designed to ensure that what we mean by levelling up and how well we are doing to make progress are transparent and the Government can be held properly to account. As the Government have consistently set out, the first levelling-up statement will be based on the White Paper, but missions, as we have said a number of times, need to evolve over time. The Bill requires the Government to notify Parliament formally of any proposed changes to the missions or metrics set out in the statement of levelling-up missions, and we fully expect that Parliament, expert stakeholders and, indeed, the wider public will use these provisions to hold the Government to account—which, I take it, is in fact the main point behind the amendment.

I hope that my explaining this on the record will have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and that, in the light of what I have said, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

May I answer the noble Lord first? I am not talking about the West Midlands or Warwickshire; I am talking about what is in the Bill and why we are doing what we are doing. I will come on to the Warwickshire issue in a bit, but this has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. What I am saying now is about the Bill and not about Warwickshire.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Do the Government have any limit for the expansion of mayoral combined authorities? If Warwickshire is allowed to accede to the West Midlands —Worcestershire is nearby and Staffordshire is next door. What is on the other side? I am thinking of between Coventry and Birmingham. It could get very large, so I want to know if there is a limit. This is a serious question, because when the West Yorkshire Combined Authority was created, we were not permitted to include parts of North Yorkshire, which had always been part of that combined authority before it had mayoral status. This is an interesting question for me in West Yorkshire, as well as for those who live in the West Midlands area.

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 34, I shall also speak to Amendments 40 to 42, 44 to 50, 55 to 57, 290, 297 and 306.

Amendments 34 and 306 give those preparing for and running the proposed east Midlands CCA mayoral elections in May 2024 early clarity as to the rules. Amendment 306 commences Clause 25 and Schedule 2, which contain the relevant powers upon Royal Assent. Amendment 34 enables the statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission, and the commission’s recommendations as to candidate expense limits, to occur before commencement in the east Midlands.

Amendment 50 amends Schedule 4, the current drafting of which provides only for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to input on local skills improvement plans covering any of their area. However, the devolution framework in the levelling up White Paper states that this will be available to all CAs and CCAs and individual local authorities with a devolution deal. This amendment will allow all CAs and CCAs, including those without mayors, as well as local authorities with devolved adult education functions, to have their views on the relevant local skills improvement plans considered by the Secretary of State. These alterations will allow devolution deals in areas with devolved adult education functions to be fully implemented.

Amendments 55, 56, 57, 290 and 297 seek to amend Clauses 65 and 231. In its 24th report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that any regulations regarding the membership of CAs and CCAs, as made through powers confirmed by Sections 104C and 107K of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or this Bill should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the existing mixed resolution procedure, whereby only the initial statutory instruments made are subject to the affirmative process. I thank the committee for its work in relation to the powers in the Bill. These amendments accept that recommendation and will ensure that an appropriate level of scrutiny is achieved for regulations relating to membership of CAs and CCAs.

The remaining government amendments in this group are all consequential, amending the Equality Act 2010 and the Localism Act 2011 to apply provisions in these Acts to CCAs to allow the model to work in practice. Given their importance in allowing CCAs to operate as a local government institution, and to enable the first CCA mayoral election, I hope that noble Lords can support these amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I begin, as I generally do, by reminding the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I wish particularly to speak to government Amendment 34. I was quite astonished when I read it; it brings to the Bill a new issue that has not been discussed previously either at Second Reading or in Committee. I was also astonished because the amendment attempts to bypass the independence of the Electoral Commission. The commission was established to improve trust in our electoral arrangements. That is its function, and we rely on it to provide its stamp of approval for the arrangements made for elections.

To use a strong word, this is quite a pernicious amendment because it attempts to bypass the independent consultation of the Electoral Commission. I will tell the House what it says. The Bill, in its Schedule 2, currently expects the Electoral Commission to be involved in setting the arrangements for mayoral elections. On page 286, paragraph 12(4) states that

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”

and in sub-paragraph (5) that

“the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations … is exercisable only on, and in accordance with, a recommendation of the Electoral Commission”.

Government Amendment 34 states that the requirements in the two sub-paragraphs I have just quoted

“may be satisfied by things done before the coming into force of this paragraph”.

In other words, the Government are going to bypass those requirements. That cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment is really important for democratic overview of policing in a combined authority area. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has said, West Yorkshire already has a mayor and a non-elected police and crime commissioner, because the arrangement for West Yorkshire—sadly, in my view—was that the two roles would be combined. The elected Mayor of West Yorkshire is therefore also responsible as police and crime commissioner. The consequence of combining those two roles has been that the Mayor of West Yorkshire was able to appoint a police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire.

The whole concept of police and crime commissioners was that there would be democratic accountability for the oversight of policing in a police service area. In West Yorkshire and other places, I think including Manchester, that democratic accountability has disappeared because the mayors in those places—I live in West Yorkshire so I know the situation well—have appointed people they know as police and crime commissioner.

That is no reflection on or criticism of the job that that individual does, but it is a criticism of the lack of democratic accountability. If the oversight of police and crime in a very large area—2.5 million people—is given to an appointed person and the electorate cannot vote them out of office, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. That is why Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is so important. The Government have gone in the wrong direction on this one. If we are to have police and crime commissioners, they need to be elected, as they are everywhere else in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for outlining her rationale for tabling Amendment 36: to clarify the relationship between PCCs and mayors, and their respective roles and responsibilities. She asked if the Government want to phase out PCCs. There is no intention to do so. The intention is to allow mayors only in some areas to exercise PCC functions. Some areas will never have mayors who do so because only in coterminous areas can mayors take those functions.

The levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspirations for—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The noble Baroness said that you could have a combined police and crime commissioner and mayor only where there is coterminosity. If combined authorities are now able to expand, will that undo that requirement?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. I hate to bring up the West Midlands—I know the noble Lord opposite will be very pleased that I am—but the Mayor of the West Midlands has a choice: he can either agree to pursue the expansion to include Warwickshire, which has its own PCC, so he could no longer take the PCC role, or he can take the PCC role and therefore not Warwickshire. That is the reality of what we are doing. I hope I have explained that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, I disagree wholeheartedly with my noble friend. In the lockdown period, I thought it was awful when people had to vote remotely and were charged with being on a beach somewhere. I believe that, in politics, we need each other; we need debate and discussion and to hear other points of view. I believe that doing that in person is right for a healthy democracy.

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group apparently have little in common, but they do. Their common feature is that they are all about fairness. Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley is about fair voting systems. I obviously support his remarks about the importance to our democracy of having an electoral process and system that is seen to be fair to the electorate. As he rightly said, anyone elected with a third of the vote does not have the support of the majority of the electorate in their area. Fairness in voting is very important.

Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is about fair funding. If levelling up—the name of the Bill—means anything, one element must be fairness across the country. This means fairness in terms of our democracy and fairness in terms of the financial support given to communities across England.

One thing we know is that our communities across the country vary considerably in their levels of inequality. As I have said many times during the debate on this Bill, the levelling up White Paper is full of information about how some people in some parts of our country are at a huge disadvantage because of the inequalities that they suffer as compared with the rest of the country. We have listed these inequalities before: in health, in skills, in access to public transport, in crime levels in their areas and in the quality of the housing and green spaces available. There is a plethora of examples of where some communities and the people who live in them are at a serious disadvantage because of those inequalities. At the heart of that are the councils that serve them. If councils have inadequate funding to provide the level of services that respond to the level of need, those inequalities will persist and get wider.

This brings me back to fair funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, fair funding has been a promise of this Government—a pledge, even—for six years, and rightly so. The national audit companies that do the external audits for local authorities make regular reports about the state of the whole local government system and its financial well-being. I read those reports because they are important; they give you an independent look at the state of local government. They say clearly that a number of local authorities in England will soon not be able to fulfil even their basic statutory responsibilities because they have inadequate finance. As the external auditors say, that is not because there is profligacy in the way the councils are run; it is simply because they have inadequate funds to fulfil their responsibilities. This could be because the areas have high levels of need and deprivation to respond to but it could also mean that they have historically inadequate levels of funding; that is why fair funding is so important.

I understand why the Government have been reluctant to fulfil a fair funding review. Unless there is a bucketload of extra money for local government finance, which I doubt, it will require a re-spreading of the same amount of funding for local authorities. This means that there will be winners but there will also be losers. I guess that is why the Government have so far failed to tackle this thorny issue. I accept that it is not easy but it is essential.

The cause of this is partly the base level of council tax that each authority can raise. Band D is supposed to be the average across the country. However, in my authority, it is band A+, if you like. In the council area that I represent, 66% of the properties are in bands A and B. They cannot raise the same levels of funding from council tax that others can. It also means that people who are living in very modest properties are paying high levels of council tax. None of that is fair. I come back to fairness and levelling up because, if levelling up is to mean anything, it must mean—I say it again—more investment in the very areas that the Government’s White Paper identifies. Those are the same areas that are underfunded in terms of their core funding with which to deliver essential public services.

I support Amendment 63 and urge the Government to put something into practice—to do something. Even if it has to be phased in, there must be a better approach to the funding of local government than we have currently. I will put the same pressure on the Labour Front Bench that my noble friend did. If Labour gets into government, will it do fair funding? It is vital because, otherwise, a number of councils will no longer be able to sustain basic services.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the fair funding review, which I take to mean the 2018 government consultation on fairer funding for local government, A Review of Relative Needs and Resources.

I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that publication of the review would not now serve any useful purpose. As I explained in Committee, the data on which the review was based are now historic. First, the review does not take into account the 2021 census and demographic data. Secondly, neither the data nor the consultation responses take any account of the events of the past five years, including, most significantly, the Covid-19 pandemic and the advent of high inflation. Both developments have profoundly changed our economic landscape. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has pointed out previously, using outdated information is a fundamental issue in today’s system. Publishing the response to the fair funding review at this point in time would not help us to fix this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

I have been asked again by the Cadogan Estate to say that a consultation on the scheme took place, with information being sent to nearly 13,000 properties, but only 1,170 responses were received. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for the two amendments in his name, which relate to a specific issue that he also raised in Committee. On the face of it, Amendment 64 is a general plea to make business improvement districts more responsive to the views of the residents that they affect.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, has used as an example an area of London of which I know little, so I will not be able to respond or comment in any way on the specifics of that. However, on the generalities of business improvement districts and the amendment in the noble Lord’s name, business improvement districts play a significant role in economic development. They are a tool that local authorities can use to stimulate business enhancement in parts of the local authority district, so that is important.

Business improvement districts vary considerably across the country. Some, as my noble friend Lady Thornhill has told me, work very well, such as in her area of Watford. However, in some areas of the country they have been perhaps more disruptive and less effective. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made a very important point about always taking local residents with you. That is important in a democracy: if you upset the local residents, I can tell you that they now have many tools by which to make their views known. I am really pleased that the noble Lord has brought the generality of business improvement districts and their relationship with residents that are impacted by them to the attention of the House in this Bill, along with the importance of always listening to local people and responding effectively to what they have to say.

I appreciate that in Committee the Minister was—how do I put this?—lukewarm in her response. I wonder whether today she could be tepid or warm in her response, because that would help resolve the issue that the noble Lord has identified. I am sure it will have to be replicated in other parts of the country, but not everywhere, because some BIDs work very well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for bringing both these amendments forward. It enabled a lot of thoughtful discussion in Committee and again now on Report.

It is disappointing that there has not been adequate consultation on the particular BID and the programme that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke about. I did some work in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea after the Grenfell disaster. The Grenfell disaster was literally the worst example of a council not listening to its residents. It had been told for many years of the concerns that residents had and had not listened to them. Of course, that has changed the way that many councils now listen to their residents—for example, through resident programmes. I had hoped that was the case there, but perhaps it is just this example where it is not. Let us be hopeful and optimistic that that is the case.

On these Benches we absolutely support the principle that residents should be engaged in key changes to their local areas, including business improvement districts. It is just as important that residents in an area are engaged as it is for the businesses participating in the zone concerned. We are in the process of a £1 billion town centre redevelopment in my area. Every step of the way, we have taken the trouble to consult extensively with residents. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how there may be some more specific consultation for BIDs and how the Government might further consider that.

In relation to the other amendment the noble Lord spoke to, in principle we fully support the full engagement of residents in decision-making, although we have some concerns about the financial implications of the proposals to compel the use of outside agencies. I think the noble Lord used the term third parties—that might be a different independent third party, and sometimes could be interpreted as outside agencies and consultants, which are notoriously expensive when they do this work on behalf of councils.

I draw attention to the report pulled together by the RSA and the Inclusive Growth Network called Transitions to Participatory Democracy: How to Grow Public Participation in Local Governance. It makes a number of recommendations on growing the engagement of local people so that you have a more sustained participation journey, rather than these out-of-the-blue consultations on planning and other things happening at decision-making points, in which people come to the table with a negative view right from the start. It is much better if people feel that they have more permanent engagement with their local authority.

The report recommends that these routes should be developed over time, strongly based on meeting people and local organisations where they are and not expecting them to engage on council territory. We need consultation to take place earlier in the process—so that people are engaged in the design of schemes or projects and they are not produced like a rabbit out of the hat for people to comment on—and never when decisions have already been taken. If you have already taken the decision, do not tell people that you are consulting on it because they will see through that straight away. That is really important.

This has been a very useful prompt to think these issues through. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, before I start, I repeat my relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This group of amendments concerns the Government’s proposal to introduce the infrastructure levy as a replacement for the existing community infrastructure levy—CIL—and Section 106. My Amendment 68 seeks to leave out Clause 129, which establishes the infrastructure levy, and Amendment 90 would delete the relevant Schedule 12.

My reasons for this dramatic action are these. The infrastructure levy as currently proposed is contrary to the purpose of the Bill, which is to enable the levelling up of areas that are defined in the White Paper. The IL fails to contribute to that levelling-up mission because the amount that it will be possible to set as an infrastructure levy rate will be dependent on land values. Land values are much lower in the very areas that are the focus in the White Paper of levelling up. Using the existing community infrastructure levy as an example, land is zoned according to land values. At the independent examination of CIL in Kirklees, where I am a councillor, the planning inspector reduced the CIL charge to nil pounds—nothing—per square metre for a zone which includes the allocated site for 2,000 houses. This is not levelling up.

One of the criticisms of the infrastructure levy is that it will not be site specific. That means that communities that have large housing developments will not necessarily benefit from improved facilities, such as open green space, play areas, and funding to support school places as well as affordable housing on site. Any infrastructure levy can be spent anywhere in the council district.

Another of the major criticisms is that the charge will be paid by the developer only towards the end of the construction period, which may be a number of years. Meanwhile, it is expected that local authorities will have to borrow to build the new facilities needed in the expectation of funding at a sometimes much later stage.

It has also been argued that developers avoid funding infrastructure because of claims about the financial viability of a development. My noble friend Lord Stunell’s Amendment 94 aims to shine a strong light of transparency on viability. I agree with him.

The main contention during the debate on the infrastructure levy was on the provision of so-called affordable housing. There are amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, that have the worthy aim of linking the income from the infrastructure levy to the building of houses for affordable sale or rent. We support those aims, but one of the downsides of this approach is that the infrastructure levy is designed to fund affordable housing and local facilities. There is a risk that, in some areas, it would all be spent on housing, which is positive but to the detriment of important local facilities.

Such is the level of concern about the infrastructure levy proposals that representations have been made by more than 30 organisations, including the County Councils Network, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Shelter, the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation. The concerns expressed are about complexity, upheaval and uncertainty.

Finally, the Government have stated that the infra- structure levy will be in a test and learn state. This creates further uncertainty. Further, because the infrastructure levy is to be phased in, developers will be dealing with different charging regimes in different parts of the country for many years to come. That clearly adds to uncertainty and complexity for developers. Perhaps the Government have lost confidence in the scheme as proposed.

The difficulty with the infrastructure levy is that this is not the right time to change developer charging systems, nor will it provide sufficient funding at the appropriate time to fund affordable housing and local facilities for developments. It is time for a total rethink. I will listen very carefully and closely to the Minister’s response. If I am not entirely satisfied with the response she provides, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 70 and 94 in my name in this group. I want to add my strong support to Amendment 68, moved by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, which aims to get rid of the IL altogether. She has spoken very powerfully to that point, saying not least that it is contrary to the central purpose of the levelling up White Paper and to the whole substance of the mission statements, which are set out—or rather, the skeletons of which have been laid—at the front end of the Bill.

The complexities and the unintended consequences of the infrastructure levy were explored in depth in Committee. The Government are now reduced to saying that it will be piloted first on a “test and learn” basis, and that it may be introduced piecemeal over the next decade rather than as a big bang, which I suppose is the beginning of some sort of reality check. The Government’s own amendments, which are in this group and which we shall hear about shortly, are an attempt to water it down a bit further. As my noble friend said, the Government seem to have rather lost confidence in the infrastructure levy providing the solutions that they originally imagined.

Well, we are a little bit ahead of the Government. We have completely lost confidence in the infrastructure levy as a vehicle for positive change on the delivery of affordable homes or indeed decent infrastructure associated with new development. The infrastructure levy is beyond repair. This duck is dead. I certainly hope that, if my noble friend Lady Pinnock does not get the assurances that she is looking for and a vote is called, noble Lords will go into the Content Lobby with her.

I wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has to say about Amendment 69 and what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has to say about Amendment 71. I would say that what they are offering is palliative care rather than resuscitation of the levy. Either or both of those amendments would be definite improvements on anything the Government have tabled, so I will wait to see what is said about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has tabled Amendment 311, which is an admirable setting out of preconditions—preconditions which are so obvious and sensible that I fear the Government will reject them out of hand. Instead of seeing this for what it is—an attempt to introduce sound legislative principles into the Government’s Bill management, which I would have thought they would welcome—I suspect they will just see it as some kind of amendment to kick the whole project into the long grass. But in default of anything else, will the Minister please give the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, some help with getting those preconditions written into this model?

I turn to my Amendment 70. This returns to the vexed issue of what is affordable when we talk about affordable homes. Affordability is used in legislation at present based on the idea that, provided that there is a discount on the going market rate, a home in the private sector is thereby affordable. It is currently a standard discount, which takes no account at all of incomes in the locality, nor does it pay any attention to price differentials between similar homes. For instance, similar homes in an outer London borough such as Sutton, where I was born, are a factor of two more expensive than those in the metropolitan borough of Stockport, where I live. So for “affordability” to mean the same in the two boroughs, incomes in Sutton would need to be double those in Stockport to match the ratio of incomes to the discounted sale prices in the two boroughs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and challenges to what I have said during this important debate. I particularly thank the Minister for being so generous with her time prior to Report in order to discuss these issues and to respond so constructively to the elements raised in Committee about affordable housing concerns, as well as for having spoken so persuasively—although maybe not quite persuasively enough—in response to this debate, giving as always a full reply to all the issues that were raised.

I come back to the fact that this is not about reforming a planning system; it is a levelling-up Bill, part of which will have to look at how we build more social and affordable housing, and communities that are healthy, safe and ready for the future. However, I come back to the fact that was raised by the Minister: these regulations could be disapplied by some local authorities if the development was deemed economically unviable to raise the funding. Those are the very same places which this Bill and the Government’s own White Paper wanted us to focus on, to raise up those communities so they can enjoy the same level of prosperity as other parts of the country. I repeat that the CIL level in a large part of the authority which I represent was set by the planning inspector at zero. That is the problem with the infrastructure levy. The example that the Minister gave of Pendle demonstrates that some authorities will not be able to build enough affordable housing under this system.

The organisations that wrote to the Secretary of State retain many of the concerns about the infrastructure levy. The system remains complex and very uncertain, for developers and for local authorities. It will be expensive to operate, and difficult to set the levy at the right level. I accept there is a need for reform of the existing CIL and Section 106, but this is not it. This is adding on something, as we have heard, so that we will have three different systems running side by side. People and developers will be confused, and local authorities will not be sure how much money they will be able to raise.

I hear the strength of feeling the Minister expressed in her response to the debate. Nevertheless, given all those worries that I have—fundamental concerns— I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 96 and 98, to which my noble friend Lord Young has just spoken so eloquently and compellingly. I share with him a sense of gratitude to our noble friends for the time they have given and for the way in which they have addressed a range of concerns. However, I have to confess that not least my noble friend’s detailed examination of community land auctions in theory caused me to inquire of several people how it might work in practice, although we have not seen that in reality. Those are a few hours of my life I shall never see again, but the conclusion I reached at the end of that was that it will not happen. That is probably the main reason why my noble friend may choose not to press this amendment to a Division to remove this provision from the Bill: it will sit in the Bill, it will become part of the Act and it will never see the light of day beyond that point.

Why? First, because as we have just debated, Part 4 provides for what is, in effect, a mandatory system for all local authorities for deriving developer contributions. Unless that is an utter failure, I cannot see why local authorities would want to go down the path of community land auctions, as opposed to having a much fairer and more equitable system of levy. Secondly, let us look at how it actually works. My noble friend is saying that the regulations will tell us in due course under what circumstances a local authority can enter a scheme. Clause 133(2) says:

“The local plan may only allocate land in the authority’s area for development … if the land is subject to a CLA option or a CLA option has already been exercised in relation to it”.


So, in preparing a local plan—this is before the planning process is completed, so following a call for sites—the local planning authority must seek options from all the sites put forward before they are chosen to be allocated or not to be allocated.

Let us have a look at that. I declare my interest again as chair of Cambridgeshire Development Forum. In 2019, in preparation for a local plan, the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service issued a call for sites. It received 675 applications. In 2020, it allocated 19 sites. We therefore have, I think, in this joint plan area, 656 sites that have to go through the process of agreeing a community land auction option and disclosing the price—actually, as the lawyers rightly tell me, not only disclosing the price, which many landowners and developers will resist, but agreeing a legally watertight potential option before the point at which the allocation is made. These options will cease to have effect only when the plan is adopted or approved. In this instance, that is expected to be in the middle of 2025, just ahead of the Bill’s cut-off date. That means that, under these circumstances, the community land auction options would subsist for nearly six years, during which 656 sites will be held in abeyance and nothing can effectively be done with them. The price on those 656 sites, at which they are willing to sell, would have been disclosed, while the actual value will continue to change.

I do not see any evidence that local planning authorities have any desire to go down this path and engage in this process. Of course, it is optional, as my noble friend will no doubt remind us—local planning authorities do not have to do it. The conclusion I have reached is that they will not do it. Therefore, in reality, my noble friend did the Government a service by suggesting that it be taken out and the Bill be lightened. As it happens, I suspect Ministers will not do that, but I think they must be realistic and understand that this is proceeding with very little chance of success.

[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 ---

For me, “overall” means “on the one hand, on the other hand”; it means trade-offs. We all know that trade-offs notoriously diminish levels of protection and often promise jam tomorrow that never materialises, so I am deeply suspicious of anything that looks at overall levels of environmental protection when we are in fact assessing a mechanism that will look at specific cases over time. I believe that Amendment 106 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would provide a much more robust assurance and non-regression test by taking “overall” out of the equation, so I hope that the House will support the noble Baroness’s amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important set of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. They seek assurances from the Government that the replacement for the existing environmental tests for development—environmental outcomes reports—will be as robust as the ones they will replace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a powerful case for a non-regression clause with her Amendment 106. Recently, there has been a lot of debate about this and pressure from those who want to point the finger of responsibility at the planning system for failing to produce the right number and quality of homes that are desperately needed in this country. When they do so, they point out the additional responsibilities of developers to adhere to environmental responsibilities and regulations, which are causing the difficulties they express. Of course, it is never as easy as that.

It seems to me that, after many years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, we have a much better balance now between development and protection of the environment in which developments are set. There are responsibilities that developers have to take up in order to make sure that they construct and do not destroy; to make sure that they create communities that sit well in their environment; and to make sure that nature and the environment are looked after for existing and future generations. So the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has made important points here; I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to them, because they are important. I guess that they will be raised again later on in our debates on Report.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

One of the problems that I raised during our debate on 18 May in Committee was the problem of surface water run-off from farms and roads, which was causing problems for our rivers. I am extremely grateful to and would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter that he sent me on 23 June, in which he commented a bit more on the points that I raised. The interesting thing about that letter was his comment on the surface run-off from roads. He said that Defra was

“working with the Department for Transport to reduce the impact of the strategic road network and roads managed by local highways authorities on water bodies”.

It just shows what an important cross-government issue this is.

The difficulty that my noble friend has is that he has to work at one remove from the local authorities. The reason I stress the local authorities is that the next day, on 19 May, I was on the River Piddle, a lovely chalk stream, and at 3.30 pm the river was gin clear—it was what a chalk stream should be. We had quite a good thunderstorm and within an hour that river was chocolate brown; it was full of silt and run-off, and the roads were under water. There was run-off from the farmland adjacent to the river—the whole aquatic environment of the river was affected by that thunder- storm; it was a short-term disaster for the river, created by human behaviour. Something similar happened to us humans when we had the smog in the early 1950s. We tackled that problem; it was a manmade problem and we tackled it with the Clean Air Act. It is equally important that we now tackle the problems facing our rivers. It will take a major effort by the Government and across government to do that.

All our rivers are important, but why are the chalk streams just that bit more important? It is worth reiterating that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England; they are our equivalent of the rainforests. We have a special responsibility to those rivers, and if we do not give a lead to the rest of the world on such an important issue, we will not be doing nature justice.

There are three key indicators of the ecological health of rivers: water quality, water quantity and the physical habitat. The key to getting all of those right is management. The Government will need every single tool in the toolbox and every policy to be able to take the necessary action to fight off the vested challenges from all quarters that they will need to do to establish chalk streams to the standard that we expect and fulfil the one big wish, so rightly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.

The Bill is about regenerative action and levelling up, and it is intended to give places a sense of identity. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, many of the rivers flow through towns as well as the countryside. The restoration of the rivers could bring huge opportunities and benefits to those towns and to the countryside for both nature and humans. If we do not take this opportunity, we will be letting nature and ourselves down.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville is unfortunately unable to attend today, as she is not well. I will say a few words on her behalf.

First, I endorse entirely what has already been said about the environmental importance of chalk streams. I think it was David Attenborough who described them as one of the rarest habitats on earth. If David Attenborough says that, we must listen and listen carefully.

Secondly, I want to say something about pollution and about water extraction. The Environment Agency has responsibility for giving permission to water companies for the level of extraction, be it from rivers or aquifers. Indeed, there are aquifers in Yorkshire—not in my part, but in the East Riding—which Yorkshire Water extracts from. What I do know is that aquifers take a long time to refill after periods of extraction. I look to the Minister to respond on water extraction from aquifers. The amount of water taken from aquifers obviously then impacts on the flow in chalk streams, which is essential for their protection.

What I want to say about pollution from sewage overflow discharge is this. About 150 years ago there was a Conservative Prime Minister in this country who had a policy of sewage. That is exactly what this country needs now. A Conservative Government run this country, so perhaps they can adopt Disraeli’s policy of sewage. It would be a bit late, but it would not be before time if they did.

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

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and others who have spoken. The noble Baroness should read our Plan for Water, which does exactly what she said. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register.

I turn to Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I defer to no one in the verbal arms race that usually takes place in these debates about who can be the greatest supporter of chalk streams. I am passionate about them, and I want to see our chalk streams, which are one of the most valuable ecosystems in these islands, restored to pristine health. I note the passion from across the House on the need to protect these habitats further.

The Government recognise that chalk streams in England are internationally important and unique, and in many cases in poor health. We are committed to restoring England’s chalk streams. We have recently reaffirmed this commitment in our Plan for Water, which I just referred to, which recognises chalk streams as having special natural heritage.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Government Amendments 154 to 160 relate to compulsory purchase land compensation. They seek to ensure that the compulsory purchase compensation hope value direction measure already included in the Bill applies comparably and consistently in Wales. The amendments are being made at the request of the Welsh Government, who asked for the hope value direction measure to apply to the Welsh Ministers’ CPO powers under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 for housing provision and to Welsh NHS trusts’ CPO powers. The amendments will allow the Welsh Ministers and Welsh NHS trusts to include in their CPOs a direction for the non-payment of hope value, providing they can demonstrate that there is a compelling justification in the public interest to secure the direction. I therefore beg to move Amendment 152 in my name.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this group of amendments, which largely—not entirely—relate to the rights and responsibilities of Senedd Cymru. Throughout the Bill the Government have had to bring back, as amendments, changes to it to reflect the devolution rights and responsibilities of both the Scottish Government and the Senedd Cymru.

It strikes me as unfortunate that, even 10 years or more after devolution has become fully developed, the Government are still unable to understand that different nations of the UK have particular rights and responsibilities. They are unable to appreciate that or to understand the extent of those rights and responsibilities. It would be good to know that the lesson has reached the distant parts of the Government and that we will have no more of these hasty amendments to put right government legislation impinging on the rights of the devolved nations. Would it not be great if the Minister could give us that assurance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group brings up to date the provisions in the Bill so that they are appropriately applied to Wales. It also updates the list of types of compulsory purchase that can be made, subject to common data standards—we accept that this is important. We have had much discussion about the issues of hope value during the passage of the Bill, and it is therefore absolutely right that the Minister responded to Senedd Cymru’s request to make that apply in Wales as well.

I associate this side of the House with the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It would be helpful if these types of provisions could be consulted on with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations before they come before this House. But I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the Welsh Senedd’s request, and we are pleased to see these amendments coming forward today.

--- Later in debate ---

On these Benches, we strongly support the amendment submitted in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Baroness Hayman, on the development of regional mutual banks in the UK. I have seen at first hand how effectively these operate in Germany to support the SME sector, and in his excellent article for City A.M., the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, sets out that in 2021 SME funding was £600 billion in Germany, whereas in the UK it was only £57 billion. I am not going to steal any of the noble Lord’s lines, but he is right in his aim to increase financial inclusion for SMEs. I hope our amendments will be accepted by the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 282D in my name would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a review of the business rates system. The Government know that the current system is flawed and fails to reflect modern business practices. There have been several Bills in the last few years that have tweaked the non-domestic rating system—as the Minister knows, we have one currently before the House—but these are just tweaks to a complex set of business taxation that is in desperate need of fundamental reform.

The system is basically flawed, as illustrated by the fact that the Treasury pays out billions of pounds in support of small businesses every year, via the small business rates relief. This demonstrates that there has to be a more effective way to levy businesses to support the local services on which they depend.

It is not only me saying that business rates need fundamental reform. Many business commentators have urged for a fundamental review. The Centre for Cities published a report in 2020 which proposed 11 changes to the business rates system. The IFS has published a report pointing to spatial inequalities that are “profound and persistent”.

A fundamental review is long overdue, and the amendment in my name simply asks that a review considers the effects of business rates on high streets and rural areas, and compares that information with an alternative business taxation system—for instance, land value taxation, which was referred to in the IFS report. The spatial inequalities explored in the report are at the heart of the levelling-up agenda. Any detailed review of business rates should gather relevant data on the impact of business rates on different parts of the country.

The Government have recognised what they have called “bricks vs clicks”, and in the Financial Statement earlier this year raised rates for warehousing. However, that steers clear of the major issue facing our high streets, which is the competitive advantage that online retailers have over high street retailers when it comes to the rates applied for business rates.

I have mentioned several times in this Chamber the glaring difference between warehousing for a very large online retailer, which may be at the rate of £45 per square metre, compared with the rate for a small shop in a small town of £250 per square metre. The change to raise the rates for warehousing does nothing to address that vast gap. For instance, it was reported that the change introduced this year by the Government cost Amazon £29 million. That might sound a considerable sum to some people, but it is pennies in the pot for a big online retailer such as Amazon. It really needs to start paying its fair share towards local services. Its little vans whizz round our streets, and Amazon needs to pay for the upkeep of them. The rate of its contribution is small in comparison to the services it uses. That is the argument for a huge, fundamental review of the system as is stands.

We also have to take into account the impact of any changes on local government. A large portion of a council’s income now derives from business rates, and any changes to the system by the Government to reduce the burden on businesses—which they did in the Statement by freezing the multiplier—results in compensation to local government for those changes. This again demonstrates that the system is not fit for purpose.

We currently have a system that says that these are the rates, but oh dear, they are too big for charities, small businesses and so on, and then provides relief which costs the Treasury billions of pounds a year. When any further changes are made, that has an impact on desperately needed income for local councils. Therefore, there will have to be compensation in that regard also. This demonstrates that the business rates system, as currently set up, is really not doing the job it needs to do. I repeat that a fundamental review is essential.

It is important to add that the way in which business rates income is demonstrated, via the tariffs and top-ups arrangements, creates further unfairness This becomes more noticeable as councils struggle to balance their budgets.

A business rates system that encourages business development and growth must be at the heart of any strategy to bring more prosperity and jobs to those areas defined in the White Paper as being the focus for levelling up. I do not need to spell out what that might mean, but it could perhaps be reduced rates for some areas, to encourage development and the movement of businesses to those areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, raised similar issues in moving her amendment to support the pub industry, which we support. My noble friend Lord Scriven has signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who I do not think is in his place, regarding the establishment of regional mutual banks. We support this approach as another way of empowering regional businesses and entrepreneurs to take financial decisions which meet local ambitions, rather than the more risk-averse national banks. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, used the comparator of Germany. She is right that the mutual banks in Germany have done much to support their regionally-based industries, which does not happen in this country because of the way our banking system is set up.

I really hope the Minister will be able to say in her reply that the Government accept that the business rates system as currently devised is not fit for purpose and that they are looking to have fundamental review to reform it to the benefit of those places—because this is the levelling-up Bill, and I shall keep saying it: anything we do in the Bill should be in support of the levelling-up agenda. This does not do it, and that is why we need a reform of the business rates system.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, concerns the support for our pubs. We are all aware of the importance of our local pubs; they provide space for people to come together, they provide jobs and they support local economies. But we also know that the past few years have been a challenging time for our pubs, with the Covid-19 pandemic and the current high prices, caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, conspiring to put pressure on already tight operating margins.

Through the pandemic, we recognised that the hospitality sector needed to be more resilient against economic shocks. That is why, in July 2021, we published our first hospitality strategy, Reopening, Recovery and Resilience, which covers cafés, restaurants, bars, nightclubs and pubs.

In 2021—this is important for the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, of listening to the sector—we also established a Hospitality Sector Council to help deliver the commitments set out in the strategy. The council includes representatives from across the sector, including UKHospitality, the British Beer & Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping, as well as some of our best-known pub businesses. While we fully agree with the aim behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, the strategy she asks for already exists.

Moving on to Amendment 279, I notice that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond is not in his place, but the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, brought it up on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, so I will respond. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within three months of Royal Assent on the existing barriers to establishing regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom and instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to consult on barriers within competition law for this establishment and identify possible solutions.

I make it clear that the Government are supportive of the choice provided by mutual institutions in financial services. We 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 it 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 legislation and regulatory frameworks from those in the US, Europe and 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.

Additionally, the Competition and Markets Authority plays a key role in making sure that UK markets remain competitive, driving growth and innovation while also protecting consumers from higher prices or less choice. It is very important to note that the CMA is independently responsible for enforcing UK competition and consumer law. The Government cannot instruct the CMA to undertake a consultation. 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 to my noble friend on this issue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also strongly support what the noble Baroness said on this. It is something that I have been very concerned about for a long time and you cannot divorce it from the way that post offices have been run down by our Government. The reality is that post offices cannot now do many of the things that they used to do. It is a drip-drip thing that is gradually making it very difficult particularly for the elderly and those who have no access to a bank account or are not near a bank.

Whatever the Government might think of GB News, I do not understand why they will not look more at its huge petition to say that we do not want to be a cashless society. This is really important. The noble Baroness is starting the fightback, which I hope the Government will listen to. I hope that she puts this to a vote, because people talk a lot about it but, when it comes to the crunch, noble Lords need to show that they mean it; otherwise, it is useless us being here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is as if we were never away. I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a very strong case in support of her Amendment 164, to which I have added my name. This amendment is so important because this is, after all, a levelling-up Bill. If there is no access to financial services in the very places that are the focus of the Government’s mission statement for levelling up, we are doing them a disservice and not, in fact, helping to level up. So I hope the Minister will take heed of the noble Baroness’s arguments.

The House of Commons Library produced a very informative briefing on this very issue last year. One of its statistics was that overall use of cash payments fell from 45% of all transactions in 2015 to 17% in 2021. However, since the cost of living crisis, there has been anecdotal but substantial evidence that use of cash has increased as families find it easier to control their spending if they make cash payments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has argued on behalf of those without bank accounts; there are a large number of such people. How will they manage if they cannot access cash? Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, it is also more difficult for some older people and those with disabilities, particularly learning disabilities, to manage bank accounts, whereas they can live more independently with cash.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, all these changes to a more cashless society depend on a good mobile signal or access to broadband. Let us remember that these are simply not available in many parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, knows how difficult it is to access a mobile signal, let alone the internet, if you live in the Yorkshire Dales. Moving without thought to a lack of in-person banking access will seriously harm people in rural communities and those folk I mentioned.

So far, we have not thought much about local retailers in small towns and villages, which often carry out their transactions by cash. The question for those retailers, which some of them have raised with me, is where they deposit their cash if there is no bank available. If they have a substantial amount of cash, as some of them will, travelling with it and depositing it is a risk in itself.

The number of physical banks has fallen by 34% between 2012 and 2021—so says the House of Commons Library briefing. That is a substantial number. The Government anticipate that the loss of banks can, on the one hand, be resolved by people using post offices, but the number of post offices too is in sharp decline. Huddersfield is a very large town of more than 100,000 people. The post office in its centre has now moved into a branch of another shop, so it is not even a post office on its own. You have to walk through the shop to get to the post office at the back. That is hardly a presence in our towns and communities that encourages people to believe they have access to cash and banking facilities.

Finally, during the recess somebody told me about a particular banking problem they had. The bank had made an error in a transaction and wrongly attributed it as a charge on their account instead of as a payment. Resolving this problem took a couple of weeks. The person in question could access their internet account and tried resolving it that way. They failed. They tried to phone the bank: “Press 1, press 2, press 3”; “Hold on: I can’t do it”, they were told, “but ring in the morning, when somebody will know what to do”. In the morning, they were told, “Go to your local branch”, at which point the person in question said, “It closed last week. Where do you expect me to go?” In the end, they had to travel 20 miles to the nearest bank in a large city to try to see somebody to resolve the issue. It was then resolved, because you are more able to get such things sorted in person.

That will not be the only example; if I have heard of that, there will be numerous examples of that sort of situation. If that happened to an older person without access to the internet or the ability to get by public transport to a branch 10 or so miles away, they would have been at a huge disadvantage and lost that money, because there would be no way to resolve the issue. That is why banking and financial services need to have a physical presence in our communities. We do not expect every bank to have a branch everywhere, but we do expect the Government to agree to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to try to resolve this issue so that we can help to level up some of our communities and some of our folk. If the noble Baroness intends to move the amendment to a vote, we will certainly support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. I support this amendment because I think there is a huge need for people to know where they are. It is very simple but there is so much of this in government—and probably elsewhere—that people find it very hard to understand and react properly because they do not know where they are. In the planning system, this is particularly notable.

As my noble friend Lord Lansley made his speech, it all sounded so obvious and natural. It is exactly what we should do. Therefore, we know what the Government’s answer will be: “We will do that, so we do not need to put it into the Bill”. I am afraid I am becoming less and less willing to accept the promises of Ministers based on simply saying they will do something. We recently had a very good example of this. I thought we understood that we were not going to make deleterious environmental decisions in any legislation at all because we could trust Ministers not to do that. It is very debatable that that is now being maintained.

I say to the Minister that if it is something we do anyway, there is no harm in putting it in the Bill. If the Government object to something because they do not do it, then they should explain that they do not do it. However, if the argument is that the Government already do it and therefore do not need to put it in the Bill, I do not think the House should accept it any more. If the Government feel unhappy with that, I suggest that they remember they are not necessarily going to be the Government permanently. Therefore, when they are thinking deleteriously of those who might replace them, surely they would want to ensure that were they to be replaced, the new Government would have to accept the same rules. I do not think they need to feel unhappy; rather, they should say they are ensuring that the system works for everybody, whoever may be running it. It is also a good thing for a Government to recognise that people really want to know where they are, and this is one of the areas where we do not.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important point about the effectiveness of a plan-led system if local plans are not up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has enhanced that argument by saying that people need to know where they are. If this is only in guidance, but we require there to be local plans—as we do in a plan-led system—why is it not incorporated in statute? I hope the Minister will answer this question.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a fundamental issue. Local plans are at the very heart of a plan-led system. As well as setting out local planning policies, the local plan allocates land for new housing developments; it allocates land for business development, thereby allocating land for jobs; and it allocates land to be protected, such as the green-belt land allocation.

If local authorities are not preparing, or do not have, an up-to-date local plan, then land is not being allocated for development. We will later have debates about housing targets, but one of my concerns about housing targets is that, if local authorities do not have an up to date local plan, land is not being allocated or set aside for housing development. If land is not being set aside for housing development, it is very likely that new houses are not going to be built.

The government website helpfully has an alphabetical list of authorities and the status of their local plans—although it is unhelpful in being able to look at them more carefully. The vast majority do not have an up-to-date local plan. In fact, one or two on the list do not appear to have updated their local plan for several years. What that tells me is that, currently, the expectation is that local authorities will develop a local plan and have it agreed, with a full review after five years. Helpfully, my own authority is not one of those that does not have an up-to-date plan, and it is currently beginning a review a year ahead of expectation.

If land is not allocated for housing, how on earth do we expect housebuilding to take place? I hope the Minister will be able to help me with this, because some time ago in a previous debate on this, I thought I recalled the Minister stating that a five-year supply of land will no longer be a requirement and will be waived by the Government. As I understand it, at the moment that is the only stick to encourage—or force, even—local authorities to allocate land for housing in a local plan. Currently, although it may be waived—and I am waiting for the Minister to respond to that—as I understand it, if a local authority does not have a sufficient supply of land for a five-year allocation according to government housing targets, then developers can choose where to develop. It is open season for housebuilding. If that one stick is being waived—and I hope I have remembered that correctly—then I would like to hear from the Minister on how they will encourage local authorities to have up-to-date plans, because without them, I do not see how we will meet housebuilding targets.

The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised, are fundamental. When he replies, will he say whether he wishes to test the opinion of the House on this? Without an up-to-date plan, all the Government’s housing targets approach—which my party does not necessarily agree with—comes to nothing. Only the authorities that do the right thing, having difficult discussions with communities about allocating land for housing and other development, will supply the houses that need to be built. Everyone across parties accepts the importance of building more houses; how we get there is the issue. However, I would love to hear from the Minister how that will be enforced without an up-to-date local plan. If the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in responding wishes to push this further, we will support him.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to be back in your Lordships’ House. I remind the House of my interests as a serving councillor on both a district and a county council, and as a vice-president of the District Councils’ Network. I say for the record that, in spite of the considerable difficulties in doing so, not least the local MP calling our local plan in and it sitting on the Secretary of State’s desk for 451 days, my local authority has an up-to-date local plan.

During my several recent visits to Mid Bedfordshire—for reasons of which many Members of this House will be aware—it has become clear that the public are becoming increasingly aware of the key role that the planning system plays in determining the future of their area. This is very healthy, and I hope it will continue. That makes it even more important that local plans are up to date and meeting the current challenges of local areas and their communities. The importance and precedence of local plans within the new planning system envisaged in the Bill will be even more diminished where local authorities do not take responsibility for updating their local plans seriously. The figures we heard in Committee, that only 39% of local authorities have an up-to-date plan in place, and that there are around 60 local planning authorities whose plans are paused or stalled, already expose those areas to developers who want to take advantage of the absence of clear local direction. They are destined under the new regime in the Bill to see the views of local people overridden by NDMPs and other government direction. Our fear is that this will just reduce the incentive for local government to keep its plans up to date.

We have also seen that, in order to keep pace with rapid changes to local economies, it is vital that local authorities work with their business community to ensure that their local development plan is up to date and fit for purpose for that reason, as well as due to all the issues around land use.

The CPRE’s review of the impact of local plans led to its conclusion that

“the government needs to give councils more support and consider how to redefine the test for plans being ‘up-to-date’ in order to reinvigorate democratically accountable locally-led planning”.

For fear of misinterpretation, this does not mean the kind of centralisation of plans we see via proposed NDMPs or removing the powers to higher tiers, which we see in a government amendment that will be debated later today. Those options simply remove the connection between the local plan and engagement in its development by local people and communities.

I agree with and support all the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the weight that is given to out-of-date and emerging plans. They need to have that statutory weight, and that needs to apply to all plans that are considered. On recent issues, the development industry, for example—the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned this—has been very keen to stress the importance of it having more certainty in the planning system. Therefore, without clarifying even this element of plan making, about what is out of date and what is not, we leave the “how long is a piece of string” theory in place, which will hold sway in planning. Placing all these matters into guidance, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, does not give Parliament any role in this; on many occasions recently we have seen what happens when that occurs.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned that the uncertainty about the weight placed on an out-of-date or emerging plan, how out of date it has to be before it is actually out of date, and what a judge is going to say is and is not out of date, damages confidence in and the coherence of our planning system. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to the huge need for people to know where they are, and I could not agree more. If we think we are going to do it anyway, what is the harm putting it in the Bill so that we can all refer back to it? I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for talking about effectiveness of a plan-led system and the impact that out-of-date plans can have on the delivery of housing targets and the amount of housing needed in local areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, some issues continue to affect almost everything we do. One is the principle of subsidiarity—that we should ensure that we do not have a system where all power is centred at the top. That was a very important principle that the Popes upheld when dealing with both the Nazis and the communists, saying that both got rid of all the subsidiarity powers and concentrated them at the centre. Of course those people did so because they were, largely, wicked. The trouble is when it is done by people who think it is the best way forward, and that is what I fear here.

The planning system is obviously not good enough. I declare an interest here, having spent almost a whole year trying to turn a house back into the pub that it was before. You would have thought they would have been keen on all that but, my goodness, there are many complications in trying to do it. However, although we recognise this about the planning system, you do not overcome it by putting on top of that system something that is seen by others as being dictatorial. Unless this power is clearly controlled and confined by the parliamentary procedures that enable it to be used in a way that the public will see is subject to democratic control, then I believe it will fail. It is not just a question of it not being suitable, and it is not just a philosophical question; it is that it will not actually work.

One knows what Ministers have been advised to say: the amendment would make the process more difficult, slower and more complex. Well, sometimes doing things more slowly is a good thing because it gives you time to make sure that you get it right. Sometimes making it more complex is necessary because the issue is more complex, and pretending that it is not means that you make a mistake.

I come back to a question that is particularly affecting me at the moment. We have now seen a number of examples where Ministers have said, “It’s not necessary to do this because we’re going to do it anyway”. I remember Ministers who promised us that we would not sign contracts with other nations that undermined our farmers, but we have done precisely that. We have a case at the moment where Ministers said there would be no diminution of environmental protection and therefore we did not need to put it in the Act, but I fear that is precisely what has happened.

I am in the same position here. I am sure that Ministers intend to do the right thing, and I am sure that Ministers coming from any reasonable party might intend to do so, but, as a former Minister of 16 years, I think it was very good for me to have to do the right thing. That is what I think we ought to put here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this policy proposal is one of the most contentious issues that we have debated throughout the course of the Bill. So far, it has been a very thoughtful and considered debate about the importance or otherwise of having a centralised group of planning policies imposed on local authorities.

This approach, of having a set of national policies that are imposed on local planning authorities, is not new and does not have a happy history. Even from before my time in local government, some will remember the imposition of county structure plans. Local authorities had to agree to those plans and abide by what was stated in them. That did not end very well. Then in 2004 there was the introduction of regional spatial strategies—this just goes to show that all parties in government have a tendency to centralise—which I remember debating, and they did not end well either. My serious point is that these are messages from history for the Minister and the Government showing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has said, trying to impose on local communities the Government’s idea of national policies that must be adhered to does not have a happy history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peers for the Planet and I have a close family member who works in this area. The last two contributions have added to the clear exposition of Amendment 191 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, so I can say very little.

I will just say this. I seem to have spent the last three years in this Chamber trying to persuade the Government that in every area in which we legislate—pensions, financial services, skills or whatever we are looking at—if we believe that this is a crucial issue, as the Government say and the public support, and we want to keep to the legislative targets we have enacted in statute on environmental issues and climate, we have to will the means as well as the ends and we have to do it in a coherent way.

I know very little about the planning system. What I have learned, through a little bit of personal experience of trying to do something green and through listening to briefings on this issue, is that there is not coherence, consistency or a clear direction from government that goes throughout the whole system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. The reason why so many outside organisations, such as the construction industry, town planners and people who work in local authorities and want to do this, are supportive of this is that they want a clear framework so that everyone is on the same page on the need for action. Of all the areas I talked about where we have made legislative progress, planning is central—so I very much support Amendment 191.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said that our planet faces an existential crisis. We must ensure that we take every opportunity to deliver policies and practices that will enable us to tackle the climate change emergency. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to say that the beauty of Amendment 191 is that it deals with national policy—it could and should be in the national development management policies, but we do not know whether it will be yet—and, equally, is important for local plan-making and local planning decisions. So the amendment deserves and will get our wholehearted support.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

I will share one of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, gave from her experience—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Lady Bakewell.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—it is late. Planning at all levels generally requires mineral extraction. In Somerset, many quarries provide both aggregates and stone of various types for housing construction, and we will need more of it. Some of this comes from the Mendip Hills, some from the blue lias quarries at Hadspen and a smaller proportion from the Ham stone quarries. Not to have the authority whose responsibility it is to license the extraction from these quarries involved in the preparation of the joint spatial development strategy is, my noble friend would say, foolish in the extreme. It could lead to divisions among not only the authorities themselves but the residents they represent, because such an operation involves lorry movement, hours of operation and community facilities to compensate local communities for disruption. We could all provide loads of examples of where such collaboration is vital.

Casting a glance at the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I say that I was probably the only leader in the east of England—there were possibly two of us—who did not celebrate the scrapping of regional strategies. They were abandoned just as I had begun to learn the value of them and how they would enhance everywhere.

We fully support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his efforts to get this amendment to the Bill and hope that he will be successful, for the sake of all local authorities, which have a legitimate role and a right to be involved. On the other, negative, side of the coin, it could impact adversely if they are not. If the amendment cannot be accepted, perhaps the Minister can explain why not.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

I come to my most serious point. Given the scale of the housing problem, surely it is time for a Government to be bold enough to put social housing on a statutory footing and then conceive a plan to deliver at scale and pace.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I just wish to speak to Amendment 199 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I repeat my relevant interests at the outset: I am a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Unfortunately, our wonderful expert on all things transport, my noble friend Lady Randerson, is unable attend this morning but what I shall say comes after having discussed this with her. On this side, we totally support Amendment 199. It is reasonable and filled with sensible caveats such as “so far as relevant” and “must … have regard to”. It is something that local planning authorities can work with but should stimulate to them to ensure that they think of travel from the start and incorporate it into their strategic policies and the local plan. Tacking it on later is never as effective. Doing it that way also ensures that there is integration between different layers of local government, which do not always work perfectly together, as we have heard throughout discussions on the Bill.

Something has to be done. At the moment Governments are failing on the targets. We will have a further discussion on targets in another group but this is about travel targets—cycling and walking targets. The target set in 2017 is for 46% of urban journeys to be walking or cycling, but all activity levels are now lower than when the target was set. For instance, the number of children who walk to school has fallen below 50%. Public rights of way, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are constantly under threat from developers who regard them as an obstacle rather than—as they should be—a benefit. PROW diversions created by developers are often far less attractive than the original. That, too, is discouraging for those who want to walk. Urgent attention is needed—not more targets but practical steps such as those proposed in this amendment to incorporate active travel into the fundamental fabric of urban and rural planning for the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 193 and 194 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, introduce sensible additions to Schedule 7 on the content of plans. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, reminded us on Monday, just because Ministers assume that something will happen, that is no reason for leaving it out of the Bill. One would assume that any local planning authority would include such vital matters as meeting housing need and the economic, social and environmental needs of its area in its plan, as well as identifying appropriate sites. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in that regard. Putting this in the Bill makes sure that it happens.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to draw attention to the distinction between strategic and non-strategic priorities, which will become ever more important as these strategic policies are considered by a potential combined authority for the joint strategic development strategies. If they are not set out clearly in plans, how will the combined authorities identify them and make sure that they take account of them in the wider plan?

Amendment 193A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, goes to the heart of a huge lost opportunity in the Bill, as currently structured, to make a real difference in addressing the housing emergency we face in this country. The figures have been much debated in this Chamber, in Committee on the Bill and in many other debates on housing, but it is a scandal that over a million families are still on social rented housing registers around the UK. With the current rate of building—just 6,000 a year according to Shelter—few of those families stand a chance of ever having the secure, affordable and sustainable tenancy they need.

This problem is now exacerbated by rising mortgage interest rates resulting in many private landlords deciding to sell the properties they were renting out and their tenants coming to local authorities to seek rehoming. Commentators in the sector say that this could affect as many as one in three privately rented properties. The figures are stark. Worked examples show that rents may have to increase by at least £300 a month. For landlords and tenants also facing other elements of the cost of living crisis, this kind of increase in costs is untenable.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, proposes that local plans should link the provision of social housing to the provision of adequate housing for those registered with the local authority. This should be a minimum. I think the noble Lord described it as a duty to be clear about the scale of the housing problem and I totally agree. As we all know only too well, the unmet need for social housing also includes many families not on those registers. We will have a later debate about the definition of “affordable housing”, but social housing in particular merits special treatment in how it is addressed by local plans. For some families, it is the only form of tenure that will ever meet their needs. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the importance of putting social housing priorities into the planning process, so if he chooses to test the opinion of the House on this matter, he will have our support.

Government Amendment 197 is a helpful clarification that neighbourhood plans cannot supersede the local development plan in relation to either housing development or environmental outcome reports. I was very pleased to see Amendment 199 from my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Young. As a fortunate resident of a new town designed with the great foresight to incorporate 45 kilometres of cycleways, thanks to the vision of Eric Claxton and our other early designers, I can clearly see the importance of incorporating this infrastructure at the local plan stage.

The experience of Stevenage is that, unless the infrastructure makes it easier to cycle and walk than to jump in a car, the latter will prevail. Our cycleways are only now coming into their own and being thought of as the precious resource that they are, so the vision to include them was very much ahead of its time. It is important that careful thought is given, in all development, to the relative priorities of motor vehicles and cycling and walking.

As my noble friend Lord Berkeley outlined, this amendment is well supported by the Better Planning Coalition and the Walking and Cycling Alliance, which says that embedding cycling and walking in development plans would

“help safeguard land … that could form useful walking and cycling routes, while ensuring that new developments are well-connected to such routes, and securing developer contributions for new or improved walking and cycling provision”.

It cites examples—they were adequately quoted by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, so I will not repeat them—of how this has not been the case in the past. I agree with my noble friend that the consultation on the NPPF makes no mention of, never mind giving priority to, local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. It makes no mention at all of rights of way improvement plans.

On Monday, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the new role for Active Travel England as a statutory consultee in planning matters, but surely this amendment would strengthen its role by ensuring that cycling and walking are considered for every development, so that it can focus on the detail of those plans.

Government Amendments 201B, 201C and 201D are very concerning. They represent sweeping powers for combined county authorities to take over the powers of local councils in relation to making and/or revising local plans. Alongside the government proposals that the representatives of local councils will have no voting rights on combined county authorities, this represents yet another huge undermining of the role of local democratically elected institutions in favour of combined county authorities, which are indirectly elected, which may have voting representatives who have no democratic mandate at all and which operate at a considerable distance from the front line of the communities that will be affected by the decisions they are making.

In the debate on Monday, the Minister said that these new powers will be used only in extremis, but one can envisage situations where they could be used for political purposes. I raise the importance of this issue from a background of long experience of plan-making in two-tier areas and the complexities that that brings. On Monday, I mentioned that it was our local MP who held up our local plan for over a year by calling it in to the Secretary of State. Would this, for example, give a CCA grounds to initiate its power grab for the planning powers? If that were the case, you could see this being a very slippery slope indeed. What discussions has the Secretary of State undertaken with the sector on these proposed powers? These powers, like so much else in the Bill, seem to move us ever further away from the devolution and agency for local people that were espoused at the introduction of the White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I know that we are on Report but in response to that, it is exactly the structure that we have seen before. Essentially, in the five-year period between one local plan and the review of that plan, clearly, the housing delivery test is applied to what is adopted in that plan in the first instance. When it is reviewed after five years then clearly, as the amendment would say, the local plan must then be reviewed, taking account of the Government’s targets and standard method as applicable at that time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was absolutely right when he introduced his amendment in saying that this is the most important part of the Bill and is at the heart of the housing debate we have been having. I am very fortunate to be following the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who has given this whole debate a new dimension and a new focus for our thoughts, on whether we should be fixated on numbers or considering other elements of housing provision.

There is complete agreement across the House and support for building the homes that people need and the country needs. It means building homes in all parts of our country. I agree with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about how we will provide the homes that folk need, and the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on how vital it is that homes be provided for social rent so that families can have a stable background, and with a housing cost that they can meet within their tight family budgets. Like her, I am a councillor, and I am saddened by the number of families where I live who are pushed into renting in the private housing sector on short-term lets and every six months are having to post on Facebook, “Is there a home to rent in this locality at this price with this number of bedrooms, so that I don’t have to move schools for my children?” That is not the sort of country we want to create, in my opinion; we ought to be providing stable homes for people whose incomes restrict their housing options to homes for social rent.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I will very briefly add to the salutations rightly directed at my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his important amendment extending the blue plaque scheme. One moment my noble friend is expounding issues related to online safety, and a little while later he brings forward a major heritage measure, which I think will have given him great personal pleasure because of his considerable interest in matters related to history.

The extension of the scheme will surely stimulate added interest on a considerable scale in localities throughout our country and extend knowledge of individuals who contributed within those localities and, in many cases, at national level too. The scheme will not be appropriate in every single case. For example, in Birmingham there is a fine memorial to Joseph Chamberlain. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will know it, as will the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with whose remarks on the preservation of buildings I agree strongly.

On the Joseph Chamberlain memorial, there is a suitably inscribed plaque recording his important work. The city council has agreed in principle to a proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, and me to add plaques to Joseph Chamberlain’s two sons, Austen and Neville, who contributed greatly to the life of Birmingham and, of course, at national level. In Neville’s case, rather controversially, but he was above all the greatest social reformer the Conservative Party has ever produced. It would be right to ensure, as I think we will, that the new plaques blend in satisfactorily with the existing one. However, I think that in most cases, the blue plaques shining forth in their localities will do so much to stimulate historical interest throughout our country. For that, I salute my noble friend.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 271A in the name of the Minister and thank him for the meeting we had to discuss it. My Liberal Democrat colleague, Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson, promoted the change in his work as chair of the LGA’s culture, tourism and sport board. I am glad the Minister recognised the role he played in bringing this amendment to the Floor of the House. This is a really good move, which is welcomed across the House, adopting the extension of the blue plaque scheme to areas outside London and to those of us who live outside London. I did not realise that they did not happen outside London because of the local schemes that have been in place. My understanding is that those local schemes can continue; there is no conflict with the extension of the current blue plaque scheme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and my noble friend Lord Shipley have made a strong case for Amendment 204A. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness because, if nothing else, she has raised the issue throughout the passage of the Bill and, during the passage of the Bill, we have had an excellent example that highlights the reason why she has so strongly promoted these changes.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, before I make a few comments about swift bricks, I thought I would address my remarks to the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He is making a case for large sites that take a number of years to build out and where, because of a change in circumstances, there may need to be a substantial change in the nature of the remainder of the site.

I have a bit of sympathy with that amendment, in that the principle has been agreed for developing the site. The question the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is asking is whether it then matters if what goes on in the rest of the site does not comply entirely with the original planning consent. I then thought about the practical implications of his suggestion. For instance, if it changed from large executive four-bed properties to a higher density housing development for starter homes and so on for families, that would have potential implications for school places. They would not be funded under the planning conditions of the original application where a Section 106 agreement or an agreement under CIL would have enabled funding to be made available for school places, health facilities, play areas or transport requirements. Although I have sympathy with the approach that he has taken, there needs to be a new application if there is a substantial change. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in response.

On buildout, I get frustrated by developers starting a site but not proceeding to complete it in a timely way. There is nothing worse in a community than seeing a site that has been started but not finished. It will not be like this now, but there was a fairly notorious one in the area of West Yorkshire where I live: the planning consent was derived in the 1940s and the first earth movements were made and tranches dug, but nothing substantial happened on that site until the 1990s. So I encourage buildout and, again, it would be good to hear what the Minister says about it.

That leads me to swift bricks—very swiftly, as one might say. I have an interest, as a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Having said that, noble Lords will be able to tell that I favour and love watching birds, and I visit the RSPB sites as often as I can, because it is a joy. Over the years, I have seen a decline. Swifts are summer migrants, as everyone will know. I always look forward to seeing swallows and house martins when I am out delivering for the May elections—that is when I see my first swallow or swift. If it is a joy for me, it is a joy for many other people.

So swift bricks and nesting sites that have been lost, and swift bricks being an answer to the loss of those nesting sites, is important, and there has been a passionate argument in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Obviously I obviously support swift bricks—who would not? I remember watching a “Countryfile” programme about them on the BBC, and about an individual, whose name I obviously do not remember, who made thousands of these swift bricks—perhaps they were swift boxes—because of his passion for that bird. So let us hear what the Government have to say; it is over to them to make a decision.

My final point is on Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which would reduce barriers for SME builders to get contracts and to be part of the development process in localities. That has to be positive for the economy and local businesses. So I will support the amendment when the noble Baroness moves it, and I urge the Government to accept it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 244 in this group and I will then make brief comments on the other amendments. Amendment 244 is designed to cover an issue that arises almost at the intersection of planning and procurement. It can be the case that, where local authorities undertake major development, the nature of the planning system is such that the subsequent tender process will be enacted only for the totality of the development. Of course, the major contractors can subcontract works out, but this process does not always accrue maximum benefit to the local economy. Our amendment aims to ensure that whatever can be done at the stage of granting planning permission is done, to enable SME participation in, and engagement with, those contracts being achieved.

Amendment 217, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, applies a provision for “drop-in permissions”. We note that this is an acknowledged problem that may or may not require an amendment to planning law. I absolutely take the good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the provision of infrastructure where there is a drop-in permission, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on whether the existing wording is sufficient to enable the necessary change to unblock buildouts on large sites.

In relation to Amendment 219, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we would of course support refusing permissions to those who have not made buildout applications previously; that is a welcome change. We greatly sympathise with the noble Lord’s point that doing this to someone with an undefined connection with the previous applicant is way too unspecific in terms of planning law, and who that undefined connection would be. We agree that this needs to be either tightened up or taken out altogether, because it could have unintended consequences if it is left in the Bill as it is.

Amendment 221, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, recommends splitting planning applications into two stages for the purpose of encouraging rural economic development. We fully support the notion that anything that can be done within the planning system to encourage rural economic development should be done. But it is difficult to see how, in practical terms, a two-stage permission would work. There is already very strong provision and encouragement in the planning system for outline permissions to be submitted and then followed by detailed permissions for major developments. This is common practice, and I am sure rural areas are not excluded. I wonder whether that would be the type of process, or if there are things I am missing in the noble Lord’s amendment.

We were delighted to see Amendment 221A, proposed by noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, relating to the provision of swift bricks. We very much enjoyed his enthusiastic and passionate advocacy in his introduction, and all speeches made by noble Lords in favour of this. The noble Lord’s amendment follows extensive public interest in introducing this step, which led to the public petition debate to which the noble Lord referred, and to very strong cross-party support. We note also that the Wildlife and Countryside Link is in favour of this measure, as are many recognised experts.

We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits. They add to the biodiversity of urban areas, and I am particularly keen that we support that. I grew up as a townie and the swifts and house martins were a real feature of my childhood growing up in a town. Their decline has been very visible and sad to see. If there is anything we can do to either halt that decline or hopefully turn it around, we should certainly do so. There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population, and that it will not be necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to divide the House—but I hope he knows he has our full support in this amendment.

Amendment 282, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Bellingham, may relate to issues the Minister referred to in Committee. We comment only that, while we accept that notices published on local authority websites would usually be appropriate, of course there are other ways of drawing the public’s and stakeholders’ attention. We have some concerns about stating that anything must remain permanently on a website, but we understand his point.

--- Later in debate ---

In doing so, I repeat my simple and humble request: we need to have in the Bill a statutory basis with enhanced protections for existing hospitality businesses to mitigate against noise complaints generated by new residential developments. I think all noble Lords will be aware of specific instances in this regard. I am conscious of the fact that the hospitality sector as a whole and, in particular, parts of the night-time economy have suffered dramatically during and since the Covid outbreak in 2020. I applaud many of the decisions that the Minister, her department and the Government have taken but we need to go one step further and enshrine in the Bill the necessary statutory duty on developers so that they cannot shirk their responsibilities. We need a planning balance and it needs to be mandatory as well as absolutely clear and unambiguous. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

My amendment would put charging for casework for town and country planning applications—to give advice to local planning authorities on statutory development plans, environmental assessments and other planning work—on the same basis as the NSIP work, overcoming the issue that is currently problematic. Much as I have examined it—and many are the conversations I have had with both Ministers—I cannot see any logical reason for the charging systems to be different, so I hope that the Government will now accept my amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, we have all agreed on the importance of having a plan-led approach to development. Therefore, an effective local authority planning service is key to implementing timely decisions on planning applications. The House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee issued a report on planning reforms earlier this year. The report stated that the National Audit Office found that local authority planning services had been cut by £1.3 billion over a 10-year period to 2020, which equates to a 55% reduction in service spending. That is from the National Audit Office, so we cannot argue with those figures.

A Local Government Association survey in 2022 found that 58% of councils had trouble in recruiting planners—and, in county councils, that rose to 83%. The Royal Town Planning Institute estimates that one in 10 planning officer posts are not currently filled. From my own experience in my council, I know that senior planners are enticed into the private sector, leaving councils less well equipped to deal with complex applications. The enormous stress on planning services has the consequence of putting an additional delay on development, which adds programming problems for housebuilders and developers of commercial units. Amendment 235 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—who I thank for adding his name to an amendment on issues that we both raised separately in Committee—would insert a new clause to address those practical issues. It would enable a local planning authority to set a level of fee that covers the costs of a planning application.

I appreciate that the Government have agreed to increase planning fees by 35% for major applications and by 25% for all other applications. Of course, that is a step in the right direction. However, nationally set fees fail to take into account regional differences in costs; they also fail to reflect the actual costs of dealing with very complex developments, either very large housing sites or commercial developments.

This national approach to fee setting results in council tax payers subsidising complex planning applications. That cannot be right. The stark fact is that 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments had a deficit totalling £245.4 million in 2020 and 2021. That is a huge sum, where council tax payers are subsidising housebuilding developers, for example, who are well able to meet the costs of a planning application in full.

In addition, of course, there are the Government amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken about this morning, which are a good step forward in conceding the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about statutory consultees being paid for the work that they do—that is right and proper. But this adds to the bill that local authority planning services have to pay and it adds to the cost. All in all, there will be additional costs for the work being done. I think that the Government have made some concessions to the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has asked about and I support that. I wish that they had gone further, as she argues, but it is one step in the right direction.

I will of course listen carefully to the response from the Minister to Amendment 235, but I feel strongly about this issue. It is not a matter of principle; it is a practical amendment to enable local authority planning services to provide the service that they are required to do and that they want to do, but for which they need the funds to do. If the Minister is unable to concede that principle, I will be minded at the appropriate stage to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 235, which I proposed in Committee and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has just spoken. Since Committee, the need for it has become more urgent, as reflected in the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee in July, which concluded:

“The Government’s reforms to national planning policy will fail if local authorities lack sufficient resources to implement them. The package of support which the Government has outlined does not go far enough to address the significant resourcing challenges which local authorities currently face”.


I support the amendment for two reasons. First, I do not believe that the Government should be controlling the fees charged by planning departments, as a matter of principle. They do not control other local authority fees—building regulations, parking fees, library charges, school meals, swimming pool charges—so why planning? A national cap does not reflect the different circumstances of local authorities.

The case for relinquishing control is made stronger by the aspirations in the levelling up White Paper, with its commitment to

“usher in a revolution in local democracy”.

The revolution is stopped in its tracks by the notion that local authorities should not be free to recover the costs of their planning departments.

In reply to my amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that

“having different fees creates inconsistency, more complexity and unfairness for applicants, who could be required to pay different fee levels for the same type of development. Planning fees provide clarity and consistency for local authorities, developers and home owners”.—[Official Report, 24/4/23; col. 1003.]

Let me briefly dissect that. As far as local authorities are concerned, they are the ones who sponsored my original amendment. They have since confirmed their continuing support with this statement:

“We support this amendment. Planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing planning applications. In 2020/21, 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments operated in a deficit, which totalled £245.4 million”.


As far as developers are concerned, they already have to cope with myriad different local plans and can well manage different fees. What the developers want are well-resourced planning departments that can effectively process their applications quickly. One of the reasons for the disappointing housebuilding performance is planning delays. The amendment addresses that. As for home owners, I do not think that they know that planning fees are set centrally and they are used to local authorities having different charges for libraries, parking, allotments and the rest. I do not think that they would mind if fees were set locally, as long as they got a good service.

Secondly, I do not think it right that council tax payers should have to subsidise the planning system—the hidden subsidy referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There are more important calls on those resources, underlined by the financial problems facing Birmingham City Council. The Minister told us that the Government were consulting on increasing the fees, but in the words of the Local Government Association:

“We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase planning application fees. However, our modelling has shown that even if all application fees were uplifted by 35 per cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £80 million”.


In his opening speech, my noble friend referred on several occasions to full-cost recovery for provision of services. That is exactly what this amendment does.

I conclude by quoting the Times, which recently, on 7 July, summed up the position:

“Britain’s planning system is grinding to a halt, with four out of five big applications now being delayed by up to two years.


Official figures show that more than half a million new developments have been delayed during the past five years as threadbare planning departments struggle to cope with even routine cases.


Industry experts said the delays were exacerbating the housing crisis, with developments now taking up to three years to get started. Councils are supposed to give developers a decision on big projects within 13 weeks, but the latest official data shows that only 19% of applications were processed in this time over the past year, down from 57% 10 years ago … Developers say that performance is damaging efforts to tackle the housing crisis and other government priorities such as installing wind and solar farms. They warn that unless the government insists on proper funding for planning departments, the housing crisis will worsen as councils will always choose refuse collections over planning when allocating scarce resources.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has made a powerful case and I hope that the Government will reflect in their reply on the further measures that are now needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 227A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations under Clause 128 that will enable statutory consultees to charge applicants for their advice on planning applications and consents under the planning Acts. I appreciate that our Amendments 229 and 230 do not go as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, might like. However, given the complexity of statutory consultee charging—it is a complex field—in our view it would be unwise to rush into a radically different set of arrangements. The changes that she proposes have the potential to impose financial impacts on applicants, in particular home owners and SMEs, and they could severely affect local planning authority capacity and its ability to make timely decisions. We need to ensure that an appropriate balance is reached with any charging model.

To put that into context, there are around 28 statutory consultees prescribed nationally and around 50,000 applications a year that the big six national statutory consultees comment on. That does not include local statutory consultees, such as highways authorities. Therefore, we will need a system that works for everyone, not just a select few, and this will need to be worked through carefully and collaboratively with the sector. Against that background, I hope that the noble Baroness will see why we are reluctant to rush into the model that she proposes and that she will in fact decide not to move her Amendment 227A on that account.

Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would enable local authorities to set their own planning application fees. I understand how important it is for local planning authorities to have the resources that they need to deliver an effective planning service. On 20 July, we laid regulations, as she mentioned, that will increase planning fees by 35% for the major applications and 25% for all other applications. This is a national fee increase that will benefit all local planning authorities in England. In addition to the 35% increase, local planning authorities may charge fees for providing pre-application advice or using pre-planning agreements for major schemes. Fee levels for those services are set by individual local planning authorities. It is important to factor that point into noble Lords’ consideration of this issue.

The Government do not believe that enabling local planning authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues, for several reasons. First, it does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies—indeed, the opposite is true. I am not sure that I heard that point addressed either by my noble friend or by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Secondly, I have to come back to the point that the Government argued in Committee. Having different fees between local authorities would be bound to create uncertainty and, perhaps more importantly, unfairness for applicants. We have to be cognisant of the need for fairness. It is all very well for my noble friend to say that applicants will not notice if fees vary between areas. It is a question of doing what is right for all parties and not just feeding the wishes of local authorities in this area, understandable as those are, as I said. Also, at an extreme, if fees are set too high, they could risk doing what I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, does not want, which is to discourage development coming forward in the first place. For those reasons, I am afraid that I must resist the amendment and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will be persuaded not to move it when we reach it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Before the noble Earl sits down—I thank him for the reply—can he just confirm that the Government are willing for council tax payers to subsidise planning applications, which are often very big applications? That is often where the fee discrepancy occurs, with very big housing developments or commercial developments. Is the noble Earl happy for the Government to see council tax payers subsidising those planning applications?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s question has a lot of hypotheses built into it. As she knows, local government funding is not just a matter of fees being charged and council tax being levied; there is of course support from central government as well. I suggest that it is very difficult to generalise in the way that she is asking me to. However, I say respectfully that she ought to remember too that local authorities can charge more for more complex cases, so there is flexibility in that sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I hate to dampen the overall enthusiasm, but I would just like to put in a word for the countryside and those who live and work in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. They sometimes feel that their interests are overlooked. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister in being mindful of their interests when he comes to draft his amendment, if he would do so.

[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 ---

[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 ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will take this amendment seriously. I would like to see them accept it. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that ancient woodland is irreplaceable. It just takes a very long time—a matter of centuries—to replace it. As part of our planning, when it comes to 30 by 30, where to put woodlands and the extremely important issue of connection, we ought to be saying that losing 0.2% of our ancient woodland every year is not good. We want to plan to add 0.5% a year to where we plant and how we connect. We should have a long-term strategy to make sure that, in 100 years, we have twice as much woodland as now; otherwise, we will continue to bite into it.

A planning permission is currently being sought in Kent. I can see the argument for it. We want a supply of ragstone. A lot of important buildings are built of ragstone. This may be entirely the right place from which to get it. An additional Thames crossing is in prospect. We may well need it. We know that there will be circumstances in which we want to tear down ancient woodland. You cannot just take the soil and stick it somewhere else in the hope that things will re-establish themselves. It needs much better, more careful and longer-term planning.

Ten thousand years ago, there was none of this stuff. It has moved and come since. All these plants and animals have moved here during this period. We should not think that we cannot multiply it. We should be planning on the basis that we can, which needs a lot of thought, care and consideration. I declare an interest. I own a PAWS—a plantation on an ancient woodland site. I do not have any ancient woodland but I own a space where one used to be. We should give it careful attention, ensuring that every time we damage a woodland, there is proper consultation and consideration. It should not just be about whether we should lose this bit but about how we, as a local authority, plan to end up with more in a century’s time, rather than saying, “Shall we eat this slice of an ever-diminishing cake now?”.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

235: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application fees(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A local planning authority may make provision as to how a fee or charge under this section is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation).””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow local authorities to set the fees for planning applications, in order that the cost of determining an application is reflected by the fee charged.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is not in his place, for the long and careful response he gave to the amendment on planning fees, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and me. It is a practical amendment to ensure that council tax payers are not required to subsidise applications from developers, and to provide an effective and efficient planning service. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the response from the noble Earl, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 282N and the consequential amendments, and His Majesty’s Government for supporting them. Unlike my noble friend, I do want to talk about ULEZ, although I totally understand and appreciate the points that he made about the importance of local democracy.

Noble Lords will know how important the blue badge scheme is to many disabled people and their families—and indeed their personal assistants, where applicable. I declare an interest as someone who relies on my blue badge for parking in a whole range of places, including town centres.

What noble Lords may not know is how relevant—indeed, how crucial—these amendments are to protecting blue badge holders from disability discrimination. In fact, I only became aware of this thanks to the indefatigable efforts of the formidable disability rights campaigner, Kush Kanodia.

As I understand it, incredibly, blue badge holders who are not in receipt of certain benefits are not exempt from ULEZ charges—unlike in Glasgow, for example. So this is effectively a discriminatory penalty for disability—or, in the case of non-disabled family members or personal assistants who may use a blue badge to assist with transport, a fine for providing support to a disabled person. This is surely not right. Amendment 282N and the consequential amendments would allow this manifest wrong to be put right through this opting-out provision. I wholeheartedly support it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and a number of other noble Lords. I have enormous sympathy for the Government. I believe that we absolutely need new housing. We have a problem with the shortage of housing stock. House builders should not have unnecessary barriers placed in the way of them getting on with development. However, I urge the Minister to listen to the sentiments expressed all around this House about the way in which the Government are currently planning to fulfil their laudable desire to ensure we get more homes built.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Amendment 247YY would give carte blanche to this and any future Government to do what they liked to override the environmental protections of which I am so proud. This Government have done more than most other Governments to implement legislation that protects the environment. However, there is a risk that we will be tearing that up.

I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on his amendments to government Amendment 247YY, which is asking us to ignore the science and local authorities just to assume that no pollution will happen even when they are being told it will or know that it will.

As my noble friend Lord Deben said, the “polluter pays” principle is important, but maybe what is happening here is a cart and horse problem. If my noble friend the Minister were able to assure the House that the mitigation measures that I am sure are genuinely intended to offset the pollution caused by any new developments will be in place before those developments pollute rivers, we would be able to consider that. However, there is no guarantee that any of the mitigation measures, however well meant and well intentioned, will be able to be put in place before the pollution happens.

I therefore urge my noble friend to think again about the Government’s apparently panicked reaction, which perhaps is intended to please housebuilders, who are very keen to get on with developing houses in places that they know would be of great value to them. I have enormous sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cathcart, who wants to do some development and is being blocked. However, we have to protect the environment. I am sure my noble friend would like to do that, but I hope that we can understand that in keeping this delicate balance of building new homes today but protecting our habitats and precious environment in the long run, we must try to prioritise these precious areas of the country that we as a Government have done so much to protect. As I say, I am proud of that, and we must not tear those protections up.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this constructive debate. It has been wonderful to hear expertise from across the House on such an important issue as environmental protections.

I remind everybody that this is day seven on Report of the levelling-up Bill, which we began in January with Second Reading, and this is the first time this issue has been brought to the attention of the House. We have to ask ourselves, why? I cannot remember who raised the fact that this issue was known about five years ago. The Government have known that it has been an issue of contention for housebuilders for a considerable number of years, yet it is brought to us on day seven on Report, in a form that means we cannot have any prior discussion of it. I wonder whether that relates to a sudden rise in the share price of house- building companies.

The argument that housebuilding is jeopardised unless the Government take action to throw out the protection of our watercourses is completely false. I think it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said that more than 1 million planning permissions are awaiting development. As my noble friend Lady Parminter so expertly said, the sites in question—it is not everywhere; it is particular sites—are some of the most environmentally sensitive in this country, if not in Europe. Why would we put those sites at risk when there is an opportunity to protect them for the future of our children and grandchildren?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am now caring for my mother and am a grandfather to very young grandchildren, so I have renewed my acquaintance with the problem, as he said, of seeking to go from A to B when there are so many obstacles in the way. His amendments go to the heart of the problem by recognising that pavements are for people to walk on.

I am also delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and other noble Lords in their amendment. I disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. First, I do think that the health gain from this measure would be considerable. We are behind the curve in reaching the smoke-free target. Secondly, I disagree with him about the dissipation of smoke. Anyone who has had to walk past pubs where people are smoking outside would say it does not dissipate quickly enough. Thirdly, I do not think it would harm the pub trade; I think it would enhance it because, frankly, going through a fog to get into a pub is not very attractive at all.

On a more general point, the noble Lord, Lord Young, made it clear that he saw this as a popular public measure. I totally agree. I was a member of the Cabinet committee which basically tore up our 2005 manifesto because it was not strong enough. The result of that very rare rebellion by a Cabinet committee led to the ban on smoking in public places. And it was proved right—it was very popular and very effective.

I also recall moving the amendment on banning smoking in cars where children are present. That was overwhelmingly popular. When it went back to the Commons, the Government agreed. So many of their own Back-Benchers supported it because they had had such a lot of strong messages.

I have no doubt whatever that this will be a very positive and popular measure. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say something positive about it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this may be the fourth occasion in the House on which I have debated pavement licensing. There is obviously a reason for that; we have not got the regulations quite right. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised in his amendment, there is a natural conflict between the use of the public highway as an extension of a licensed premises, restaurant or café, and the use of it by the public to get from A to B. I totally agree. At the very earliest iteration of these regulations about pavement licensing, both he and I proposed that barriers ought to be in place to restrict the use of the highway so there would be plenty of room for pedestrians and those in wheelchairs or pushing buggies to get through safely. I am still concerned that that regulation is not part of the licence for use of the public highway.

The second important issue is about smoke free. All I will say is this: it needs to be smoke free. This is a health issue. We need to take every opportunity we can to ensure that there are no opportunities for people who do not wish to inhale somebody else’s smoke to do so. I agree with all noble Lords—bar one—who have spoken on this issue.

Lastly, I will repeat the question that I have raised before. If we are permitting businesses to use the public highway, will the local authority that has to maintain the public highway have the right to require a rent for its use? This would enable continued good maintenance of pavements for people.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his great persistence and determination regarding common-sense regulation of the use of pavement licences. He spoke powerfully on this issue in Committee and has done so again today. We all recognise the significant boost that new uses of our pavements have given to our high streets and we support that, but it is of course important that the balance is right. Indeed, most of the amendments in this group do give some balance.

Amendments 249 and 250 relate to charging for maintenance and cleansing of high streets. We very much support the principle that the applicant should contribute—it goes along with the “polluter pays” idea—but we should think about the fact that this should really be for local determination. For example, where a local authority is trying to encourage regeneration, it may not want to implement that as part of its process of encouragement, but we certainly support the basic principle behind the noble Lord’s amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendments 301, 314 and 316 relate to the extent and commencement of the amendments and the Title respectively. Amendment 276 has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and would remove any restrictions on local authorities providing childcare. I will listen carefully to her remarks on that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at this stage—the beginning of another day on Report—I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who is standing in today for the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to whom I wish godspeed and a full recovery.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, childcare is facing a crisis of unaffordable provision. Many families are simply unable to bear the cost of full-time care, thus restricting parents to reduce their working hours; that has a knock-on effect on their household budgets and puts pressure on the family finances. The Government are bringing these amendments forward rather late in the day—during Report on the Bill, which we started in January—especially given the crisis in not only affordability but provision; as she said, there have been a large number of closures among childminding providers. Given that, we on these Benches support the government amendments because extending childminding to non-domestic settings would be sensible.

However, I have a proviso here; I wonder whether the noble Baroness can respond to it. She has spoken about the regulations facing childminders being the same as those for nursery providers, but she has not spoken in full about the regulations affecting the building premises that may be used by childminders. Clearly, we want them to be appropriate to the age of the children using them. Children from the age of nine months to the toddler stage certainly need safe facilities and different ones from those for which a non-domestic setting might be built. I want to know from the noble Baroness that there will be clear, enforceable regulations around this.

The great majority of childcare is provided by the private sector. Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would extend that to local authorities. We on these Benches support that extension as it will enable councils to fill the gaps in private provision, which are more likely to be in areas of higher deprivation and in the very communities that the Bill is ostensibly aimed at helping.

With those remarks, we support the Government’s amendments and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, largely in relation to Labour’s amendment. As the noble Baroness may recall, some of us spoke about the provision of early years facilities in Committee. I want to return to that issue briefly to see whether we can tie up one or two loose ends.

I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Barran, for the correspondence and meetings that we have had between Committee and Report. The meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, had the largest number of advisers in the smallest room that I have ever been in; that would not have been possible under Covid. The new DfE advice to local authorities, Securing Developer Contributions for Education, is a great improvement on its predecessor. It is much clearer and on several occasions makes clear and specific mention of early years provision.

However, the response from the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was slightly less clear. Given her background as an effective head of a local authority, I think she assumes that all local authorities are run as well and professionally as her one was. All I say is that the evidence from a range of local authorities is that their ability to provide early years facilities is not good.

An article last week indicated that local authorities are sitting on a grand total of £3 billion of unused Section 106 money, £420 million of which is for education. It is somewhat disappointing that the LGA spokesman’s response to that said just that doing this is “a complex process” that takes a lot of time. I thought that was local government’s job.

I have four specific questions for the Minister, of which I have given her advance warning. The first is: what we are going to do to monitor whether these funds are being used to expand childcare provision, because there is no central collection of data at the moment. Please can we do something about that?

Secondly, there is an expectation, which is clear in the advice, that existing or new spare primary school capacity will be repurposed for early years services. How will guidance be flexible to ensure that, if there are changes in the birth rate, we do not end up with nurseries closing and have the same problem?

Thirdly, how can we make sure that we are also looking at early years settings that are convenient for people’s work? It is one thing to have early years provision near where you live but, for many working women, it is far more useful and a more efficient use of their time to have early years provision near their place of work. Could the Government say whether they are aware of this potential issue and, if so, what they are doing to try to mitigate it?

Lastly, how will the Government make sure that all local authorities can use this funding on new stand-alone provision if they deem it appropriate, without being reliant on private providers, which may or may not want to operate in the area? This applies to the new infrastructure levy but also to existing sources of funding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

I strongly believe that the Government have not yet delivered on earlier commitments, putting thousands of leaseholders in an intolerable position, and that the current position is indefensible. We should give the other place the opportunity to think again. I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 282C.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, building safety remediation comes back again. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for sharing their expert knowledge and understanding of the plight of leaseholders as a consequence of the building safety debacle exposed by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The noble Earl has put a huge amount of time, energy and expertise into seeking an all-encompassing solution to the building safety scandal so tragically exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire six years ago. As has been said, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders have been financially penalised as a result, because the construction sector, developers, materials manufacturers and the Government have failed to take full responsibility for their failings. It is clear that leaseholders and tenants are the innocent victims. They must not be expected to pay. Yet despite the progress made by the Building Safety Act, that is what is happening to many leaseholders. They are paying eye-watering, vastly increased insurance bills, have waking watch requirements and are unable to sell and move. All that is on hold because of the omissions in the Building Safety Act.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who reminded us that, right at the start of this, the Secretary of State promised that there would be full protection for leaseholders. Unfortunately, that has not happened. We have before us, from both noble Lords, alternate ways of fulfilling that commitment made by the Government. The first is to go back to square one, which is basically the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and fulfil the polluter pays objective that no leaseholder or tenant, regardless of where they are or their circumstances—enfranchised tenant, tenant or leaseholder—should pay. That is morally right. There is debate on various aspects of the building safety scandal but that is what I have said from the start: innocent leaseholders and tenants should not be subject to payment for the failings of others. The second argument, from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—and I have added my name to his amendments—is that making step-by-step improvements to the Building Safety Act may be more acceptable to the Government.

In the end, the decision is not ours. The decision is the Government’s, and if we can persuade them to take another step forward to protect another group of leaseholders, that seems to me to be the practical way forward—as much as I admire what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has done.

I move to Amendment 282NF in my name. There is a large group of leaseholders who were specifically excluded: those who live in blocks of under 11 metres. One of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to include leaseholders in blocks of under 11 metres. However, I wanted it to be specifically drawn to the attention of the House, because it was wrong to exclude them on the grounds that the risk is less. Fire services across the country, not just the London fire service, say that the risk is unacceptable. These flats are covered with flammable cladding that was put there knowingly by materials manufacturers that knew it was flammable and that a fire in those flats would become enormous, as was the case at Grenfell, where it was minutes before the fire reached the top of the high block of flats. I want to draw attention to the plight of this particular group.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who unfortunately is not well, for the meetings that I have had with her to discuss the plight of leaseholders who live in these blocks of under 11 metres. I thank the civil servants who accepted that there is a problem here. The trouble is that nothing has happened, and we need action to help these leaseholders.

Insurance agents for the blocks under 11 metres still say that there is a risk, and insurance bills are therefore unacceptably high and unaffordable. We still hear from estate agents that the blocks will be more difficult to sell because of the risks of fire due to the cladding material. So my amendment asks for those blocks to be covered by the responsible actors scheme.

Here we are again debating the building safety scandal. I ask that the Government accept Amendment 282C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, as one more step towards dealing with the issues blighting the lives of many thousands of leaseholders. They cannot afford the bills that they are presented with and are unable to pay for the remediation—which is not theirs to pay. They do not even own the right to the bricks and mortar, yet they are being expected to pay for it—that in itself is wrong, but it will have to be covered by another Bill that we await from this Government. This is about whether we make another step in the right direction or go back to square one and try a big, all-encompassing solution to this situation.

What we must do is give hope that all leaseholders who have been adversely affected by the building safety scandal will have their issues addressed by the Government, as the Secretary of State promised at the very outset of our debates on this problem. That is necessary, and the amendments today seek, in different ways, to deal with that. I want to hear from the Minister that the Government intend to deal with every leaseholder’s issues. It is not the leaseholders’ responsibility, and it was not of their doing; they have done everything right and nothing wrong, and should not be expected to pay.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register as a serving councillor on Stevenage Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council, a vice-president of the LGA and a vice-chair of the District Councils’ Network. I ask the Minister to convey our wishes too to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook; we wish her well for a speedy recovery. Her patience and willingness to collaborate on the Bill have been outstanding.

With this Bill, we have an opportunity to put right some of the very difficult issues that have emerged from the awful tragedy of the Grenfell fire. In the six years since Grenfell, we have seen people left in the most dreadful limbo on this issue. The stress, fear and harm they have lived with on a daily basis are incalculable. They are not able to sleep for fear that their buildings are not safe; they are living in fear of the exorbitant costs of mediation measures; and they are unable to sell their properties or move away. For some, that has impacted their physical and mental health. In the most serious cases, leaseholders have faced bankruptcy. Their dreams of owning their own homes have transformed into the stuff of nightmares.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the case of Vista Tower in Stevenage, which I know well. That demonstrates so many of the issues arising from the remediation we are talking about. I remind your Lordships’ House that nearly two-thirds of high-rise flats and a third of mid-rise flats still require an external wall safety form before any mortgages are even considered, so the issue is certainly far from being fixed.

We welcome the comprehensive and detailed Amendment 260A from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, particularly his strong focus on “polluter pays”—a principle that has had much attention during the passage of the Bill. As ever, he has a very thorough and conscientious approach in setting out a complete building safety remediation scheme. We acknowledge that his knowledge and expertise on and experience of such issues are recognised throughout your Lordships’ House, and I hope that, as we go through the following processes of remediation, the Government will continue to work with him and the cladding groups to advise on improving the remediation scheme that will comprehensively cover the remediation that people need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has raised a fundamental issue of human rights and dignity. I am really surprised that the Government have so far failed to repeal the Vagrancy Act. It just needs to be deleted from the statute book. Perhaps the Minister can give us the assurance that it will be. If he cannot, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, wishes to press her amendment to a vote, we will certainly be supporting it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. I am pretty sure that that will be the only time I am mentioned in the same speech with Beethoven.

In response to Amendment 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, I am still clear, as are the Government, that the Vagrancy Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose. I am happy to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor, that we will repeal the Vagrancy Act at the earliest opportunity, once suitable replacement legislation has been brought forward. Given that we remain committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act, there is little value in carrying out an assessment of the kind described in the amendment. The House will have ample opportunity to debate the matter when further details on any new legislation are set out.

Amendment 304A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is on the timing of the statement of levelling-up missions. We have committed within the Bill to publish this within one month of Part 1 of the Act coming into force, which will be two months after Royal Assent. This is already an appropriate and prompt timescale, which includes time to collate materials and data across government departments before the publication and laying of the report. Reducing that time would be unnecessary and may undermine the purpose of the missions: to ensure focus on long-term policy goals. I hope that provides reassurance for the noble Baronesses and that Amendment 277 can be withdrawn, and the other amendment not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

My amendment remedies all these potential deficiencies and sets a statutory deadline of a year, which would allow adequate time for essential consultation and engagement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is absolutely right to raise this as an important issue. Currently, planning, in the sense of local authority planning services and applications, depends on landowners bringing forward sites for housing or business use for inclusion in the local authority local plan; councils then make the decision as to which of those sites are in fact acceptable. That is not a strategic approach, which is exactly why she has brought this amendment forward. It draws attention to sites that are allegedly appropriate for development but it excludes the importance of nature recovery, ELMS and all the other issues—we discussed ancient woodlands at our last sitting on Report. It also fails to draw attention to the importance of watercourses as part of a planning process, which is of course why we had the debate on the previous day on Report on nutrient neutrality.

The noble Baroness is right to draw our attention to this as an issue to which we ought to have a strategic approach. I will wait to hear the Minister’s response, but the Government ought to consider having an overview of how they expect land to be used, rather than just leave it to landowners to determine whether they have sites they wish to put forward for development.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

281: After Clause 226, insert the following new Clause—
“Regeneration of schools and hospitals: register of serious disrepair(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must establish a register of schools and hospitals in England in serious disrepair.(2) The register must comprise a list of—(a) schools that have been partially or fully closed on a temporary or permanent basis because one or more school building was deemed unsafe for staff or pupils,(b) schools that have classrooms or buildings on site that are closed due to disrepair and details of those classrooms or buildings,(c) schools that require major rebuilding or refurbishment,(d) hospitals that have been partially or fully closed on a temporary or permanent basis because one or more hospital building was deemed unsafe for staff or patients,(e) hospitals that have rooms, wards or buildings on site that are closed due to disrepair and details of those rooms, wards or buildings, and(f) hospitals that require major rebuilding or refurbishment.(3) The register must be reviewed every three months to ensure it contains up-to-date information.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to keep a register of schools and hospitals in serious disrepair, and ensure the register is regularly updated.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled a version of this amendment in Committee—which seems a very long time ago; I think it was in March—on the need for a register of school and hospital buildings which are in a state of disrepair, so that local residents know what the issues are and can hold the Government to account for putting right those buildings that they have to use.

Little did I know at that stage about the huge, urgent issue that has emerged this summer around reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—concrete with air bubbles in it, as far as I can make out. According to the Department for Education, at least 147 schools in England have been affected by RAAC, but this number may grow as investigations continue. At least 27 NHS sites have been confirmed to have aerated concrete and I understand the NHS is conducting an urgent inquiry into the safety of the buildings. Thousands of patients and pupils are facing disruption as a result of this aerated concrete coming to the end of its life, which apparently means it could break and collapse the building at any moment. Very fortunately, so far no serious injuries have resulted from such collapses.

We know the Department for Education was aware of the use of RAAC in schools that were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Its report from 2018 showed that as many as 400 schools per year could need their buildings repaired as a result of the use of this material. The 2021 spending review provided funding for just 50 of those per year. At the end of 2022, the Department for Education listed building failures as one of six key risks in its annual report. Similarly, as an FoI request from my party has shown, hospitals across the country are facing huge repair costs from chemical leaks and broken fire alarms—in one hospital, raw sewage was in patient areas. In my view, sewage seeping anywhere in a hospital is totally unacceptable. This followed on from a report from November last year that the repair bill for NHS hospitals in England alone has hit £10 billion.

My amendment seeks, as a first step in tackling these issues, to get the information into the public domain. I will give one example of why this is important. School admission authorities are already being asked by parents having to choose a school for their children whether their preferred school is affected by a need for critical repairs which could disrupt their children’s education. School admissions are likely not to know, so it is really important that parents, in the case of schools, have the information to make choices about their children’s education. In the same way, NHS trusts should be able to make available similar information to patients where there is an ability to choose where an operation will take place.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that provides sufficient assurance to the noble Baroness that the powers and processes that she is essentially advocating are already provided for. More generally, I hope that I have sufficiently assured the House that we are already taking action to address the issues raised in this group, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his extremely long, detailed and careful response to the issues I raised about the repair of schools and hospitals. I remind the noble Earl that the amendment refers only to setting up a register for buildings that suffer from serious disrepair, so it would not cover emergency water leaks or the like. The importance of a public open register is to enable transparency for all those who work in or use those buildings—patients, parents, pupils and all the staff who work in those buildings. Then, of course, it also enables accountability to those bodies responsible—in the end, the Government—for having full and timely repair processes for those public buildings. I am afraid that unfortunately, the noble Earl has not convinced me of the Government’s approach to school and hospital buildings that are in serious disrepair, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief comment in response to the Minister’s Motion C in relation to Amendment 3, which I moved on Report. I want to put on the record that I understand the line that the Government have taken. It is difficult to make statutory geographical disparities. What matters is the assurance that the Minister has given on that issue. It will really matter, in respect of policy formulation to address geographical disparities, for the evidence to be constantly collected to identify what those disparities are. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given and I have no intention of pursuing the matter further. I am grateful to the Minister.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a councillor in West Yorkshire.

I will speak specifically to Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. The finest achievement of the levelling-up Bill could be putting the reduction of child poverty and health inequalities at its heart. After all, it is levelling up that we have been talking about during the many hours that we have debated the Bill. Unfortunately, the government amendment fails to make it absolutely specific that that is what the Bill is going to try to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene on this group to make two points, one on Motion F1 and one on Motion J1. I am prompted on Motion F1 by what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was asking about South Cambridgeshire. I declare an interest as I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and used to be the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire.

To set this in context, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority is a mayoral combined authority and is not intending to be a county combined authority, but this does prompt a question. One of the essential problems with a mayoral combined authority is the difficulty of there being both a combined and a county authority infrastructure. For many people in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, this is too confused and duplicatory a structure.

For the sake of argument—this is not one that has been advanced in Cambridgeshire, but it might be—let us say that it moves from a mayoral to a county combined authority. As the legislation is presently constructed, one could clearly not do that as it would, in effect, disempower district councils in the process. So if my noble friend Lord Howe is saying that the nature of a county combined authority requires that it is for upper-tier authorities only—in this context, the county and Peterborough, and not the district councils—and if the local devolution settlement were found to be unsatisfactory and a change were desired locally, why are there no legislative provisions to allow that to happen? That is the question I put to my noble friend.

Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Her Amendment 22B very reasonably says that the Government may make regulations relating to remote participation in local government meetings. That creates an opportunity for Ministers to think about this and, if necessary, move slowly. It is clearly not their wish to move rapidly but, without dwelling on the detail, there are physical, demographic and personal circumstances that mean that members may wish or need to participate in meetings remotely. Frankly, there might also be meetings where there is a relatively modest need for everybody to come together. As we know, there can sometimes be large numbers of meetings in local government that are not places where large numbers of votes happen and it would be perfectly reasonable for Ministers to enable such meetings to take place remotely. Given the permissive nature of Amendment 22B, which my noble friend has put forward, it is rather surprising that she was not able to find a compromise.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion J1 and then Motion ZE1. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There is one element that has not yet been discussed, which is that this House allows for hybrid meetings of its committees. Now, you have to say to yourself, if it is right and proper for this House to enable Members to take part virtually in its committees, why is it not possible for local democracy to have the same rights? The arguments have been made for inclusivity—or, as it will be, exclusivity if the Government unfortunately fail to hear the arguments that have been made.

I will point to one example, which I think shows the strength of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The Government have, in their wisdom, created new unitary authorities, one of which is North Yorkshire. Now, North Yorkshire is a very large area to be in one unitary authority. It also does not have the best of weather in the winter. So, if you live towards the south or even the east of the area, because the county council headquarters is more or less in the middle—so it is useful in that sense—you will have a round trip of over 100 miles to go to a council meeting. If, as often is the case, you have to go across the Yorkshire Dales or the North York moors, where roads are impassable, you will be excluded from the meetings—not because you want to be excluded but because the weather is excluding you. And, if you are not able to drive, I can tell you now that you would simply not be able to get to a meeting in Northallerton in the heart of North Yorkshire.

For those reasons alone, it seems to me practical that the Government should allow for flexibility for local government to make those sorts of decisions, to enhance local democracy and be more inclusive. So we support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh in her quest to enable hybrid meetings to take place.

I turn to Motion ZE1. It is a travesty of local democracy if a fundamental change to the constitution of a combined authority—which is what we are considering in the instance of the West Midlands combined authority—can be made without a full consultation and involvement of all those who wish to have their voices heard. I live in West Yorkshire, so I can absolutely confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said: that at the heart of the discussions was the combination of the two roles of mayor and PCC. Not all of us agreed, but the outcome was as it was. The consequence of combining those two roles in West Yorkshire and in the Manchester combined authority is that we elect a mayor and then the mayor appoints one of their colleagues to be police and crime commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am once again grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group of Motions and amendments. As I indicated at the outset, the Government cannot support the three amendments to the government Motions in this group.

Motion F1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would have the same effect as the original amendment but apply only to local authorities. I urge the House not to go down this road. The basis of the CCA model is that only upper-tier and unitary authorities can be members, not least because they are the bodies in whom financial responsibility will be vested and who will contribute financially to the running of the CCA.

However, as I am sure the noble Baroness accepts, because we debated this at length at earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise the vital role that district councils play. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, and as Ministers said in the other place, we are sympathetic to the idea that district councils should have voting rights pertaining to them as non-constituent members. We have deliberately left scope for this to happen. However, we are clear that that should be a matter to be determined at the local level. District councils need not be shut out of the room, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested, nor do I expect them to be so. We expect the upper-tier local authorities that we agree devolution deals with to work with district councils to deliver the powers most effectively being provided. In discussions thus far, we are encouraging potential deal areas to consider how best to involve district councils, in recognition of the role they can play. My ministerial colleagues have been engaging personally with district councils and the District Councils’ Network on this issue.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has returned to the charge on virtual or hybrid meetings with her Motion J1. As I stated in my opening remarks, at the heart of the issue is the strength of the scrutiny exercised by local authorities and the importance of maintaining the integrity of local democratic principles. I need not remind the House that virtual and hybrid proceedings have significant limitations for scrutiny and interaction of members of any legislature. As such, we do not agree that councillors should be able to attend these meetings and cast their votes remotely. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendment in lieu. I respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who drew the comparison with committees of this House, by saying that the functions, roles and powers of committees of this House are wholly different from the functions, roles and powers of committees of local authorities.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I remind him that councils have scrutiny committees, which frequently do not vote, so there are similarities between the committees of this House and, for example, scrutiny committees of local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has a chance to speak to Motion R1, but I have to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. Last week, we had a debate on planning fees, in which I participated. The risk in what the noble Baroness proposes is that it would lead to local authorities significantly increasing the fees that would be charged for householder applications.

I remind the House that I chair the Cambridgeshire development forum. As far as larger developers are concerned, the point I made last week is that we should promote planning performance agreements to enable local authorities and developers to come to proper agreements, with potential sanctions and performance obligations on the part of the local planning authority. They would give them access to greater resources in dealing with major developments. I fear that what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench proposes would just lead to increases in fees for householder applications.

I also want to say a word about Motion M1 on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, knows that I thoroughly agree with what he proposes but, at this stage, sending back the same amendments is inherently undesirable if it can be avoided. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us more about how the Government will use the new national development management policies, which will have statutory backing. If the Government set down NDMPs in terms that are clear about the importance of decisions that take account of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they will have the effect that my noble friend and other Members of the House look for from this Motion.

The distinctive point of the original Amendment 45 was that it would extend specific consideration of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change to individual planning decisions—there is plenty in the statute about the application of this to plan-making—so that is where the gap lies. That gap can be filled if national development management policies are absolutely clear about how decisions are to be made on the impact of climate change. I hope that my noble friend says something that allows me to feel that we do not need to send the same Amendment 45 back to the other place.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl most sincerely for the time he has spent with me and my colleagues in discussions about these issues. They were, of course, of great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and I repeat my good wishes to her for a speedy recovery.

It is not often that you get a Motion both agreed and disagreed with before it is proposed, but here we go. I will speak to Motion R1, about planning fees, which is in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support. He has made the powerful case in favour of enabling local authorities to determine their planning fees to cover costs: no more, no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but surely we discovered from the documentation that came with the statutory instrument last week that after the increase in fees, the great majority of that subsidy would be to householder applications? What the noble Baroness is looking for is for householder application fees in effect to be doubled.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 82B in lieu—

82B: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application fees
(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the income from the fees set by regulations does not meet the cost of performing the function, a local planning authority may make provision as to how a fee or charge under this section is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation).”””

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I want to be sure that I have heard it right. Is the noble Baroness moving this one?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have an interest in both the items that we are considering in this group. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare my involvement as a practising but nearly completely retired chartered surveyor with a knowledge of the leasehold and construction sectors.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, deserves the full appreciation of the House for what I can only describe as a progressive defenestration of the fuzzy edges that have surrounded the question of the building safety regulator. He has whittled it down to the last elements, as to whether this is a proposal for a like-for-like transfer from one jurisdiction, if I can term departments in that sense, to another—or whether, as he had previously identified, some other morphing process was going on behind the scenes. I supported him previously in this, and I support him again in his endeavours here. This really boils down to the last element, as to whether there is a change.

One could be forgiven for suspending a certain amount of belief here. If there is going to be the process of transferring a body from the Health and Safety Executive to some other framework, known or unknown, why would one run the risk of the delays, disruption and everything else that would be involved with that if it were not for the fact that some other factor was involved? Motion X1 as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is a significant litmus test of what is involved. I encourage the Minister to consider very carefully whether the Government mean what they say in saying that it is a like-for-like transfer from one authority to another, or whether in reality it conceals some other paradigm shift. That is very important.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I apologise for the fact that his colleague has had to use my comments from a previous stage in this debate to tell him that his approach is no good. Of course, my comments were made in the context of saying that it has a technical deficiency. I was not in any way intending to suggest that the direction of travel in which he was engaged was faulty or in any other way imbued with anything other than the highest principles. He and I share a great deal of what has happened here.

Again, the noble Lord is absolutely right in proposing Motion ZC1—and I was pleased that he referred, obiter as it were, to the problem with the exceptions. What has happened here is a sort of drawbridge approach to the liability and scope of the Building Safety Act, and it is that which creates these cliff-edge approaches to who is qualified, whether their funding qualifies or excludes them, and so on and so forth. That is what has been dogging everybody all the way along the line. In reality, that delineation of the protections under the Building Safety Act is pernicious, because they are protections that any Government should apply in response to a serious and systemic failure in the home building industry to deliver adequate quality in building safety terms—and, may I say, presided over by nearly 40 years of ineffective regulatory control of building standards.

To expand a little, the Government’s resistance to anything beyond the straitjacket of parameters relating to the scope of leasehold protections seems to be governed by an entirely arbitrary approach and unwillingness even to collect data, understand implications or assess risk—I refer specially to those non-qualified leaseholders to which the noble Lord referred. My aim in all this has been to approach the matter on a much broader spectrum. The noble Lord and I shared an amendment to the Building Safety Act 18 months ago, and I think he has felt obliged to whittle it down evermore to try to get to something that he can achieve here. I absolutely applaud his persistence—but I am forced to suggest that, in the absence of any risk assessment, any government response to what may come down the road will be blindsided and ineffective. Hearing or speaking no evil does not prevent evils occurring—in this case, to hundreds of thousands of innocent lease payers, to market sectors, to valuation, to lending, to regeneration of urban areas and to new homes targets generally. I have said all this before, and I apologise for repeating it.

The noble Lord has been assiduous in his campaigning. With regard to Motion ZC1, I do not know how many leaseholders might be affected by this, but I suspect that it is actually quite a small cohort, and the Government should accept it and not allow this exclusion process or drawbridge approach to cut them off. Of course, I tried to address the whole thing on a much wider scope, but to no avail, which is why, when my words are used as a reason for denying the noble Lord the fruits of his endeavours, I have to bear in mind that I seem to have been assiduously ignored throughout this, up until today, when my words are used by the Minister against his own Back-Bencher. There is something faintly quizzical about that whole arrangement.

I hope that the Minister will at least indicate that the Government are cognisant of the serious, ongoing and growing problems arising here—to finance, to a whole sector, to hundreds of thousands, a very large number, of excluded leaseholders, and much more besides. If the Government do not recognise that, we are in for very serious problems indeed.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the very fact that these two issues remain for this Bill demonstrates that the Building Safety Act is, sadly, unfinished business. Although the matters will not be concluded today, I can be sure that they will be raised in future legislation in this House, because they need to be resolved. Having said that, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said about non-qualifying leaseholders. It is a large group which deserves not to be neglected, and I support my noble friend’s valiant efforts in getting the regulation appropriate to the need.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the building safety parts of this Bill, which have been complex, but it was all done in the interests of the leaseholders who are at the end of this process. The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Young, have outlined the reasons for their amendments. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider these outstanding matters. We are all mindful in your Lordships’ House that behind all the technicalities and complexities of the Building Safety Act and attempts to right its deficiencies in this Bill is a group of leaseholders, many of whom were or are first-time buyers, who have had the start of their home-owning journey blighted by the worry and concern of remediation and uncertainty over service charges. They have been let down by errors in the original Bill, which meant that the status of their leasehold determined what charges they would have to pay.

The Minister reassures us that further review of these matters will be undertaken. I hope that will be the case, and that further thought will be given by the Government, if there is to be no compensation to those who have already had significant costs, to how that might be dealt with in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

With the leave of your Lordships, I will touch on another small point. In Monday’s Hansard, the heading for this Bill said that legislative consent had been obtained from the Welsh Government but that the Government were still looking for legislative consent from the Scottish Government. In fact, a Scottish Government paper relating all the trials and tribulations that my noble friend had been through—it had 26 pages—was still operating. Are we still looking for more consent from that direction?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill has been improved by the assiduous work of this House over the last 10 months. Some significant and welcome changes have been made during that process.

I turn first to the two Motions left on the Order Paper. I regret that the Commons has failed to perceive the benefit of enabling some meetings of councils to be in a hybrid form. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I feel sure that this issue will resurface as the Government move towards the creation of even larger units of local government, which will put additional pressure on those elected to attend meetings in person.