Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on three matters: pavement licences, local finance, and digital and financial inclusion.

When we debated the Business and Planning Bill in 2020, we looked at the matter of pavement licences in the midst of the Covid pandemic. We needed to ensure that businesses could carry on, largely by carrying on their operations outdoors. That was quite right, but even then other noble Lords and I ensured that accessibility and inclusion were critical within that process. Perhaps this is an ideal moment to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement—and, if the word “pavement” is not clear enough, we could import a helpful Americanism: the “sidewalk”. Indeed, it is the side of the road designed for where we can walk, and we should be able to walk safely, securely and accessibly along it. The measures in the Bill are concerning on the aspect of pavements.

It is possible to have business involvement without cutting across inclusion or local voices and local involvement. Some 81% of blind people say that general street clutter on the pavement and e-scooters have a hugely adverse impact on their daily experience. It is not just about blind people but about wheelchair users, people with children in pushchairs, and young and older people; this is for all people. We need to ensure that our streets are accessible and inclusive for all. To that end, would my noble friend the Minister agree that we should strongly consider reinstating the 28-day consultation period, as set out in the Highways Act? We should have a clear demarcation of licensed areas, with tactile markers or barriers, or both. During Covid times, those were said to be temporary measures; under the new licensing scheme, those areas could be there for two years, so they need to be clearly demarked. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that we need to strongly consider changing the clauses which seek to offer the mandatory granting of licences automatically? The pavements must be safe, secure and accessible for all.

I turn now to local finance, which is a huge problem in this country. Some 70% of equity investment goes into businesses in London. If we look at investment across the piece, we see that investment is largely made by businesses less than two hours from the business in which they are investing. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a strong case for regional, mutual banks, as is the case in Germany, which does so much for SME finance in that country? We hear so much about SMEs being the backbone of the British economy, the largest private employer and the large companies of tomorrow, but to what extent do we have a system which seeks to support them and offer them the lines of credit and the flow of funds they require?

Finally, there is very little about financial and digital inclusion in the Bill. I believe that they could be two of the key drivers of levelling up and regeneration for individuals, cities, communities and our country. I intend to table amendments in Committee on that subject, and, like many noble Lords, I believe that when the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House it will be in better shape. Perhaps we cannot make it shorter, but we can make it better.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Howe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 43A withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

Amendment 217 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Amendment 248 withdrawn.