Wednesday 8th June 2022
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to be able to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Government are getting on with the job, and no Department is doing more than my own. There are five Bills in the Queen’s Speech generated from our Department. As well as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, there is legislation to improve conditions for those in social housing, to improve the rights of those in the private rented sector, to ensure that business rates can be updated so that our economy thrives, and to get rid of the pernicious employment of boycott, divestment and sanctions policies by those who seek to de-legitimise the state of Israel. I hope that all five pieces of legislation will command support across this House. They are designed to address the people’s priorities and to ensure that this Government provide social justice and greater opportunity for all our citizens.
This Bill looks specifically at how we can ensure that the Government’s levelling-up missions laid out in our White Paper published in February can be given effect, how we can have a planning system that priorities urban regeneration and the use of brownfield land, and how we can strengthen our democratic system overall.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that perhaps one of the most exciting pages in the levelling-up White Paper is page 238, which announces that there will be a new hospital health campus in Harlow over the coming years. He knows how important that is because of the fact that our current hospital estate is not fit for purpose despite the incredible work that staff do. Can he confirm that the timeline for our new hospital will be announced in the coming months?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of the more than 400 pages in the White Paper, page 238 is perhaps one of the most important, not least because it contains an image of what we can hope to see and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be announcing, which is action to ensure that my right hon. Friend’s constituents get the state-of-the-art, 21st-century hospital that they deserve. That would not happen, I am afraid, under the Opposition, because it is only through the investment that we are putting in and the sound economy that has been created under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s leadership that we are able to ensure that the citizens of Harlow get the hospitals that they need.
Caroline Lucas
I wonder if there is a page missing in my copy of the Bill, because I was looking for the net zero test, which I am sure the Secretary of State would agree ought to be applied to all planning decisions, policies and procedures, yet it is conspicuous by its absence. Does he agree that if we are serious about using this Bill to really level up, then we need to have that net zero test? Can he commit to that now?
Michael Gove
I will say three things as briefly as I can. First, the national planning policy framework that will be published in July will say significantly more about how we can drive improved environmental outcomes. Secondly, there is in the Bill a new streamlined approach to ensuring that all development is in accordance with the highest environmental standards. Thirdly, as the hon. Lady knows, under the 25-year environment plan and with the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection, the non-regression principle is embedded in everything that we do. The leadership that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown, not least at COP26, in driving not just this country but the world towards net zero should reassure her on that front.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am pleased that the Secretary of State believes in more devolution. How much extra devolved power will our councils get to settle the very important issue of how much housing investment we should welcome?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend gets to the heart of two of the most important measures in this Bill: strengthening local leadership and reforming our planning system in order to put neighbourhoods firmly in control.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I follow up on my right hon. Friend’s point about local leadership? What more are we going to do about devolving fiscal responsibility to local authorities? Ultimately, if local authorities have true powers of leadership, they must have the means of raising revenue in their own areas in a way that does not increase taxation but offsets it, so that local decisions are funded locally.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend, who was a distinguished local Government Minister, makes an important point—a point that was made just as eloquently and forcefully by Ben Houchen, the Mayor of Tees Valley Combined Authority, when he talked about the vital importance of leaders of combined authorities and others having more control over business rates and other fiscal levers. This legislation and the devolution negotiations that we are conducting with Ben and others are designed to move completely in that direction.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
On the subject of metro Mayors, the Secretary of State will have seen that the decarbonisation summit took place this week. Metro Mayors met and made an offer to the Government to work more closely with them on the transition to net zero. Has the Secretary of State seen the detail of that offer, and if not, will he get in touch with Mayor Tracy Brabin and look at what more can be done to work closely with the Mayors on this important agenda?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Across the 12 metro Mayors, we have seen examples of leadership on the environment and the move towards net zero, and indeed on the modernisation of transport systems. I know that the Mayor of West Yorkshire is particularly keen to ensure that transport and spatial planning are aligned to drive progress towards net zero. I will do everything I can to work with the Mayors of West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire.
Michael Gove
Talking of South Yorkshire, I can see that the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee wants to intervene.
Mr Betts
I want to follow up on the two questions that Conservative Members have asked about transferring powers to local authorities and Mayors. I can see in the Bill welcome proposals to expand combined authorities to more parts of the country, particularly to county areas. What I cannot see anywhere—if I am wrong, the Secretary of State will point me to the precise clause—is the making available of more powers that are currently not devolved to any local authorities. Are any such powers going to be devolved, and if so, in which clause do they appear?
Michael Gove
The Chair of the Select Committee brings me to an important point, which is that this legislation is complemented by other activity that Government are undertaking on levelling up. That activity involves negotiations with metro Mayors, for example in the west midlands and in Greater Manchester, on the devolution of more powers. When my good friend the former Member for Tatton initiated the programme of devolution to metro Mayors, he did so by direct discussion with local leaders. We will be transferring more powers, and we will update the House on the progress we make in all those negotiations. I noted a gentle susurration of laughter on the Opposition Front Bench, but I gently remind them—I sure the Chair of the Select Committee knows this—that when Labour were in power, the only part of England to which they offered devolution was London. This Government have offered devolution and strengthened local government across England.
As I look at the Benches behind me, I find it striking that in this debate on this piece of legislation, which is about strengthening local government and rebalancing our economy, the Conservative Benches are thronged with advocates for levelling up, whereas on the Labour Benches there are one or two heroic figures—such as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who are genuine tribunes of the people—but otherwise there is a dearth, an absence and a vacuum.
Talking of dearths, absences and vacuums, may I commend to the Labour Front Benchers the speech given by Lord Mandelson today in Durham—a city with which I think the Leader of the Opposition is familiar—in which he points out that Labour has still not moved beyond the primary colours stage when it comes to fleshing out its own policy? In contrast to our levelling-up White Paper and our detailed legislation, Lord Mandelson says that Labour is still at the primary stage of policy development, but I think it is probably at the kindergarten stage.
We have put forward proposals, and we are spending £4.8 billion through the levelling-up fund and similar sums through the UK shared prosperity fund, to make sure that every part of our United Kingdom is firing on all cylinders—and from Labour, nothing. When it comes to addressing the geographical inequality that we all recognise as one of the most urgent issues we need to address, it is this Government who have put forward proposals on everything from strengthening the hand of police and crime commissioners, to strengthening the hand of other local government leaders, and providing the infrastructure spending to make a difference in the communities that need it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly makes a powerful case for devolution and increased democracy, but is he aware that under this Bill, a combined authority can be created that transfers powers from second-tier councils to itself, without needing the councils’ consent? That is different from the position under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Does he agree that that would be tragic for real devolution to the lowest possible level, and that the consent of district councils to the transfer of any powers must be secured?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to and thank those who work at district council level. As we look at the pattern of local government across this country, it is important to recognise that one size does not fit all. Although I am a strong advocate of the mayoral combined authority model, and it has clearly brought benefits in areas such as Tees Valley and the west midlands, we need to be respectful of district councils and the structure of local government in those parts of the country that do not—and, indeed, need not or should not—move towards that model. I look forward to engaging with him and the Association of District Councils on how we can make sure that our devolution drive is in keeping with the best traditions in local government.
As my hon. Friend reminds the House, the devolution proposals outlined in the Bill extend the range of areas that can benefit from combined authority powers, and they strengthen scrutiny. One criticism that has sometimes been made of the exercise of powers by Mayors in mayoral combined authorities is that there has been inadequate scrutiny, particularly by the leaders of district authorities within those MCAs. Our Bill strengthens those scrutiny powers, and in so doing strengthens local democracy overall. That is in line with the progress that the Government have made, including on the Elections Act 2022, which the Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), brought in.
When we talk about levelling up, and particularly when we think about changes to our planning system, we absolutely need to focus on effective measures to regenerate our urban centres. One challenge that the country has faced over the last three or four decades has been the decline in economic activity and employment in many of our great towns and cities. We need to make sure that people’s pride in the communities where they live is matched by the resources, energy and investment that they deserve.
I saw some of that energy on display when I was in Stoke-on-Trent just three weeks ago, under Abi Brown, the inspirational Conservative leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Real change is being driven to ensure that all the six towns that constitute Stoke-on-Trent have their heart strengthened, their pride restored and investment increased.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Michael Gove
I am just about to refer to my hon. Friend. In order to ensure that people have the tools they need, we need to tackle some of the things that generate urban blight. We need to deal with the problem of empty shops, vacancies and voids on our high street, which not only depress economic activity but contribute to a lower footfall and less of a sense of purpose, buzz and energy in our communities. That is why, following on from the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, we will be bringing forward compulsory rental auctions, so that lazy landlords who leave properties void when they should be occupied by local community trusts, businesses or entrepreneurs will be forced to auction those properties, to ensure that we have the entrepreneurs that we need and the small businesses that we want on the high streets that we love.
Jonathan Gullis
May I personally thank the Secretary of State? He came to the great towns of Tunstall and Burslem to see at first hand the regeneration of brownfield sites to create hundreds of new homes, and to look at the blight of rogue and absent landlords on our high streets in the town of Tunstall. He has sat down and met me on many occasions to look at this legislation, and it is a big win for the city of Stoke-on-Trent, as well as for Members from across this House. I want to put on the record a “Thank you” on behalf of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Michael Gove
The communities of Tunstall, Burslem and Kidsgrove could not have a better advocate than my hon. Friend, and I could not have a better ally in shaping measures on urban regeneration. To drive urban regeneration, we will be increasing the council tax surcharge on empty homes. That is a means of making sure that we deal with that scourge and bring life back to all our communities.
Critically, we will also reform the compulsory purchase rules, because the way those powers operate often thwarts the desire of Homes England and others involved in the regeneration business to assemble the brownfield land necessary to build the houses and to get the commercial activity that we want in those communities. The reform in the Bill will ensure that the assembly of land required for urban regeneration becomes easier, so more of the homes that we need are built in the communities that need them in our towns and cities, rather than on precious green fields. The legislation also introduces new measures to facilitate the creation of the urban development corporations that have been integral in the past in driving some of the changes that we wish to see.
A significant part of the Bill seeks to reform the planning system, which I know is an issue of concern across the House of Commons. We all recognise that we have a dysfunctional planning system and a broken housing market. There is a desperate need for more new homes to ensure that home ownership is once more within the reach of many. It is more than just the planning system that needs to change: as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will outline later this week, changes need to be made to everything from the mortgage market to other aspects of how Government operate to help more people on to the housing ladder. Planning is part of that.
As well as making sure that we have the right homes in the right places, we must recognise, as the Bill and my Department do, why there has been resistance to new development in the past. Five basic and essential factors have led to resistance to development and our Bill attempts to deal with all of them. First, far too many of the homes that have been built have been poor quality, identikit homes from a pattern book that the volume of housebuilders have relied on, but that have not been in keeping with local communities’ wishes and have not had the aesthetic quality that people want.
One of my predecessors in this role, Nye Bevan, when he was the Minister responsible for housing in the great 1945-51 Government, made it clear that when new council homes are built, the single most important thing should be beauty. He argued that working people have a right to live in homes built with the stone and slate that reflect their local communities and were hewn by their forefathers, so that when someone looks at a council home and a home that an individual owns, they should not be able to tell the difference, because beauty is everyone’s right. I passionately believe that that is right and there are measures in the Bill to bring that forward.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly references the important role of local people in new developments, but the Osterley and Wyke Green Residents’ Association and Brentford Voice have expressed their concerns that the national development management policies in the Bill give the Secretary of State powers to overrule local people and the local plan, and that unlike for national policy statements, there is no requirement for parliamentary approval. In reality, is the Bill not the latest in a long line of power grabs by this Government?
Michael Gove
I am allergic to power grabs. I am entirely in favour of relaxing the grip of central Government and strengthening the hand of local government, which is what the planning reforms here do. The reference to the national development management policies is simply a way to make sure that the provisions that exist within the national planning policy framework—a document that is honoured by Members on both sides of the House, of course—do not need to be replicated by local authorities when they are putting together their local plans. It is simply a measure to ensure that local planners, whose contribution to enhancing our communities I salute and whose role and professionalism is important, can spend more time engaging with local communities, helping them to develop neighbourhood plans, and making sure that our plans work.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I suggest some powers that the Secretary of State might like to grab?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I suggest that the Secretary of State addresses a problem to which national parks are particularly prone, where a historic lawful development certificate is acquired because a caravan was previously located there, affording huge development on the basis of permitted development rights over which the national park authority and the planning authority have no control. That is a power that needs to be grabbed and given back to local authorities.
Michael Gove
I hear the important point about national parks, and the echo from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) with reference to areas of outstanding natural beauty. The environmental protections in the Bill should meet that need, but I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend in Committee to ensure that the protections are there.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has referred to the national development management policies. There is great concern that they will override local planning authorities, which spend a great deal of time preparing their local plans that are then approved by Government inspectors. It would be quite wrong if national Government overrode them, and it would destroy the careful balance that has existed since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, in which planning was devolved to local authorities.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to reassert that the NDMPs will not override local plans. Local plans have primacy—that is perfectly clear in this legislation. As a result of strengthening the plan- making system, we will make sure that we deal with the issues and questions that have led particular communities to resist development in the past.
I mentioned the importance of beauty. Specifically, for example, we will strengthen the role of design codes in local plans. Through our new office for place, which is a successor in some respects to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment but even better in its drive, we will be in a position to ensure that beauty is at the heart of all new developments. In particular, I pay tribute to my predecessors in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the late James Brokenshire, who worked to ensure that beauty, quality and higher aesthetic standards were at the heart of new architectural developments and did so much to reset the debate away from where it has been in the past and towards a brighter future.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Betts
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to inadvertently mislead the House. In response to the question from the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the conflict between local plans and national policies, he made a comment—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is a senior Member of the House. It does not seem to be a point of order for me, but a point of argument with the Secretary of State, who is willing to give way. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his point of order so we can allow the Secretary of State to continue?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing his non-point of order. I hand the Floor back to the Secretary of State.
Michael Gove
I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene; I am delighted to give way.
Mr Betts
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Clause 83(2) proposes a new section 38(5C) to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which says:
“If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
That is what it says—it overrides the local plan. It is in the Bill.
Michael Gove
It has always been the NPPF’s function to have those national policies, which have been agreed and which ensure that plans are in conformity with what this House wills our overall planning system to be. It is no more than a more efficient way to make sure that the existing NPPF and any future revisions of it are included in local plans.
Another reason why we sometimes see opposition to development is infrastructure. One of the critical challenges that we must all face when we contemplate whether new development should occur is the pressure that is inevitably placed on GP surgeries, schools, roads and our wider environment. That is why the Bill makes provision for a new infrastructure levy, which will place an inescapable obligation on developers to ensure that they make contributions that local people can use to ensure that they have the services that they need to strengthen the communities that they love.
Of course, section 106 will still be there for some major developments, but one of the problems with section 106 agreements is that there is often an inequality of arms between the major developers and local authorities. We also sometimes have major developers that, even after a section 106 has been agreed—even after, for example, commitments for affordable housing and other infra- structure have been agreed—subsequently retreat from those obligations, pleading viability or other excuses. We will be taking steps to ensure that those major developers, which profit so handsomely when planning permission is granted, make their own contribution.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
On the issue of viability that the Secretary of State has just raised, how does the Bill seek to prevent developers from going back and using viability as an angle to, say, reduce the number of affordable homes that they are expected to build in any new development?
Michael Gove
The reason for the infrastructure levy is that it ensures a local authority can set, as a fixed percentage of the land value uplift, a sum that it can use—we will consult on exactly what provisions there should be alongside that sum—to ensure that a fixed proportion of affordable housing can be created. The hon. Lady is quite right to say that there are some developers that plead viability to evade the obligations that they should properly discharge.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that, at the moment, someone can build tens of thousands of houses but people wait years and years for increased general practice capacity. Those from the Rebuild Britain campaign whom I met this morning tell me that they believe that integrated care boards and trusts will be prevented from requesting section 106 money to mitigate the impact of new housing, and medical facilities are but one of 10 types of infrastructure that there is no duty on local authorities to provide. Is he really confident that this will be better under the current Bill?
Michael Gove
I am absolutely confident it will be better, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that section 106 agreements—sometimes they work, and in many cases they do not—do need to be improved, and the proposals for our new infrastructure levy should do precisely that. However, the way in which the infrastructure levy will operate is something on which we will consult to ensure that it covers not just the physical infrastructure required but, as he quite rightly points out, the provision of critical healthcare.
Michael Gove
I am anxious to make just a wee bit more progress, because I am conscious that there are lots of folk who want—[Interruption.] Oh, all right then.
Rachel Hopkins
The Secretary of State is being generous with his time. This is about the infrastructure levy and the timing of its payment. At the moment, it appears that payment is going to be on completion, which benefits developers, but not the local authorities and place makers that will need to put in the infrastructure up front.
Michael Gove
The way the levy is going to operate will mean that, if the development value—the value uplift—for the developer is greater over time, local communities can get more of it. It is a way of making sure that there is appropriate rebalancing. Again, one of the things I want to stress, because it is important to do so, is that there are strengthened powers in the Bill to deal with some of the sharp practices we sometimes see in the world of development and construction. There are stronger enforcement powers, stronger powers to ensure that we have build out and stronger powers to deal with the abuse of retrospective planning permission within the system. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and others to ensure that all those enforcement powers are fit for purpose.
Michael Gove
Ah, yes—brilliant! I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).
Dr Spencer
I thought there was going to be a bit of a fight there over who would intervene. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome the provisions on planning enforcement. A key intervention, however, is to break the business model of rogue developers. Would he look again at the debate we had last year on my Planning (Enforcement) Bill, so that we can enhance these important powers to break this model and ensure that people cannot profit from gaming the planning enforcement system?
Michael Gove
Yes. The reason I was so pleased to be able to give way to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is that I think his legislation and the arguments he made were incredibly powerful. I am a bit wary about criminalisation, but I am keen to explore with him and others how we can have effective tools—real teeth. We have some proposals in the Bill, but they may not go far enough, which is why I hope we can discuss in Committee exactly what we need to do to ensure that enforcement is stronger.
I should say—I touched on the environment briefly earlier—that as well as making sure we have new development that is beautiful, that is accompanied by infrastructure and that is democratically sanctioned, we need to make sure we have new development that is appropriately environmentally sensitive. Let me repeat—
Mr Robertson
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Just before he entirely leaves the issue of infrastructure, to which he is right to draw attention, one of the big problems is that the water companies do not provide adequate drainage systems when new builds are being proposed, so should they not have such systems in place before new developments actually start?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is getting me on to a subject that I have often touched on in the past, which is the role of water companies overall. When I was fortunate enough to be Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was able to talk to the water companies about the way in which they have privileged financial engineering over the real engineering required to ensure that new developments are fit for purpose, and in particular about how we deal effectively with a lack of investment in infrastructure, such as a lack of effective treatment of waste water. The way in which some of the water companies have behaved, frankly, is shocking, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be bringing forward more proposals to ensure that the water companies live up to their proper obligations, because it is a matter of both infrastructure and the environment.
I mentioned earlier that the environmental outcome reports, which the Bill makes provision for, will strengthen environmental protection, and of course the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is helping to ensure that biodiversity net gain is integrated fully into the planning system to make sure we have the enhanced environment that all of us would want to pass on to the next generation.
As we recognise the need to develop homes in the future that are beautiful, with the right infrastructure, democratically endorsed and with the environmental externalities dealt with appropriately, we also want to ensure that they are parts of neighbourhoods, not dormitories. That is why it is so critical that we deal with one or two of the flaws—I will put it no more highly than that—within the current planning system. Such flaws mean, for example, that we can have developers that, because they do not build out, subsequently exploit the requirement for a five-year housing land supply to have speculative development in areas that local communities object to. We will be taking steps in this legislation and in the NPPF to deal with that.
We will also be taking steps to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate, when it is reviewing a local plan and deciding whether it is sound, does not impose on local communities an obligation to meet figures on housing need that cannot be met given the environmental and other constraints in particular communities. There are two particular areas, I think, where the Planning Inspectorate —and it is simply following Government policy—has in effect been operating in a way that runs counter to what Ministers at this Dispatch Box have said over and over again. That has got to change, and it is through both legislation and changes to the NPPF that we will do so. We will end abuse of the five-year land supply rules, and make sure that, if local authorities have sound plans in place, there cannot be such speculative development. We will also make sure that, even as we democratise and digitise the planning system, we are in a position to make sure that the Planning Inspectorate ensures not that every plan fits a procrustean bed, but that every plan reflects what local communities believe in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
Wow! Yes, I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend go further for the sake of clarity, and make sure that there is, if not an equation, at least a clear mechanism by which local authorities can net off the contradictory elements—floodplain, green belt—so that they are not asked to build houses in inappropriate numbers simply because of a national target?
Michael Gove
Exactly right—my right hon. Friend is spot-on. We do need to have a more sophisticated way of assessing housing need, and that is something we will be doing as part of revisions to the NPPF, but the protections my right hon. Friend quite rightly points out are integral to ensuring that there is democratic consent for development.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
In Wolverhampton, we have developed right up to my northern boundary, which borders South Staffordshire. That land is currently under proposal for housing, and my residents in Wednesfield and Fallings Park really object to losing their beautiful green space and green belt. Could the Secretary of State reassure them that their views will be taken into account, even though this crosses local authorities and is at the edge of the West Midlands mayoralty?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. First, my hon. Friend’s constituents could not have a better champion. Secondly, green belt protection is critical. Thirdly, we will ensure that a local plan protects those areas of environmental beauty and amenity. Fourthly, we will also end the so-called duty to co-operate, which has often led some urban authorities to offload their responsibility for development on to other areas in a way that has meant that we have had not urban regeneration but suburban sprawl.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
On the issue of constraints, can my right hon. Friend give us some further detail about whether the local authority could argue for constraints on the basis of economic areas, for example? Could that be an opportunity to save my dockyard from closure, following a proposal for flats to meet a housing target?
Michael Gove
Again, a variety of factors can be part of a sound local plan. Indeed, at the moment, permitted development right provisions that allow us to move from commercial to residential are capped at a certain size to ensure that we recognise that some commercial sites should not be moved over to residential. In a way, that is often sensible, but not always, and certainly not when we are thinking about an historic dockyard that has existed since the days of Samuel Pepys.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making a great argument on solving some of the flaws in the system. He may not have been privileged enough to be at the debate that I held yesterday on neighbourhood planning. One of the problems that came out was that, if a council does not have an up-to-date local plan—my Liberal Democrat-run borough council does not have one—neighbourhood plans get ridden roughshod over. What can my community do to stop and prevent the sprawl that happens in my constituency?
Michael Gove
I am shocked—shocked, I tell you—that a Liberal Democrat authority does not have a plan in place and, as a result, housing numbers are spiralling out of control. Imagine what would happen in other beautiful parts of our country such as Devon, in a community such as Tiverton, or Honiton, if Liberal Democrat politicians were in charge. I reassure my hon. Friend that this legislation will ensure that if you have a local plan in place—preferably one put in place by Conservative councillors—you will safeguard your green spaces and natural environment, and you will not have those developers’ friends—the Liberal Democrats—concreting over the countryside.
Bob Seely
On the Isle of Wight, we are separated by sea from the mainland. Our local building industry builds between 200 and 300 homes a year, and we cannot really build more. The standard methodology gives us ridiculous targets of 700-plus, and the nonsense of the mutant algorithm would have given us 1,200-plus. Even in the current consideration, we are forced to offer targets that realistically we cannot hope to build. What reassurance can he give the Island?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think it is the case that the thinker who coined the phrase “mutant algorithm” is my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), who is now an Under-Secretary in the Department and working with me and the Minister for Housing to address precisely the concerns that he outlined. We need to build more homes, but we also need to ensure that how we calculate need and how plans are adopted is much more sensible and sensitive.
Michael Gove
Talking about sensible and sensitive, I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Theresa Villiers
The Secretary of State is saying much that suggests that he believes we should rein in the Planning Inspectorate and give back to local authorities more control over planning, but that is not in the Bill. So is he today at the Dispatch Box saying that he will table amendments to the Bill along those lines?
Michael Gove
I will say two things. First, I hope to work constructively with Back Benchers across all parties to ensure that the Bill is strengthened. I have never seen a piece of legislation introduced to the House that could not be improved in Committee, and I know that this Bill will be. I also look forward to good ideas, if they come, from Opposition Front Benchers.
Secondly, it is also the case that the publication of a revised NPPF and NPPF prospectus will help us to appreciate what the nature of the further amendments should be. As my right hon. Friend knows, in one or two areas of the Bill, there are placeholders, where more work requires to be done. I am frank about that and I look forward to working with her.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am conscious that lots of people want to speak in the debate. I will accept interventions from the four people who are standing up, but I fear that I cannot take any more interventions. I will then briefly end.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Secretary of State has just said what I was hoping he would say, so I do not have to say it. Sixty-two Members wish to speak in the debate. The time limit will be very short for each speech, and every intervention made is stopping somebody from getting to speak later. I have noted who has made the most interventions.
Michael Gove
I give way to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being generous. On housing and the constraint of local authorities, in my constituency, we have an over-supply of 4,000, which a previous Housing Minister described as “very ambitious”—in other words, too much development. May I bring him back to the lack of GPs in infrastructure supply through development? Will he make NHS Providers a statutory consultee in any of these developments?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am interested in what the Secretary of State has said about the re-emphasis on the environmental protections. Of course, in urban areas, that is often urban green space rather than green belt. I have a case in Haughton Green in my constituency where the council closed Two Trees high school. When it closed the school, it said that there would be housing on the footprint of the school but that the fields around the school, in a heavily urbanised area, would be protected, so there would be a green doughnut. It now says that it has to build on the entire site to meet the Government’s housing targets. With what he just said, does he give hope to the people of Haughton Green that the council can look at Two Trees again?
Michael Gove
I cannot comment on a specific planning application for reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows well, but I appreciate the strength of his point and will ask the Minister for Housing to engage with him more closely on both that specific issue and the broader policy points that he raised.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Secretary of State knows, York also has a Liberal Democrat-run council, and the challenge we have is that the council is not building the tenure of housing that my local residents can afford either to rent or to buy. So how will this legislation really shift the dial on affordability?
Michael Gove
I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Lady and the situation in which she finds herself. I know that she is a doughty champion for York—it is a beautiful city, and a potential home for the House of Lords if it does not want to move to Stoke—and that York needs the right type of housing and commercial investment. I look forward to working with her and with Homes England, and also to consider what we can do in the Bill to deal with some of the consequences of some of her constituents foolishly having voted for Liberal Democrats at the local level.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State was asking for good ideas on things that have been missed in the Bill. On building more social and affordable housing and GP surgeries, there is a missed opportunity here to ensure that public sector-owned assets such as land and buildings, including police stations, can be sold for slightly below market value where a GP surgery is needed or housing associations want to build social housing. He is aware that I have been campaigning for that on Teddington police station in my constituency, which the Labour Mayor wants to sell to the highest bidder for luxury housing, even though the community wants a new GP surgery and more affordable housing. Will he put that provision in the Bill?
Michael Gove
Well, this is a first. It is the first time—certainly in the last seven years—that there has been a Lib Dem policy proposal that makes sense. I am nostalgic for those coalition years when, every so often, there was a Lib Dem policy proposal that made sense—they normally came from people who are no longer in the House—and that one does. Yes, she is absolutely right.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I should probably quit while I am ahead. We have consensus on one particular area where reform is needed. I stressed earlier, in introducing the Bill, that it sets out to ensure that urban regeneration becomes a reality, that our planning system is modernised, that the missions we have to level up this country are on the face of the Bill and that we are accountable to this House. There are so many colleagues who want to contribute, because that mission is so important. I beg leave to ask the House to give the Bill its Second Reading. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will sit down.
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
It is my pleasure to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of the Government’s Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I begin by thanking hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their thoughtful contributions to this afternoon’s debate. Before I address some of the points that have been raised, I should say that accompanying each of the 12 missions in our levelling up White Paper, enshrined in law by this Bill, is a clear commitment from this Government to work with all political parties, across all four nations and all tiers of government, to build a stronger, fairer and more united country after covid.
Despite the negativity we have heard from the Opposition Front Benchers, I am pleased to report that when I go around the country, I find that Mayors and leaders of all political persuasions are keen to work with us to deliver this mission. I believe that the Bill will help us to make this shared vision a reality by supporting local leaders to take back control of regeneration, end the blight of empty shops and deliver the quality homes that communities need. It is about giving them the tools that they need to deliver, along with the other major pieces of work that Government are doing in this area. I am grateful to hon. Members who continue to engage constructively with us on the provisions of this Bill so that it delivers the transformative change that we all want.
Liam Byrne
Could the Minister say a word about how he will use the missions to drive the reduction of inequalities in our country? One approach that the Labour Government tried was the use of floor targets in neighbourhood renewal funds. He may have a different approach, but that detail is terribly important.
Stuart Andrew
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) just reminded me, we have a whole annexe with the measures on that and we will be held to account by Parliament. That is the right thing to do. I cannot recall there ever being missions like this before Parliament so that every single Member of the House can challenge the Government on whether they have reached those objectives; it is a real opportunity for Parliament to hold the Government to account on those missions.
I echo the sentiment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said in his opening remarks that we will continue to work closely with right hon. and hon. Members to further hone and refine the legislation before it is put on the statute book. We want to build on our £4.8 billion levelling-up fund which, as hon. Members know well, is supercharging connectivity by building the next generation of roads, bridges, cycle networks and digital infrastructure. Through the UK shared prosperity fund, more than £2.6 billion is being spent to help people in the most deprived parts of the country to access more opportunities and pursue better careers. With more than £2 billion pledged by my Department over the next three years, we are helping local authorities to redouble their efforts to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, building on the incredible achievements in the pandemic.
I will turn to some of the issues that were raised today. One issue that hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke about, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton)—I understand that they are calling themselves “levelling-up central”—and the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), is the importance of breathing new life into our high streets, towns and city centres, all of which were especially hard hit by the covid pandemic and now require investment and support to adapt and thrive.
Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of entrusting councils, which know their areas best, to get on with the job and to green light regeneration schemes in their areas. We agree, which is why the Bill liberates councils to more easily redesign and regenerate their communities. The Bill allows local authorities to hold high street rental auctions so that landlords are encouraged to put empty buildings to good use. It makes the temporary freedoms around al fresco dining permanent, so that we can create more buzzing vibrant high streets. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and I will take her thoughts further—well, I would not be allowed not to do so.
Most importantly, the Bill makes it much easier for councils to issue compulsory purchase orders so that they can repurpose boarded-up shops and derelict sites. All those changes are accompanied by a series of common-sense reforms that will mean that no council has to pay over the odds in hope value to landowners when it issues compulsory purchase orders—a small change that will deliver big savings for the public purse. We will publish further details on how we intend to use those powers in the Bill. It should hopefully go without saying that we are more than willing to engage with hon. Members in the process.
One issue that is guaranteed to provoke lively debate in this place is planning reform, as we have seen today. I was going to list all the hon. Members who have raised planning concerns with me, but I suspect that I would run out of time. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have engaged with the Government and with me on that issue over many months. We have listened intently to their feedback, and that is reflected in the fresh reforms that we have set out in the Bill.
Some may defend the status quo and question whether there is still a case for planning reform amid everything else that is going on, but let us look again at the facts. It currently takes on average seven years for councils to prepare a local plan, and, in some cases, five years before a spade even hits the ground. Response rates to a typical pre-planning consultation are around 3%, and that drops to less than 1% in local plan consultations. I say to hon. Members that we cannot deliver the homes that this country needs without planning reform, and we cannot level up communities without the improvements set out in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) rightly pointed out, we need these homes. I commend him for his excellent report and the proposals he has made to help people to build their own homes.
This Bill will simplify the content of local plans and standardise the process in a much shorter time, with improved local engagement. With more local plans in place, there will be far less speculative development, giving communities transparency and a real voice to influence what is built in their area. Our digital reforms will also move us beyond the days of laminated notices on lamp posts to fully accessible planning applications that people can view on their iPads and smartphones at home.
I am, of course, still continuing to listen to hon. Members. On the issue of local housing need and the targets, I should make it clear that they are not targets. They are there to inform the development of a plan, but in reality we know from listening to colleagues that they have been treated rather stringently. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening comments, we need a more sensible approach and we are looking at that at pace.
Ben Bradley
My right hon. Friend rightly points out that planning often leads to a heated debate in this Chamber and can be quite a complicated issue. He also knows that the other elements of the Bill such as devolution, locally-led development corporations and all the other factors can have a huge beneficial impact on our areas. Can he assure me that the complicated planning debates and discussions among colleagues will not be allowed to delay the outcome on those other much more straightforward and well-supported parts of the Bill?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is challenging me to expose my parliamentary expertise, but this is really in the hands of the Committee, so I would ask him to kindly lobby members of the Committee to help me get the Bill through, and I can help him with his aim.
Let me mention a key element that people have been raising, which is the issue of the five-year land supply. If an area has an up-to-date local plan, it will no longer need to demonstrate such a land supply, and that is so that we can stop speculative development.
Chris Grayling
Part of the problem we face—for example, in an area where there are small local district councils in charge of planning—is that, however much Ministers may say that targets are not targets, the local officers see them as such and see their task as being to implement a number that has landed on their desk. It is really important during this process that we break free of that. One of the reasons that councils are taking so long to form their plans is, frankly, that it takes so long for them to work out what on earth to do with the targets. Can my right hon. Friend please bear in mind, as he takes the Bill through, how we send clear messages to councils about what they are and what they are not expected to do?
Stuart Andrew
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He knows—we have had a number of conversations on this very issue—that these are the things we are looking at. I look forward to bringing them forward as part of the Bill.
I want to touch on the issue of build out. I have heard loud and clear from colleagues, and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the issue of developers seeming to take a long time from approval to build houses. These commencement orders and an agreed rate of delivery will, we hope, help us to get such permissions built out much more quickly.
A number of Members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and others—have raised their concerns about the national development management policies. One of the key aims of the Bill is to reduce the administrative burden on local councils so that they can concentrate on delivering high-quality, locally-led plans. That is why, through this Bill, we hope to shift the onus of delivering on national priorities to central Government through introducing a set of national development management policies. These policies will cover the most important national planning issues facing the sector, including net zero, tackling climate change and making sure that we are also dealing with heritage issues and protections of green belt.
To those who are concerned that these provisions will somehow override local plans, I would say that that is not the intention. The intention is to produce swifter, slimmer plans to remove the need for generic issues that apply universally, which will help us to reduce time-consuming duplication, and to ensure that local plans are more locally focused and relevant to the local communities. I hope that, during the passage of this Bill, we will be able to give more assurance on that.
Andrew Gwynne
The Minister will know that Stockport, which is one of the two councils that covers my constituency, pulled out of the Greater Manchester spatial framework, largely because even though Manchester and Salford were taking a large chunk of its housing allocation, its councillors were against green belt development.
Stockport is a very tightly constrained borough surrounded by green belt. It is now in the process of developing a local plan, but it will have to meet even higher housing targets. Will the Minister guarantee that if Stockport develops a local plan that meets the needs of Stockport but saves and protects the green belt around Stockport, he will support it?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Member knows that I cannot comment on individual plans. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) would be the first to apply for an urgent question asking me to explain why I prejudged a local plan. What I would say, in general terms, is that it is clear that local authorities can argue the constraints that they may have, and his local authority may be planning to do that; I do not know.
Let me move on, because I am conscious of time. I turn to second homes, because, if I did not, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and others, would be rather angry with me. We have put provisions in the Bill to try to help on that, and I know that she wants us to go further. I have made a commitment to come down to the south-west to hold a series of roundtables and see the issues for myself. We will see what else can be done as we go through the Bill’s passage.
Rachael Maskell
In addition to second homes, we have the challenge of Airbnbs, which of course the Bill does not mention, and yet they are blighting our communities as they take out existing stock and dominate new stock that is being built. Will the Minister look again—it is urgent—to put an amendment into the Bill to address that serious issue?
Stuart Andrew
In fact, I had a meeting just this morning to talk about that very issue. I will report back in due course, if that is okay.
Tim Farron
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I concur with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), but will he also carefully consider introducing an amendment in Committee that would make second home ownership a separate category of plan and use? That is obviously the clearest way in which we could control second home ownership in communities such as mine and in other parts of the country. Will he at least consider that in the coming weeks?
Stuart Andrew
I am keen to ensure that we get it right. Of course I will consider it, because I want to ensure that we consider all aspects. There could, however, be unintended consequences in other parts of the country. We will want to ensure that we get it right, but I will look at all options. I have made that commitment to numerous colleagues who have raised the issue with me.
I turn to infrastructure. I want to mention in particular my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) , who seems to secure a Westminster Hall debate on this issue every other week. I congratulate him on that. Many have asked what the Bill means for our infrastructure: our roads, bridges, schools, GP surgeries and so on. This is where I believe communities stand to really benefit from our reforms. All of us know that, without new infrastructure, when people see new homes going up in their community, too often they fear the worst. They fear that it will result in more congested roads, busier trains and fewer services to go around.
I hope that the proposals that we have set out in the Bill will go a long way towards allaying those fears for good. I am determined to continue working with hon. Members on both sides of the House to do so. That starts with sweeping away the old, opaque section 106 agreements and replacing them with one simple infrastructure levy that is set and raised by local authorities. The new levy will be fairer, simpler and more transparent, and it will be imposed on the final value of a development. It is important to stress that, with the housing market as buoyant as it is, the levy will easily be able to respond to market conditions. Put simply, when prices go up, so will the levy.
Crucially, our Bill also requires councils to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy, setting out how and when the levy receipts will be used. That means new development will always bring with it the new schools, nurseries and GP surgeries that communities want and need. I have listened, in particular to the debates secured by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. He knows that I will be meeting my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care next week to see what more we can do to ensure that local health services are more involved with the planning process.
We will run a test and learn approach. We are holding a series of roundtables with stakeholders because we want to get it right. It is important to remember that councils can borrow against the levy, so they can bring the infrastructure in as soon as the development is happening.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will have heard what I said in my speech about the gross added value method of charging for the infrastructure levy, which will act as a disincentive to developers to put added value on environmental and design matters. Will he please discuss that matter with me to see whether we can use a better method by capturing the increase in land value?
Stuart Andrew
I certainly make that commitment. My hon. Friend raised that point with me earlier this afternoon. There are some points there that I want to further explore, so I will ensure I meet him in the next week or so.
Richard Graham
Will the Minister say something in his summing up on the points that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) raised, and which we discussed earlier with his colleague the Secretary of State, to reassure us that there is no intention to devolve upwards and that the powers of district councils will remain as they are without being poached by some CCA?
Stuart Andrew
I hope my hon. Friend saw the enthusiastic nodding on the Front Bench, which will give him the reassurance he seeks.
The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill represents a major milestone in our journey towards building a stronger, fairer and more united country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, it is for all parts of the country. It confers on local leaders a suite of powers to regenerate our high streets, towns and cities, and gives them unprecedented freedoms to build the homes and infrastructure that communities want and need, following all the BIDEN principles—that is, the Secretary of State’s, not the President of the United States. I also take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) about the environmental standards of homes. I hope to do some more work on that in the coming weeks.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the Minister for giving way. He has not responded to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) about publishing an impact assessment. Will he confirm that one will be published, and will he let us know when?
Stuart Andrew
Yes, there will be, and it will come at the second stage of Committee.
Munira Wilson
The Minister talked about building the homes that communities want and need, and he made a commitment to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) about not devolving powers upwards. Last year, central Government pushed through permitted development rights, which enable developers to put whole storeys on top of existing buildings, causing misery for leaseholders even when residents and local planning authorities have opposed them. Will he look at rescinding those powers in the Bill?
Stuart Andrew
No, I will not.
As I said, these new freedoms will help communities to repurpose and redesign old unused sites, and turn them into new vibrant communities. The Bill allows us to become a regeneration nation. It will support the housing and construction sector to play its part in growing our economy, creating well-paid jobs and levelling up. At the same time, the Bill brings our ageing analogue planning system into the digital age, with residents able to share their views at the touch of a smartphone. It places local people at the heart of a smoother, simpler more streamlined planning system using street votes, new design codes and community-led plans.
Most importantly, by enshrining the 12 missions of our levelling-up White Paper into law and offering every part of England a devolution deal by 2030, the Bill fulfils our promise to the British people—a fundamental promise upon which the Government were elected—to take power away from Whitehall and place it directly in the hands of communities, so that they can determine their future and realise their full potential. That is the pledge we made and that is what the Bill delivers. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (First sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 21st June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 June 2022 - (21 Jun 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Q
Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: Goodness, that is a big question. My interest and expertise are particularly around the R&D aspects of the Bill. One of the really encouraging and exciting things going on across the Government at the moment is the attempt to tackle some of these huge cross-cutting issues, and levelling up is very much one of those things. That absolutely requires concerted, co-ordinated action, right across the Government, through virtually all the Departments, in a way that is aligned and co-ordinated and which really delivers on very broad priorities. Levelling up is a really good example. Net zero is another one.
Those kinds of things require different ways of working. This Bill is one framework in which that kind of joined-up thinking can be set out and embedded in the way in which government works. Yes, I think it absolutely has the opportunity to deliver on the ambitions set out in the White Paper. That depends very much on the alignment between the mechanisms and framework set out in the Bill and the missions element that is core to pushing forward the White Paper agenda.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: Absolutely. Research and development has an important role to play in the levelling-up agenda, in the context of economic regeneration right across the country. What we see at the moment is huge disparity in all kinds of measures, but one of them is total factor productivity across the UK, and R&D-intensive business and industry are critical to generating those high value-add activities that support economic growth across the UK, bringing with them a whole variety of high-quality jobs. One of the things that is important to emphasise is that innovation-led growth is not just about jobs for innovators; it is a huge ecosystem of activity that goes around that, which will provide economic growth and high-quality jobs and opportunities for people in local innovation clusters right across the country.
That is the goal. The role that UKRI needs to play is critical in that. We have this extraordinary opportunity, with the formation of UKRI four years ago, of bringing together all the disciplines and all the sectors. In the same way as I mentioned that cross-Government co-ordination is needed, cross-R&D co-ordination is needed to deliver some of the activities. We span the whole system in UKRI, so we can build back better aligned investment that can support open economic growth—as I said—right across the UK. We need that balance, co-ordinating across different inputs, to drive growth which is led by R&D and innovation. That is multiple things, some of which are in my remit and some of which are certainly not—that is another key point.
The co-ordination locally is important, but in the broader national context—that is also important. This is not about fragmentation; in fact, it has to be the opposite of fragmentation. While local empowerment and local choice are critical, that has to be embedded in a much wider national context. We cannot have a situation in which, across the country, every region decides that it aims to specialise in the same thing. That would obviously be incredibly counterproductive for everyone. That balance between national co-ordination and local empowerment is critical across my kind of investment and across the broader range of leaders as set out in the White Paper.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: It is good to have those kinds of clear targets and goals. That is helpful. I think it is a long-term ambition, and that is another critical element of both the Bill and the missions, having those clearly articulated long-term goals to steer towards. The SR element of it is obviously much more rapid, and made in the context of the rising R&D budget across the SR, so I think it is achievable.
From my point of view, it is important to stress that our spend distribution does not meet the target from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There is the broader Government target for the whole of investment, of 30% and 40% set out in the missions, and then there is a specific BEIS target of 55% outside the greater south-east. Our spend does not meet that at the moment—we are only part of the BEIS spend—but the critical element from that point of view is that in our open competitions for funding, we have flat success rates across the country. The news that we are investing more in the greater south-east than outside that area is because we do not receive the applications.
A lot of what we need to do is capacity building. We need to think hard about how we support the excellent research and innovation that we see right across the country to galvanise and bid into our schemes, making sure that the schemes we put forward are equally open to everyone right across the country and that the targeted interventions that we put in place, of which there are some—they are only going to be a small proportion of our overall investment—are carefully considered in the context of the wider capacity-building activity to drive up opportunity for everyone right across the country.
There is excellence everywhere, however, and we can see that, for example, in parts of the recent research excellence framework. One hundred and fifty-seven universities across the UK made submissions to have their research assessed in that exercise. There is world-leading research in 99% of them, according to the assessment process, which can lead activity. Harnessing the benefit of that will be critical to the levelling-up agenda and to the wider economic recovery from the pandemic that we need to drive.
Getting back to your question—are those the right ambitions?—I suppose I am inherently more in favour of outcome and output ambitions than I am of input ambitions but, none the less, I think having those clear targets behind which we can align our activity in UKRI and more broadly across Government is very helpful in embedding this agenda right across everything that we do. That will be critical to success.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: That is quite a difficult question to answer. At the moment, things are very challenging right across the country. We have the inflationary pressures caused by a combination of the tail of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. That has come on the back of the pandemic, which also caused a lot of economic and social shockwaves across the country. Both those things, if anything, amplify disparities for a whole variety of reasons. Because of those factors, it would be difficult to argue that things are getting better.
Having said that, and looping back to what I said at the beginning, I am very encouraged by the ambition—reflected in the Bill and the White Paper—to take on some of the really big, long-standing and multifaceted problems; to get to the root of them and tackle them through this concerted, aligned action. That is not typical, because we have tended to work in silos when dealing with particular aspects, which does not work as well as integrated, concerted actions. A lot of the important problems, such as health inequalities, are multifaceted, and we do not solve them by simply looking at, for example, the health system. I am encouraged by the new approaches that are being taken to try to address some of the problems, but I do not think they are yet biting.
The Chair
Tracy, I am going to have to cut you off, because we need slightly shorter answers. I will ask the Minister—who does not believe in “churn of Ministers”—to ask you a question.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Clauses 60 and 61 will simplify and streamline the processes for setting up new combined authorities. West Yorkshire is lucky, because it already had a combined authority from 2014. From your own experience of getting the mayoral combined authority set up and from the wider experiences of the M10 group, could you say anything about the complexity and time taken to set up new combined authorities? I appreciate that people are full of enthusiasm and want to get on with it, but that, at the moment, they have to go through some quite laborious processes to get going. What was your experience of that? Do you welcome provisions that would simplify and speed up the process of getting going with CAs?
Tracy Brabin: My role really started on election day—I was not here setting up the office and the CA. However, going forwards into combined county authorities and other models, I hope that whatever learning you get from that will come back and refresh our modelling, so that we can learn from these new MCAs and CCAs. Ben, would you like to add to that? You were here; you did it!
Ben Still: Briefly, there is a set of processes that we and the other CAs had to follow. The provisions in the Bill to simplify those processes are welcome in the sense that the statutory tests still need to be met; that is the important thing, I suspect. For us, though, the combination of the will on both sides—both locally and within the relevant Government Departments—to go through the processes at pace and to work collectively is just as important as the steps we need to go through.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Tracy Brabin: I would say wholeheartedly that the mayoral model is better. It is a single point of contact; it is a point of contact with Government. The Mayor is a champion, advocate and ambassador for the region, and somebody that can work collectively on strategic priorities. The role is not just local but national—and, I would suggest, international—to raise the profile of a region. It is great that Government are understanding and getting behind devolution. It really, genuinely is the way forward for our region.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Tracy Brabin: I cannot tell you. The gift that keeps on giving is the fact that I also have responsibilities for police and crime. It means we can take a public health approach to everything we are doing, getting people in the room or on Zoom from housing and transport, and—via the integrated care system—people from health talking about health inequalities that impact on crime. It is a really brilliant tool to address some of the greater challenges across West Yorkshire. There are obviously lots of different versions, and only Andy Burnham and myself have those powers, but they are really useful.
For example, they help us to deliver my commitment to the safety of women and girls across West Yorkshire. It feeds into everything, including transport. We have the safety app that allows bus users to feed back on whether women and girls feel safe travelling. On skills, we are able to support 750 more police officers and staff, and to work with the chief constable to try to find a pipeline of diverse young people wanting to go into the police. It is a really great strength.
I would say that giving police and crime commissioners and our teams in-year funding pots, with different expectations and timeframes, is incredibly difficult to handle. I hope that we can get multi-year pots of funding to do bigger projects that have a greater impact.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Tracy Brabin: It is helpful that we have real strength in our leaderships, because they are really experienced leaders. We are all focused on delivering for the people of West Yorkshire, and it has not come to a point where it has been down to my vote. We get a consensus before we go to a vote, and the opposition members on the CA are very helpful, because they provide the check and challenge to get us to a point of compromise so that we can bring everybody with us in delivering for the people of West Yorkshire.
Tim Farron
Q
Tracy Brabin: Affordable and sustainable homes are a priority for me, because it is personal—I grew up in social housing. My commitment to the people of West Yorkshire was to deliver 5,000 affordable and sustainable homes. Over the years, we have seen the number diminish, partly due to right to buy and partly due to the lack of funding. I am able to work with the councils and push them to get to further building target, which has been really helpful. The brownfield fund for housing has enabled us to really focus on the spots that blight our communities, and to work with developers.
For the first time, the West Yorkshire housing associations have all come together under one umbrella to deliver on my housing pledge and to help us get there, but it is still a challenge. Although the £22 million extra in the Bill for brownfield housing is welcome, it comes with the same strings attached and the same expectations from the Government, but with less time to deliver. There is an expectation that we have more freedom, but we need to get away from the strings that hold us back from delivering.
Let us not forget that we have areas in West Yorkshire where the housing stock is really low cost, and we are trying to square the circle of how we build more when we have the Government’s expectations about market failure. We have met Homes England since I became Mayor. I am very interested to see how that relationship develops and how we can work more closely on affordable housing, because the need in our region is growing exponentially. The lists of people waiting for a secure and affordable home are far too long. Ben, I do not know whether you want to talk more technically.
Ben Still: Thank you, Mayor. There is a lot in the Bill that could potentially be helpful to local authorities in unlocking and developing land. The issue that we face in West Yorkshire is much more about the viability of housing sites than about pressure on land and so forth. This is a good example of where the Mayor working in partnership with the local authorities is not just about the legislative provisions, but about the strength of the partnership. The Bill does not change the fundamental relationship between local authorities and Mayors with regards to who is responsible for the delivery of housing.
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
Q
I want to return to planning. We share an ambition, in that we obviously want the right houses in the right places for our population. Much of the Bill is about community-led planning—that is, ensuring that communities have a say in where houses should be built, so that we can improve support for development within communities. How would that marry up with a strategic approach that was perhaps done by Mayors? I often describe planning as something that people feel happens to them, rather than them being engaged in it. If Mayors around the country had lots of strategic planning rights and powers, is there a danger that we might negate the chance of improving community involvement in the planning system in order to build the houses we need?
Tracy Brabin: It feels to me that there are already those checks and balances for local communities. When there is an option for a warehouse or the building of homes and so on, the public and communities have an opportunity to reject that planning. Obviously, local plans are a responsibility for local councils, but for me what would be interesting with the strategic planning is to support local councils when they have a vision. For example, in Stockport in Manchester, the council has a vision to bring together greater investment and a bolder planning opportunity, working with communities. Maybe it would be cross-border and difficult to navigate, so the Mayors could be helpful there.
Of course, it is important for the public to have a voice in what their communities look like, but we would hate to get into a situation where communities that are happy with their village could block much-needed housing from their community. It is important that we keep the conversation going, though. I know our local councils do everything they can to work with communities to get the right outcomes, but we do need more social and affordable housing in our region. There is a role for the Mayor to play in that, and the strategic plan would help.
Ben Still: To add to what the Mayor has said, the strategic planning covers a variety of topics of which housing is one. There is probably a role for Mayors from mayoralties and combined authorities to join up when looking at things like strategic infrastructure such as transport, broadband and so on, where it makes sense to plan across individual local authority or unitary authority areas. As the Mayor said, the local authority is the planning body and it has that process with communities. The Bill has a number of aspects that might strengthen that.
The Chair
Any other questions? No. That brings us to the end of the session. Tracy—Madam Mayor—thank you for your enthusiastic evidence. Ben, thank you for coming along for your evidence, too. It is most appreciated.
Tracy Brabin: Thank you, and good luck everybody.
Examination of Witness
Mairi Spowage gave evidence.
Patricia Gibson
Q
Mairi Spowage: Through the Bill, my understanding is that the UK Government have to publish regular updates on the progress that they are making towards the missions that it sets out and the metrics chosen to measure success. There is quite a lot of work to do to ensure that those metrics cover the whole of the UK on all the different missions. There is a significant amount of investment—I believe that the ONS is looking to try to do that better, but it is not for me to say whether an independent body should be set up to monitor what is, after all, a UK Government policy agenda that they can legitimately pursue.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Mairi Spowage: Yes, if and when digital connectivity is of sufficient quality it will present a lot of opportunities for the rural economy. We still hear in parts of Scotland that it is a barrier to remote working. It would be hugely transformative for lots of areas, particularly of rural Scotland, but I am sure that lots of other rural parts of the UK would say the same. It would be transformative in terms of the connectivity of people working from home, perhaps for businesses in population centres but also for businesses that are operating in these areas, to have a more reliable connection. It could be extremely transformative to those areas.
We have heard from some of our work with businesses that to a certain extent it can also work the other way. Businesses based in remote and rural Scotland are employing people in the big population centres, but sometimes having to pay them more money because they are more likely to command higher wages in those areas, particularly in this very tight labour market that we have at the moment.
Improvements in digital connectivity present huge opportunities for rural Scotland. As much as there is quite a lot of focus on transport connectivity through the levelling-up funds, investment UK-wide—particularly in rural areas—in digital connectivity is one of the areas where we could get the biggest bang for our buck in transforming the economy and reducing regional inequality, particularly when we look at the population outlook if current trends continue in rural areas.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Mairi Spowage: That is a great question, and one that policy makers in Scotland have been grappling with for a long time, particularly given the quality of our universities in Scotland and their international prowess in research and development. We seem to have an issue between the development of the ideas, the start-up, and the translation of that into commercial opportunities that can be scaled up into medium-sized businesses. In Scotland, we often find those opportunities are lost, particularly to the south-east of England, because the infrastructure is there to scale up that business to the next step. I think the sorts of investments that you are talking about, not just in Glasgow but in other locations in Scotland, will be really important. We have to think about how we take all of the great advances that have been made in academia in Scotland and turn them into commercial opportunities, have them scale up and feel that there is the infrastructure and capacity in Scotland so that they do not have to move or be bought by companies outwith Scotland.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Mairi Spowage: Yes, I would be very supportive of that. We can see in the sorts of metrics that are used—not only those related to indices of multiple deprivation but educational outcomes or transport connectivity—that some of them are focused on England-only measures; sometimes they are GB only. We do not want to fall into the trap of, in some cases, using GB and UK inter-changeably here. It is really important that we think about the metrics that we are going to use to capture the reduction in regional inequalities across the UK. Wherever possible, we should invest in developing UK-wide measures.
In some cases I can see that there are data sources in the devolved nations that are very similar to those being used for England. I think there is work that could be done to develop more consistent measures right across the UK, for which, as I said earlier, there is a clear policy need for the UK Government’s programme.
Alex Norris
Q
Mairi Spowage: I am not here to speak for the ONS, but I am a fellow, so they ask me and a group of other expert academics for advice on their work programme. They have published a subnational data strategy, which was worked up not just by the ONS but across the Government’s fiscal service, to think about how we can develop more sophisticated metrics across the UK to capture different levels of needs and progress. That would be to support not only the levelling-up agenda but things more broadly. In partnership with the Department for Levelling Up, the ONS is looking to develop more metrics across the UK. Some of that will be working closely with the devolved Administrations to develop data sources and think what might be comparable.
We have done a significant amount of work with the Economics Statistics Centre of Excellence. We published a paper recently on developing a suite of sub-national indicators across the UK. We made recommendations there, which included working closely with the devolved Administrations to develop data that was consistent across the UK, particularly on educational and environmental outcomes. A recent example would be something like fuel poverty, which is obviously a live discussion. It is measured differently in all four nations of the UK, so it is very hard to compare differential rates of fuel poverty in different parts of the UK at the moment.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Second sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 21st June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 June 2022 - (21 Jun 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Q
Eamonn Boylan: Thank you. We were very pleased to be identified as one of the three innovation accelerator areas in the White Paper. We have been working very hard on developing a broader approach to innovation through an organisation imaginatively called “Innovation Greater Manchester”. We see the innovation accelerator as being effectively the fuel in the tank that can drive that forward.
It is fair to say that there needs to be a clear concentration on those areas where individual city regions can be globally significant and competitive, rather than having a broader approach. They need to be very clear that the purpose of the innovation accelerator is to improve not only the performance of business and employment in a particular location, but to drive prosperity for the UK as a whole.
There is a need for longevity in terms of the commitment, to make certain that the innovation agenda can be rolled out, developed and properly evolved over a period of time, but also concentration on those areas where, quite clearly, particular places have a significant, if not unique contribution, to make.
Laura Shoaf: I will do my best not to repeat the exact same answer, but we have another organisation, the aptly titled “Innovation West Midlands”. I reiterate all the points that Eamonn has just made and a point I made slightly earlier, which is that places have different areas of expertise. We want not to spread the jam so thin that it doesn’t make a difference in any one area, but to really invest and be very precise in each area, especially where there is a comparative advantage.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Laura Shoaf: It has really been transformational. As an officer, I was working in the region before there was a Mayor, then in a Mayor’s first term and now in a Mayor’s second term. I would reflect on the fact that the role, with its accountability and ability to galvanise and be a figurehead, has grown over time. It definitely evolves alongside a region.
For us, with our Mayor, we have seen the ability to come together as a region, to make cohesive arguments, to attract a lot more inward investment and to be able to work at scale, if you take something like brownfield land, where we have been able to operate at regional level, so we can have a regional impact, then being very careful not to do what is already done very well locally. I often describe it as two plus two plus make five, instead of four. That is exactly what we have seen through the model to date.
As you can tell, my background is not from this country, but this model is well understood and recognised in other countries when trying to attract inward investment from abroad. It is a model that is understood, works well and helps make it easier, if that makes sense, to drive some of those big conversations.
Neil O'Brien
Thank you. Eamonn, would you add anything to that?
Eamonn Boylan: I would certainly echo Laura’s final comment about the international potency of the mayoral model, which is proving to be a real strength. We led the field with the creation of the first combined authority, which has been in operation since 2010. The first mayoral election was in 2017, so they had a lot of experience of working prior to having a Mayor, with strong local leadership provided—particularly by the city of Manchester.
I think the Mayor has had the transformative effect that Laura has described, not only in respect of areas where there is a very clear power vested in the Mayor, but also where the Mayor’s influence and use of soft power can be quite useful in helping to galvanise change and support and amplify activity. The example I would use in the Greater Manchester case is the work we have done collectively on street homelessness and rough sleeping, which has been very successful. A huge of amount of work has been done by individual local authorities, but it has also been galvanised by collaboration through the office of the Mayor. It is a very powerful office and tool for us to use both locally and internationally.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Eamonn Boylan: It would be difficult to make CPO slower. Aiming to accelerate it is very welcome. The flexibility around the application of CPO to support a wider range of purposes is also welcome. I think we need to recognise that initiating a CPO is quite a high-risk activity for a local authority. Therefore, we would need to be certain about the legislative framework within which we were working, but certainly the principle of acceleration of CPO and its broader application is something we would generally welcome and would certainly seek to make use of.
Laura Shoaf: I will just pick up on the point about pride in place. Pride in place is a key goal that is outlined as part of the levelling-up agenda. I think that being able to speed up the delivery of projects where a compulsory purchase order is needed will bring clarity and help us to deliver pride in place. That is just one other aspect that I think is important.
[Sir Mark Hendrick in the Chair]
Joanne Roney: I will come in with three quick points to support Laura and Eamonn. Among the wider society of chief executives—who represent the views from up and down the country, including places that do not currently have combined authority or mayoral models—there is a welcome for these additional powers. The first point is that whatever replaces the existing CPO system needs to simple and inexpensive. The current process is very costly.
Secondly, there is a bit of a concern around capacity in local authorities to take advantage of these new powers. Talking with my Manchester hat on, one of the things we do in Greater Manchester is shared capacity between the 10 local authorities through the combined authority, but that capacity point to take effective new powers is important. Thirdly, we would like to see the revoking of permitted development rights to go alongside CPO powers to make the maximum impact in some of our communities.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Laura Shoaf: We have certainly seen it work well elsewhere, including in Greater Manchester. Initially, the combined authority did not have full support to transfer those functions in 2019. What I would suggest that we need to do now is look at the timing of the deal and of Royal Assent, and how we could align governance around that. We would need to look at the issues around co-termination and there would probably be quite a bit of work to make sure that it was something that the entirety of the region would get behind.
Neil O'Brien
Thank you, Laura. Unless Eamonn wants to add anything on that point, I am probably finished.
Tim Farron
Q
Rich Bell: I think the destiny of communities is significantly shaped by their level of control over planning decisions. One thing we are at once encouraged by and slightly disappointed by in this Bill is the proposal regarding the neighbourhood share. This is the idea that 25% of the infrastructure levy could be controlled by either a parish council or a neighbourhood planning forum. That currently applies in the case of the community infrastructure levy, but not in the case of section 106. I think it is a very positive step on the Government’s part to extend that neighbourhood-level control over the investment of developer-generated public money—to devolve that directly to neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, parish councils are predominantly found in wealthy and rural areas. A report produced for the Department then known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government by academics at the University of Reading concluded something very similar on neighbourhood planning forums just a few years ago.
We would suggest that members of the Committee should consider whether the Bill could be amended to expand the definition of a “qualifying body” on page 264. We would ask Members to introduce a clause amending the Localism Act 2011 that expands the range of organisations to whom that neighbourhood share could be passed. It should be possible for local authorities to designate community anchor organisations, such as the Wharton Trust in Hartlepool, as local trusted partners who could work with that local authority to spend that not insignificant amount of public money.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Rich Bell: We were very encouraged by the detail of this proposal. We were very pleased to see that the Bill defines high street use in a way that recognises the use of high street premises as a communal meeting space. It is incredibly important that the legislation recognises that high streets are not just drivers of local economies; they are the sites of the bumping spaces and the meeting places that stitch together our social fabric. It is similarly positive that the Bill’s local benefit condition recognises the social and environmental benefits of high street premises as well as their economic benefits.
We encourage the Government to consider how they can shape accompanying regulations to ensure that local authorities feel that they have permission to work with social enterprises and local community organisations, and to shape their own criteria for high street auctions, so that those community organisations can gain access to high street sites. As I say, we were encouraged by the detail.
Sacha Bedding: High streets are absolutely about pride. There is nothing worse than seeing boarded-up places. The opportunity for local ownership and activity will help. People are full of ideas on how to do that. I will not go on too long; we absolutely agree with what Rich said, and there will be any amount of ideas, not just focused around retail, on how people can help make their high streets thriving places again.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Q
Rich Bell: My only comment would be to say that it seems incredibly important, when taking what is a pretty radical step in promoting sub-regional devolution across England, to do so in a joined-up way which involves dialogue with all the national Governments across the UK. That said, I would say that the problem in the Bill is not the lack of emphasis on sub-regional and national devolution; the problem is the lack of emphasis on devolution at the most local level, as Sacha said, and the complete absence of genuine community leadership.
Stuart Andrew
Q
We have a significant number of neighbourhood planning groups and neighbourhood plans around the country. However, there are areas—particularly more deprived areas—that have not developed those. The Bill provides for the neighbourhood priority statements to introduce a simpler way for communities to think about how they want to improve their place. Do you see any issues around that area in the Bill that need to be looked at again? Is this a real opportunity for such groups to formulate how the needs of their communities are delivered on the ground for those towns and areas?
Rich Bell: The creation of neighbourhood priority statements, which allow people at the local level to very clearly set out their priorities, and having those accounted for in local plans, is definitely a positive step forward, and we really welcome that. The point we would make is that community anchor organisations work in a way so as to unlock the capacity that is already present in communities. We would suggest that drafting them into this work could actually be key to addressing the geographic disparity in current levels of neighbourhood planning, particularly as research by the Communities in Charge campaign has demonstrated that the sorts of organisations we are talking about—community anchor organisations that seek to address local challenges in holistic ways that are truly reaching the community—are actually more likely to be found in areas that we would describe as deprived.
Clearly, there are challenges around how you ensure those organisations are acting with legitimacy. We think that the Government’s pledge to bring forward community covenants in their White Paper is potentially a game changer in that respect. We see that as a means of working through the challenges of a public body investing a degree of authority in a community organisation that is not on a statutory status. We would suggest that as long as you are working through the intermediary organisation in the form of the local authority, and as long as the Government provide guidance and regulations to ensure that that local authority is ensuring the community organisation has the trust of the whole community before it invests that power, it is a neat and relatively easy quick fix to what might otherwise be a problem by which the Bill would wind up deepening inequalities in control and power rather than resolving them.
The Chair
Thank you—that is fine. We are just a bit anxious about the other two members of the panel not being able to connect yet. I will throw the questions open to the Government side first.
Neil O'Brien
Q
However, it is the Government’s intention to have a strong role for lower-tier authorities once those combined authorities are created. I wonder if I could pick your brains on what sorts of things your members might want to combine powers on as voting members of those new CCAs or through joint committees, for instance as a single local authority devolution deal. What sorts of powers would your members potentially want to combine powers on, and to what end?
Cllr Chapman-Allen: Thank you for the question. Initially, I think we need to talk about the scale of ambition that local authorities and leaders are trying to achieve. The levelling-up framework sets out the clear positions of levels 1, 2 and 3 for what can be devolved within those nine vanguard areas. For me particularly, those six are in those two-tier areas.
Neil, you spoke about the county councils and unitary councils being enablers for the CCA and what districts would be willing to support moving forward. I think it is important to say that district councils in some areas where these deals are being suggested are being more ambitious than those counties and unitaries. Therefore, whoever is willing to be most ambitious should ensure that they have a seat around the table, but in turn ensuring that no sovereign body has those powers and/or responsibilities removed. There should be opportunities for districts, with those key enablers around business support and planning and growth.
Having spoken to colleagues across the country, but particularly in my area of Norfolk, which is one of those areas, I think we would be willing to have conversations with those that want to share strategic opportunities in the wider planning piece, be they in local planning, master planning, the duty to co-operate —although that is a blight, it is being diluted as we move forward, which is important—our housing challenges and how we support each other to ensure that our housing policies support residents in our localities and, in turn, how we deal with inward investment, to ensure that, regardless of where you want to land in a county locality, you have the same opportunities and support on business rates, business rate exemption and that planning process.
However, it is important that those individuals and sovereign councils buy into being a part of that CCA. In turn, they have to be a constituent part. We are talking about combined authorities, so district councils need to be combined in the decision-making process. There should absolutely not be a veto. I do not think that any individual in that combined authority should have the opportunity to veto, but if they are relinquishing some of that sovereignty through partnership and collaboration, they should have an equal say in how policies, strategy, spend and projects come forward.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Cllr Chapman-Allen: The frameworks and structures around MCAs already exist. Some individuals in Whitehall cite failures of governance in some of those MCA structures. We do not necessarily need to throw the baby out with the bathwater as we try to recreate a CCA. We can actually use the existing framework and governance structure, and tweak them to ensure that we are delivering for residents and businesses across our localities and communities.
It comes down to the bottom-up position. Localities and sovereign councils absolutely see the opportunities presented in the levelling-up framework and the Bill, but we have to make sure that we are able to help in shaping those opportunities moving forward. District councils across the country collaborate with each other through partnerships every single day. In my locality in Norfolk, we have a shared waste partnership across three councils—it is one of the biggest waste partnerships in the country—and, of course, as the collection authority across the whole of the county of Norfolk, all the district councils provide a set framework for how we collect that waste.
That district collaboration in some statutory service provision—be it waste, planning, housing, or homelessness —occurs not just in Norfolk, but across the whole of the country. We just have to make sure that we lift that to the new body—whether it is an existing MCA or the new CCA—which will be able to help shape the agenda as we move forward and ensure that there is equal say at the table on policy and spend.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Just touching on the local plans, obviously at the moment we have about 39% of England covered by local plans, which means that there is a significant area not covered by them. Clearly, the Bill is trying to simplify the process of developing local plans. What has been the reaction your members of to the measures in the Bill to try to achieve that, and are there any other suggestions they have made that they think would be helpful, so that we can get more local plans in place within a much shorter timescale than we are currently experiencing?
The Chair
Just before you answer that question, Sam, can I just bring it to the Committee’s attention that we have now been joined by Councillor James Jamieson, chair of the Local Government Association, and Councillor Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network. Welcome to the sitting. I am sorry that you have had those technical problems, but we are glad to see you here. We are just partway through a question from the Minister, Stuart Andrew, at the moment. I will bring you both in and we will obviously tailor some of the questions towards you both as the sitting progresses.
Cllr Chapman-Allen: Thank you, Chair. Stuart, the answer is twofold. Local planning is an immensely complicated process—that to-ing and fro-ing with the planning inspector makes it immensely challenging. I think it comes back to the previous questions: “Is this a top-down exercise? Do we need a very clear framework for what planning is?” But planning derives from that local position.
If we are being really clear and setting clear parameters for what local communities need to deliver through that formula of housing growth, challenge if it cannot be delivered, and allow those local communities to move forward and deliver upon that in a set timeframe, then we will expediate that. In my local authority in Breckland, we delivered a local plan, confirmed in December 2019. We are already out for review again, at vast cost, vast expense and vast frustration for our communities, when actually we should probably only be tweaking some of those local policies.
The sad fact is that some of those locations that you mentioned, which do not have a developed local plan, are now in the challenge around nutrient neutrality and an inability to deliver those plans, and of course the duty to co-operate places a further burden on those councils to provide that local plan.
In answer to your question, really briefly—sorry to waffle—make the timeframe shorter; allow that local drive to come from the bottom up; ensure that the national planning inspector supports those local policies, not a top-down approach; and I think you would see expediated local plans and adopted local plans across the country.
Stuart Andrew
Q
I want to turn to the infrastructure levy. The intention behind this is that it is non-negotiable, to try and reduce all the time that planning officers seem to spend on negotiation. Are the measures welcome? On the development of the infrastructure statements that local planning authorities have, do you see the opportunity for greater working between county and district councils in agreeing, as part of a local plan, the sort of infrastructure that is needed within those communities ahead of development being granted?
Cllr Jamieson: Thank you and apologies for my technical problems. On the infrastructure levy, I do think that is a helpful move. All too often, developers use viability as an excuse to increase their profits, or landowners to increase the value of their land. Really, where there is a significant uplift in the value of land as a result of receiving planning permission, it is only right and fair that that bonus of increase in value should go towards providing the essential infrastructure that is needed to support that development, whether that is roads, schools or soft infrastructure, such as health and community support. We welcome the community infrastructure levy as a simpler mechanism and one that will be applied to more developments, both commercial and housing.
One of the issues we have raised many times is the fact that developments of fewer than 10 houses do not pay anything. Quite clearly, that is all very positive. Of course, there are parts of the country where the land value uplift is not sufficient to provide the infrastructure, and that needs to be addressed and will have to be addressed by funding from Government. However, in areas where it is—yes, we welcome the fact that it is simplified. Of course, Sam just mentioned some of the other issues, such as nutrient neutrality, which is yet another imposition on development, so we need to be cognisant when we look at the infrastructure levy of the other levies and costs that are put on the land.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Cllr Oliver: Many thanks, and my apologies too for the technical issues. We absolutely welcome a simplified community infrastructure levy and section 106 arrangement. At the moment, CIL is administered by the district and borough council, and the county council, in normal circumstances, would make an application for a part of that funding. It would be helpful for the Bill to provide clarification on how that infrastructure levy should be used. It is a levy to enable infrastructure support to facilitate housing and development. I know that part of the suggestion in the Bill is that 25% of that infrastructure levy would be set aside for parish councils, but, to your point, I would hope that there would be early conversations between all three tiers of local government, where they exist, as to how that levy should be spent for the benefit of the community.
The Chair
Thanks Stuart. Just before I bring in Tim Farron, I will give both Neil and Matthew the opportunity to ask a question to the other two panellists, who unfortunately were not present earlier. Neil, have you got any brief questions? I will then bring in Matthew.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Cllr Jamieson: First, in broad terms, we welcome the move to enable every part of the country to have devolution. Previously it has been very much city focused and, of course, most of the country is not in cities, so we welcome that fact and the ambition that everywhere should have a devolution deal.
Obviously, simplifying the process is always welcome, provided that there is a fair and reasonable consultation, and involvement of all relevant parties. Clearly, we should not ride roughshod over various parties. However, as ever with devolution, we think devolution should be led by devolving and not by restructuring. That is one of the issues that has happened in the past, and we need to ensure it does not happen this time. There needs to be genuine devolution from Whitehall down to the local level, at which point we will find much greater acquiescence at the local level when it comes to how to come up with a structure that works.
When we first start talking about restructuring and then about devolution, I am always concerned that we should devolve the powers down and then look at what is the best way, on a local basis, which will be different across the country, to deliver the outcomes from that devolution. I would emphasise—Neil, I really appreciate the work that you are doing—that we certainly believe that far more can be done on a place basis than on a Whitehall basis in local devolution, simply because if I am in the north of England or Northumbria that is very different from Cornwall or central Bedfordshire. We have different priorities and issues, and that can only be done at the local place level, so the more that is devolved, that is clearly better. I emphasise devolution first, and then restructuring to match the powers that are devolved to us.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Cllr Oliver: Thank you very much. The County Councils Network and my members are hugely supportive of the intentions set out in the Bill. We see this very much as an opportunity for the two thirds of the country that are not currently able to benefit from any devolution deal.
We see this as the devolution of powers from Parliament down to local government. The complications that exist at the moment will be taken away by the Bill. I think we will see members embracing the opportunity to have a devolution deal. In terms of the CCA, only 50% of my members would need that, where they have an adjoining county authority or unitary authority. The other 50% could benefit from a simple devolution deal.
My understanding is that this is not about the organisation of local government, either overtly or through the back door. This is about the flow down of powers from central Government to local leaders, where those leaders are clearly identified, and then the county level engaging with all our partners. This is as much about delivering the health system, and the integration of health and social care, as it is about any tier of local government. It is important that the process is simple, straightforward and quick. If at all possible, we want to get on with this. Then it is for the county authority to engage with the other two tiers of local government, if those exist, and to work out how best to deliver that.
I am very supportive, as is the CCA. I am grateful to the Minister for clarification on some confusion around clause 16. That seems perfectly workable and reasonable, so I very much support the direction of travel.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 23rd June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
We are now 20 minutes into this evidence session. In the interests of time, I will call the Minister. If there is any time left at the end, I will come back to you, Mr Pennycook.
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
Q
Victoria Hills: I represent 27,000 members. Practically, and on a strategic level, we welcomed the Bill, because we welcome the recognition that, rather than having a planning Bill, planning is integral to levelling up and regeneration. That is why we warmly welcomed the Bill: it has elevated the status of planning from being some regulatory thing over there to being fundamentally essential to delivering levelling up. Indeed, we say it is the lead domino; if you get the planning system right, you have the framework and the foundations to deliver regeneration.
That is our starting point. Within that, we have to have a broader conversation—perhaps not today—about how we ensure that local authorities in particular are resourced for the changes. We look forward to the forthcoming consultation on the fees to help to fund some of the additional work. Practically, it will mean that our members are going to be extremely busy—first, with responding to all the consultations, and secondly, moving forward with implementing the new system. There is an urgent need to address the resourcing, as I have highlighted, because local authorities are somewhat struggling at the moment anyway to deliver business as usual.
Some of this will be a bit business as unusual. We have heard that the CIL is potentially a major change. Changing local plans and updating them will take time and resources. It will be a busy period for the members I represent. That said, although we welcome the recognition that planning is integral to levelling up, we do need to have an open and honest conversation with you about how we now move forward quickly to resource local authorities to enable the changes. I hope that answers the question.
David Jackson: Likewise, given the high profile that has been given to the levelling-up agenda, it is very welcome that planning is so closely associated with such an important part of the Government’s programme. We very much welcome that.
For the people I represent, it is difficult to define exactly what the changes will mean, because they are multifaceted. For people I work directly with, there is a lot to get through and understand about the changes, but we are planning professionals and that is what we direct ourselves towards. That is part of our responsibility. For our clients, there is an expectation of a transition period, and that is a process to be navigated through. We are there to help them through that process. I repeat what I said earlier about the importance of trying to get through that phase as quickly as possible so that we can move on to obtaining the key objectives of building prosperity and creating flourishing communities.
On flourishing communities, in the work that we do as planning professionals we become very much associated with and embedded in communities for the period of a project. It is really important that that process of local engagement and projects being opened to the public scrutiny that leads to improvement—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
David, you are looking away from the microphone again and we missed what you said.
David Jackson: Sorry. Public scrutiny is necessary to improve projects and win public trust.
Tony Mulhall: Chartered surveyors provide their services largely at the level of strategic land preparation and development delivery, so they are acutely aware of the increasing risk associated with development projects proceeding. Planning comes with certain risks—in other words, getting a project through the planning system—so it is very important that we have a system that works well in process terms.
From a development point of view, planning is one of the factors. We have huge pressure on costs at the moment. I have here a document that I have just received from the Building Cost Information Service that says that the materials cost index has continued to grow, with annual growth in excess of 20%, and figures say that the cost of complying with the building regulations is around 6%. Those are cumulative risks, and the planning system is just one of those. It is a very important one, and getting it right is very important, but in a development context the danger is that investors will defer making decisions on taking projects forward until they have greater certainty about the regulatory environment they are heading into and that that regulatory environment can be priced, in a sense—what is it going to cost to get through the regulatory environment?
We need to take account of that, and not just in relation to large house builders. They are capitalised very well, but a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises find it extremely difficult to engage with the planning system at a level they can afford. That impacts on borrowing: you cannot engage a lender if you have what I would describe as planning risk associated with your side. These are the realities that our members face in advising their clients.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Victoria Hills: We welcome all those aspects, and particularly the investment in digital transformation and a bit more structure around what that looks like for local authorities so that they can make the investments in digital that are required. We also absolutely welcome neighbourhood planning, and also, potentially, street votes and all that comes with that.
Something equally important that we are strongly advocating for is that virtual planning committees can continue in the way they did during the pandemic. We are seeking an amendment to the Bill for that purpose, because we think it provided an additional aspect to the ways in which communities could be genuinely engaged, particularly for those people who cannot get to committee meetings in the evenings because of their own commitments.
We welcome all the aspects that have been included in the Bill to broaden engagement. Our top two omissions are the one that I started with—involving the community in the national policies—and enabling them to join in via a virtual committee.
Tony Mulhall: This is a really important point. Our experience, and what we get reported back, is that the community does not tend to engage with the plan-making process—people need to get a development on the corner of their street before they become exercised—so it is very important for us to understand what is a meaningful way to get feedback from the community about what it is that they do not like and what is top of their list of what they want.
I am not sure that the plans that we put through have the legitimacy we might expect from real engagement with people, because I think they do not fully understand what the plan is saying. We have seen the kind of developments in neighbourhood planning that were really good but probably did not get to the people who need to participate to improve their local communities. There is an interesting measure in the Bill to facilitate that. I would say that we really need to rethink what meaningful participation in plan making is about, because people are coming away from the production of a plan without much knowledge of what is going to turn up in their neighbourhood.
David Jackson: I agree with that point. What we need is engagement at all levels of the plan-making process, from the SDS—spatial development strategy, the new strategic level of plan making—all the way through. It is down to the profession to go out and do that. That is where the parallel development of the levelling-up agenda, putting planning alongside that as the key delivery mechanism, has some advantages, because it demonstrates exactly the role that planning has in facilitating the benefits that we want to see for those communities. My slight concern is in what I might call the hyper-local, because that allows people to focus just on their immediate areas, but as I say, what we want is a focus across the plan-making portfolio, so that people have that aspiration.
One example of the risk of the hyper-local is footnote 54 in the NPPF, which requires onshore wind turbines to be supported by the local community that is most affected. While onshore wind has overall high levels of public support, a massive drop-off in the delivery of onshore wind has been the result of that particular control. It does not take us away from the need to engage with communities at the local level to win their support, but it does create difficulties—challenges—in that hyper-local environment.
Stuart Andrew
Q
David Jackson: On replacing CIL with the infrastructure levy, the simplification of the infrastructure levy based on value is certainly advantageous. In our experience, we were very engaged in the preparation of CIL on behalf of the Home Builders Federation. We engaged with many local authorities on that basis, and it was indeed a very complex process, looking at viability and trying to project that over a period of time and for a range of development scenarios. That simplification is welcome.
I take a slightly different view on section 106. It goes without saying that where section 106 is engaged, we are dealing in large part with complex, difficult, challenging projects. We have to ensure that local communities have trust in the process and that it will deliver the outcomes they expect to see. Inevitably, there is an element of commercial negotiation, because viability can often be engaged where we have multiple demands on investment in a local community, so it is right that we go through that complex process. I think CIL helps in terms of taking—[Inaudible.] The complexity of section 106 is merely a reflection of the complexity of the projects we are dealing with and the wish on both sides—both the community and the developer—to ensure that the infrastructure that is required to make the project work is actually delivered.
Victoria Hills: We have been very clear that anything that comes in needs to not overcomplicate an already quite complicated system. As proposed, the infrastructure levies will all go through PINS—the Planning Inspectorate —which we think will add more delay and cost to the system. We are advocating for the new infrastructure levies to get directly agreed by local authorities with the Secretary of State or the Department, to take out some of what I think you are alluding to—the horse trading, the negotiation and all the rest of it. Then, there is one discussion between the directly elected authority and the Department, and that gets agreed. You can take months and significant cost out of the whole system by not running it through PINS.
Another important point, which I could not make earlier, is that it is really important to understand how, in simplifying the system, the new infrastructure levy will sit alongside other statutory requirements—not least biodiversity net gain and affordable housing—and how, in simplifying it, it will balance out those quite complex aspects. The requirement for affordable housing has always been the case, but biodiversity net gain was not a thing before.
At the moment, until we see the detail, we are not convinced that it will all be simplified. There are some important complexities to take on board.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Victoria Hills: We have always been very clear that the way to deliver great places and great communities is through a robust local plan and framework where the local authority has the opportunity to set out their priorities, which could include some of the aspects you referred to. The elevation of the importance of the local plan in all this is welcome. The detail, which we do not yet have, is on to what extent local authorities will be able to carry on delivering priorities through policy, and to what extent they will get pulled out into the national framework.
We support the principle of the local plan being elevated. We recognise that it is the only way you can move ahead with delivering on agendas including net zero, affordable housing and well-designed, healthy homes. If you are going to have policies against second homes, that may well be something to prioritise in your local plan, or in national guidance—the detail is yet to be seen on that.
Whether or not it meets the housing numbers is still an area for debate. The Government are on the record saying that is very much the plan in action. We will be advocating for local authorities to be well resourced, without delay to the national framework, to enable them to get on with the business of producing local plans as quickly as possible, in order to provide certainty for local communities and the development sector, so that it can get on and start planning and then building. It really just relates to the earlier theme of resourcing.
However, there also needs to be no further delay. There is an urgent need to deliver more homes, as we know. The housing waiting list continues to rise, and more and more people are still desperate to have a place of their own. The need continues to grow, so it is important that we move forward quickly on any regulatory reform and that we move forward with a resourcing package—which surely must include bringing up the planning fees as well, to help to move those things forward as quickly as possible.
Tony Mulhall: I totally agree with Victoria’s point about the importance of having up-to-date local plans, and the important aspect in the Bill of being able to combine local authorities so that they better match their functional urban region or their socioeconomic hinterland. That is important because we are spending a lot of time and money squeezing the carbon out of our buildings, but there will not be much point in doing that if we have to drive miles to get to our jobs and schools. It is critical that we have a proper planning system linked with the standards of quality construction that will achieve climate change.
On the point as to whether the measures in the Bill will deliver the target of 300,000 houses per annum, the feedback that I get from our members is “No.”
Stuart Andrew
Q
In the previous evidence session, we heard that people often describe planning as something that happens to them. Do you think that the measures in the Bill will increase community engagement in all aspects of the planning process, particularly the development of local plans and other individual planning applications? Do you think that some of the measures, such as the introduction of the neighbourhood priority statements, will help to increase the number of neighbourhood planning groups that might be spread in areas that have been difficult to reach so far?
Tony Burton: Generally, we think the Bill is helpful for communities who want to have more of a say on planning issues. There are one or two headlines. The most pre-emptive one is that the Bill confirms the statutory role for neighbourhood planning, given the uncertainty since the publication of a White Paper that said relatively little about it and that brought forward some proposals that would have shut out community input, such as those at the planning application stage.
The specific measures around neighbourhood planning, and I appreciate that your question goes wider than that, are relatively limited. The adjustments to the basic conditions and the broad definition that has been provided, which is helpful, will not have a significant impact on take-up. They will help to clarify some elements of process. And neighbourhood planning will be caught up in the same changes as local plans, when it comes to the primacy of the development plan and the centralisation of the development of management policies. Again, they need to play out, but much of that is welcome, because it attaches additional weight to the document, and to the time and effort that volunteers invest.
The neighbourhood priority statements are triggering some interest among the groups we work with, but they are also raising a significant number of questions. In our view, if the aim is to support greater take-up, particularly in urban areas, which I know the Minister is keen to see, then more needs to be done. They need to be seen as something that is additional to and complementary to neighbourhood planning, not a replacement for it.
The legislation is quite weak in the weight that needs to be attached to it by local authorities; the “have regard” requirement is weak. We have a decade of experience in London of boroughs not really taking that much notice even of neighbourhood plans, which are statutory documents, so we would like to see a stronger weight attached.
It needs to be confirmed in the legislation, not just elsewhere, that it is about more than informing local plans. We understand that that is the Government’s intention, but the current drafting of the Bill is quite restrictive. We think that it would be really sensible if the Government supported communities to pilot and to try to make all priority statements before the legislation is finalised, so that we get a real sense of what they could achieve.
The disappointment is that the local planning provisions are not more extensive, to encourage wider community involvement. We are about to publish our “The State of Neighbourhood Planning in London” report this evening, and it shows that progress in engaging communities is still being hampered by obstructive local authorities in many cases. Therefore, we believe that if the Bill is to effectively engage communities in leading development, as opposed to responding to it—doing planning, as opposed to having it done to them—it really needs to strengthen the legal duty on local authorities to support neighbourhood planning. It needs to give neighbourhood forums the same powers as parish and town councils in receiving and spending the neighbourhood element of the community infrastructure levy. At a stroke, that is the single most important thing that the Government could do to encourage local planning in cities. The Bill also needs to set time limits on local authorities making decisions on key stages.
The final point we would make is that the Bill itself will not be enough, and that there will need to be support for communities to engage and involve themselves. We would put particular attention on the role of the neighbourhood planning support programme, which is probably the single most important measure available to accelerate community involvement in planning decisions. It could be significantly improved and increased.
Jonathan Owen: I am sure it will not surprise any of you to hear that probably the No. 1 issue affecting 10,000 parish and town councils and 100,000 councillors is planning. That is top of their agenda, and I think it would be fair to say that we need to look at every way we can to make sure that the public are more effectively engaged with the system. We are pleased with the emphasis on a plan-based system—that is right—and public engagement in that planning is absolutely vital.
The main area of interest for us is neighbourhood planning, and parish and town councils have really been in the driving seat of producing those plans. I think there have been about 3,000 so far, with about 90% done by parish and town councils. They have had amazing referenda, with something like a million people voting in them over the last few years. I think they cover an area of about 10 million people. That is a really good way in which the public can engage with the planning system, but there are thousands and thousands of other communities that are being left behind and that do not have neighbourhood plans by parish and town councils or neighbourhood forums.
Some of the feedback that we had from our 10,000 parish councils was that they were concerned that it will be costly and time consuming, and that the neighbourhood plans will be overlooked and not taken seriously by principal authorities. A lot of the measures in the Bill will help address those issues, which should help with promoting neighbourhood planning.
This must not stop with the Bill. If you are going to reach the other 7,000 or 8,000 communities, we need to make sure that we are promoting neighbourhood planning and its benefits, and that we are investing in helping those communities to do that work. I would encourage you to continue with the grants that are available, and perhaps to make them easier to access. We have had a good start to neighbourhood planning, and I am really pleased that you are committed to continuing with it and making it more effective. We will work with you to try to make that happen.
There are a couple of bits of other feedback around the infrastructure levy. Again, that is to be supported, but there is a risk that because the percentage is the same regardless of whether you have a neighbourhood plan or not, there might be a slight disincentive to produce a neighbourhood plan. As you know, there is a boost to the share of the community infrastructure levy if you have a neighbourhood plan. It would be good if you could consider how best to address that point, so that people are incentivised to have neighbourhood plans and to engage effectively with the public.
On the specific matter of the mini neighbourhood plan, I think that is fine but, again, we need to make sure that doesn’t limit communities’ ambitions to go further and to have neighbourhood plans. We probably need to balance that territory.
I have been amazed by the innovation of many neighbourhood plans and the things they are now trying to address, including climate change, health and wellbeing, such as dementia-friendly aspects, and a vast range of other things. Clearly, we must not lose that innovation. We must use this Bill to drive forward neighbourhood planning and get more people involved with it, and I think that would be a good thing.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Jonathan Owen: I think one thing we have learned over the last couple years is that people are getting more and more used to digital engagement and using such systems, so that probably will be the case. Obviously, you will need to review and monitor it, but I think it is certainly something that is worth developing further.
Many of our parish and town councils are already using digital processes when considering planning applications for principal authorities, so I think that could well make a difference. There might be some capital investment required to ensure that even remote communities in the middle of rural Suffolk, where I live, can access the material online without being excluded.
Tony Burton: Our experience is that digital is part of the answer. In relation to local and neighbourhood plans, we would point to the opportunities it presents around new, complementary forms of community engagement—there are now a variety of tools available to support that—and more effective ways of pooling and analysing the evidence that is required, which is often a minefield of PDFs that do not link to each other or help people to navigate the system or get to the nub of the issues.
There is a potential—this is something we have been pressing for—for the neighbourhood planning support programme to provide bespoke support around this and to offer provision for particular elements, such as centralised tools or databases. Also, we would emphasise more digital mapping. Almost by definition, planning is about maps and places—it is spatial—and yet the ways in which we bring everything together on a map are still rather clunky and not all that effective. The best of what is out there shows what can be done, and the best should be the norm.
I would emphasise that digital is only part of a solution. It is no panacea and nothing is more important than the peer-to-peer, face-to-face support that communities need to support them to be their best when it comes to engaging with these processes.
The Chair
I am afraid that this will have to be the last question from the Ministers before I move to the Opposition spokesman. Minister O’Brien, I believe you have a question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Q
Jonathan Owen: We are really keen to see the detail on some of the other aspects of the neighbourhood governance review. The White Paper held out for us real promise to ensure that the opportunities of devolution and levelling up were really seized, so I hope you will not mind if start off by encouraging you to consider how you can build aspects of that wider review into the Bill. We are particularly keen to see the review conducted within quite a reasonable timescale, to be involved in the process and to make sure that any proposals that come out of it are enacted. We would quite like to see some sort of placeholder clause put in for street votes, to say that the neighbourhood governance review will be completed within a certain time and the agreed proposals enacted. I do not know whether that is possible, but I really do think you might miss an opportunity if you do not engage fully in that review and implement some of its actions.
The key things for us are about making it easier to set up parish and town councils. At the moment, about two thirds of the country has a parish, but only about a third of the population, which means that two thirds of the population are missing out on having the first tier of local government supporting community empowerment and helping them address the big challenges that we face. Many of you will be aware of the research done by Onward. Its social fabric index showed that places with parish councils tended to have a stronger community identity and so forth. I think there are some real opportunities that need to be picked up either as part of the Bill or as part of that wider neighbourhood governance review.
The other big area for us is funding of the sector. At the moment, our councils are not necessarily able to access some funding streams, such as the community ownership fund and other things. It would be good to look at making it possible for them to access that funding. An interesting example of that was how, through the covid pandemic, a lot of our 10,000 councils stepped up really early, as you will be aware, to set up volunteering arrangements and support local communities. Many of them did really great things, but many of them lost out from lost income. You were able to compensate the principal authorities but unable to compensate parish councils that had lost out. To be honest, principal authorities were reluctant to devolve much of the funding they received down to our level.
I think you should consider using the Bill to put in place a mechanism whereby you would be able to fund local councils directly. That could be really helpful to this Government and probably to future Governments when another big problem happens, such as the pandemic, so that you would be able to reach down to communities throughout the country and provide some financial support or lifeline as necessary.
On the street votes, we will be interested to see the detail on that and, again, picking up on my other point on neighbourhood planning, we just need to make sure that that complements and does not replace the wider neighbourhood planning role.
Finally, returning to the last question on digitalisation, the holding of remote meetings has been really useful in the last couple of years. We have seen evidence that lots of members of the public have attended parish and town council meetings because they are able just to attend for the one item that interests them, which is often a planning matter. Enabling councils to meet remotely and have engagement remotely from residents would be really good.
Tony Burton: I think it is a really helpful question to be asking at this stage. There is experience from similar questions that came through on the Localism Act 2011, from which some of the existing community rights measures stemmed. If we look back over those 10 years, we see that some have been successful and some have disappeared, frankly—they might be on the statute book but no one is using the power they provide. The things that worked are those that responded to what people want—there may be lessons here for the provisions you cited and others in the Bill. They were a response to what our communities were asking for, as opposed to us saying, “We’ve got a good idea. Please will you use it.” Some came with support and help, which allowed communities to really understand how to navigate and use the process and talk to others that are maybe slightly further ahead of them in the process. Some in a sense held the ring on some of the bigger questions.
That is why neighbourhood planning is so good. It is such a flexible and strategic tool, as well as being locally specific. You can make it a single policy about a single issue if you want, or you can make it a mini local plan that covers the bases. It is up to the community to drive that process.
I would also encourage you to anticipate where there will be blockages in the application of whatever powers or rights are being established. With neighbourhood planning we have had to retrofit a lot of those, and it has not been that helpful. There have been things such as the timetables for local authorities to make decisions and some of the powers to appeal to the Secretary of State. It is actually worth stress testing these against the worst cases within which they are trying to be applied as well as thinking that we are always going to be operating in a benevolent environment.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 23rd June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
Q
Good afternoon, Andy. It is good to see you and thank you for giving up your time.
Andy Street: You, too.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Andy Street: I will give you a straight answer to the question in one moment if I may, Mr Andrew, but let me give a bit of general context. This, I think, is a very good example of where the combined authority has been able to demonstrate the fundamental principle that each can achieve things that individual local authorities working on their own probably would not have done. Of course, the critical point is that we achieve it by working with our local authorities, but we can clearly demonstrate that we have brought additional firepower.
The stats are very clear: we have hit our housing target in this region over the last four or five years, and we had, pre pandemic, doubled the number of homes being built every year in this region. One way that we were able to do that is, of course, working with central Government by deploying the brownfield land funding that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had allocated to us in various tranches. We have made the existing system work, and very clearly we probably would not have had a negotiation—for example, Walsall or Wolverhampton separately—with DLUHC had we not existed.
Coming to your question, we are doing this against a good backdrop. We hope we will win further funding in due course to advance this even further, but on the reforms in the paper—it is a general question—essentially I would be supportive of them because they do bring simplicity to the operation. I do think that one of the challenges we constantly face is the time difficulty in drawing these items to a conclusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
Q
Andy Street: The answer to the first question, in one word, is yes. Let me explain why, and this is something that Minister O’Brien and I have talked about for probably a decade, since we were both in previous roles. If you look at the economic history of this country and compare it with other, similar countries, we definitely have a weakness in the out of London areas. There is nothing original there; we know that. Of course, part of the answer is to try to address that in what you might call areas of sufficient scale. I think the thing that the combined authorities have done, as you could argue that the more successful and bigger LEPs did as the precursor to it, is begin to think about economic policy at an appropriate spatial level, or what the books would probably call a natural economic area—a travel-to-work area or whatever. That, I honestly think, has been one of our great successes. Transport policies do not stop at the end of Birmingham when it moves into Solihull, as Gill’s market does not stop at the end of Wolverhampton when it moves into Dudley. We have been able to think about these determinants of economic success across the appropriate geographical area. In our case, that is not yet fully complete, and if you look around the country, you see that other combined authorities are more clearly incomplete in that sense. I would argue that they should be encouraged to expand to fill their natural economic areas.
In terms of the advice, I think there is one simple word: you have to make sure that everybody is up for it. I do not believe this should be imposed. I do not think this should be about unwillingness. I do believe there needs to be a sort of buy-in to the core principle that the very first question is that everybody has got to be prepared to compromise and make this work for it to be a success.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Andy Street: Brilliant. I actually think this is probably one of the single most important parts of this Bill, and I am not sure it has had—what is the word?—the celebration it probably deserves. If you look at the long-term determinants of inequality, the intensity of R&D in an area is absolutely critical. You only have to look at the states of the Union and at an area such as Massachusetts and its leadership in R&D in medtech to see how Boston has become the most successful city in that sector by a country mile.
We have had a lopsided country in terms of public R&D—not just a little lopsided, but hugely lopsided. If you look at the West Midlands, we are very successful at drawing in private R&D, and we are very weak at drawing in public R&D. Our ratio here is four to one. It is definitely the worst in the whole country. It is ironic, isn’t it, because the private sector sees the opportunity and the public sector has not seen it in the same way? So for the Government to commit to tilting that and leveraging in even more private sector cash on the back of that is very important.
What has got to happen to do it? Frankly, we have got to change our approach to some extent. There is a whole piece here about cluster theory. Our public R&D has been incredibly focused in a very small number of research councils and research universities, which are basically around our automotive sector. We need to continue to play to that strength, but then to balance that by looking at the medtech sector, the fintech sector and clean growth. That is where we will be putting our focus in the innovator accelerator, so that it is a catalyst for us to improve our performance in new, adjacent sectors. So that diversification approach is a very important sprat to catch a mackerel—that’s what I call it.
The Chair
We have unfortunately almost run out of time. I was tempted to see whether the Housing Minister wanted to come back and chat to our witness, but he seems to be pointing to the fact that time is up. Or does he want to use the remaining minute?
The Chair
The time is up, I am told. Thank you so much for coming, Mr Street. Your evidence was extremely clear and very helpful to the Committee.
Andy Street: Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Nicholas Boys Smith, Lizzie Glithero-West and Adrian Dobson gave evidence.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Nicholas Boys Smith: I assume that question is for me. Thank you, Minister. That is a very profound question, and I do not mean that in a sycophantic way. The current percentage of British people who trust planners to make their local neighbourhood better is in medium single figures, and for those who trust developers, it is in low single figures—between 4% and 7%. Despite the widely accepted desperate need for new housing, the instinctive assumption of most neighbourhoods, most of the time—sorry, this is a bit of a coda, but we have the lowest houses to households ratio in the western world—is that new development will make places worse. That informs the politics of all large developments and most small ones.
That is new, and it used not to be the case 50, 70, 100 or 200 years ago. It is something that is particularly prevalent in this country. Until we fundamentally fix the instinctive assumption that people have—before they learn more—that new development will worsen your bit of the world, the caught-between-the-horns nature of the politics of housing will never go away. As elected Members of Parliament, you do not need me to tell you that. This is not a criticism of the Bill, but it will not fix that—no one bit of legislation or set of actions can—although some elements of it are relevant.
I will say one final thing before I shush so other people can come in. This is not just about support for new housing, important though that is. Provably, where we live has very measurable and, in some large degree, quantifiable and predictable consequences for the lives we lead, our personal health, our mental health, how many of our neighbours we know and how much we walk in our daily existence, rather than just jumping in a car to go to the shops. It has very profound consequences, not just for spatial development patterns, but for the depth with which we tread upon the planet.
The Chair
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: Very briefly, because I am sure that Adrian will have some points on this. From the perspective of heritage and the environment, the Bill and the things around it—I support the point that this is not just about the Bill, but about the policies around it—should support sustainable reuse of buildings. Some of the best new homes are not necessarily new built; they can be renovated. Something that would be on our list for the Government to think about alongside the Bill would be the incentives to encourage reuse rather than demolition and new build.
We welcome the possible introduction of design codes, which would allow for developments that could recognise the local vernacular. Design codes should offer sustainability, safety and quality. There is a big point about the protection of designated heritage assets, as well as non-designated heritage assets, which are not necessarily included in the Bill. Some provisions could be made, either within the Bill or around it, to incentivise repair and saving buildings, and using them as a way to keep the character of a place rather than just resorting to new homes and new buildings.
There are two things that we could look at in particular. The first is removing the permitted development right for demolition, which is a problematic loophole at the moment; it incentivises flattening beautiful buildings that may not be listed. Secondly—I can presumably talk about this in more depth later—we could look at the VAT on the maintenance of current buildings. That is normally 20%, which is completely contrary to the 0% rate for new build and incentivises the wrong solutions for the environment as well as for local communities.
Adrian Dobson: The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission highlighted the value of good design, presumably in part because communities are more likely to accept well designed buildings. It also highlighted a lack of resource within the planning system, particularly in design expertise. The Bill itself places a lot of emphasis on local design codes. I am sure the Committee will want to talk about that; it is something that excites quite strong opinions both ways. Some people see local design codes as a way of establishing good basic principles, greater certainty around development and the ability to reflect local needs, but some people see them as potentially stifling innovation. That would be one way of addressing the issue.
I think it is important for us to think about design as not just being skin deep, although it is about appearance. Good quality design needs to address issues around sustainability, quality of build and the health and welfare of the people who use the buildings. When we talk about the Bill, there are perhaps some contradictions at the moment. There is possibly a contradiction between emphasis on local design codes, but growth in permitted developments. They seem to contradict each other slightly, and that might be one thing to think about. Also, there is a tension in the Bill between national development management policy and its relative weight against local development plans. Again, that might be part of the area of debate on the issue.
To follow up on something Lizzie said about the sustainability and embodied carbon aspects, we probably ought to be making more presumptions on reuse, retrofitting and alteration of existing building stock, and not just looking to new build as the solution to those issues.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: We believe that heritage is at the heart of the levelling-up and place agenda. We are really pleased that heritage is in the Bill and has its own chapter—chapter 3. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill. Given that heritage has not recently had any distinct legislation of its own, as we had hoped to have with the draft Heritage Protection Bill of 2008, nor is it likely to, it is important for us to take any opportunity to address some of the legislative aims of the sector and policy makers. Many of those aims had cross-party support. This Bill is one of those significant opportunities. There is always more to be done around heritage protection, but several elements of the Bill, and some further measures we have sent in a briefing to the Committee—I can unpack that, if it would be helpful—address some of those long-awaited calls from the sector.
We strongly support clause 185, which would make historic environment records statutory. That has been a long-term ask from the sector, and it features in our heritage manifestos. The sector is delighted that this has made it into the Bill, and I congratulate those working on that behind the scenes. We strongly support clause 92, which extends the protection of heritage assets. We suggested a limited number of key additions to the heritage assets list that would ensure that protection was clearer and more comprehensive, and those are outlined in our briefing.
Given the presidency of COP26 last year and the recognition of the climate emergency, we hope to see more action from Government in parallel with the Bill, or possibly within it—for example, the mention of permitted development that I made earlier for demolition —to encourage the use of current building stock over a presumption to new build. We hope that will be picked up in tandem.
Clauses 93 and 94 are also welcomed by the sector. Clause 93 makes stop notices, which have long been available within the wider planning system, applicable to heritage consent regimes. There is strong support from some in the sector for clause 94, which says that urgent works can be required in certain cases where listed buildings are occupied.
I think clause 95 is the one that you are probably referring to. There is general agreement from the sector that there needs to be a better system for the protection of buildings that are being considered for listing. The whole sector recognises that interim protection of heritage during the listing process is important. There are different views in the heritage sector on the proposals in the Bill to address that. Many in the sector welcome the removal of compensation in clause 95 and would go further by asking for a duty on local planning authorities to serve a building preservation notice where they believe criteria for listing can be met.
A significant minority, however, have concerns about the removal of compensation from those wrongly served a BPN, which could result in delays and losses. There is a concern that that would set a precedent for other compensation clauses. The organisations that I mentioned would rather have a system of interim protection akin to that in Wales. It is important for the whole sector that there is clarity on the approach taken in any transition period until the Act is fully effective. There are other bits I would like to mention, but they are not necessarily directly on the heritage angle and are particularly in relation to the replacement of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments. We can come on to those if the Committee would like to touch on them later.
The Chair
Q
Nicholas Boys Smith: I will make a quick point linking to the wider discussion on levelling up. The danger in the years to come is that as public sector money rightly supports the regeneration and investment in left-behind towns and places, in areas with low land value, that could actually lead to the reduction in quality of the urban realm and thus the reduced liveability of lots of historic but low-value places—the Grimsbys, the Hulls and the Stoke-on-Trents of this world. It is very important that the Bill focuses on the protection of heritage.
I think it will be very important in the years to come to think hard about how we protect, as we do not do quite so well at the moment, late Victorian and early 20th century heritage. At the moment, the ability to list gets much tougher for the late 19th century. This is not something that needs to be done through the Bill; it could be done through secondary legislation or guidance. We should make sure that as lots of money and focus goes on to levelling up places, we do not, as we have too often in the past, erringly do great harm to areas with unlisted and perhaps not very fashionable early 20th century-style places.
The quality of the urban infrastructure and realm of many of our left-behind towns is fantastic. They are often post-industrial towns with much lower levels of listing than the Salisburys and the Winchesters of this world; that is no disrespect to Salisbury or Winchester. There is a quite urgent need to face into that. Doing so would have the added advantage that more of our housing requirement could hopefully come in a more sustainable pattern from these rather under-utilised, under-invested-in and under-lived-in towns in the midlands and the north.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Benwell: I should have brought my copy of the Bill. There are actually some very good bits in clause 117. The Government have done quite a good job of writing in the mitigation hierarchy, which is welcome to see. The problem is linked through to clause 127, which allows everything in preceding parts simply to replace existing environmental law. It would be much better if the Government came forward with fully worked-up proposals for how to strengthen the existing system of the EIA and SEA, rather than taking the approach of giving themselves the powers to take out layers of environmental law and put in something different.
You mentioned clause 120, the so-called non-regression clause. It is obviously a good thing to have a commitment not to weaken environmental protection, but I am afraid that the efficacy of such a clause is really in doubt, for a number of reasons. First, it is the Secretary of State in whose opinion environmental law has to be maintained at an equal level. That is a highly subjective opinion left in the hands of Ministers—and, just to emphasise, not a court in the land would challenge that on the basis of ultra vires without it being patently absurd. Courts are really deferential to decision makers, so if a Minister were to say, “Yes, this is equivalent,” that statement would have to be really, really daft for a court to challenge it. So we think that that kind of non-regression provision is unlikely to be robust.
Secondly, the other noteworthy part of the non-regression provision is that it talks about overall levels of protection. That is where we come back to the idea of talking about the environment in aggregate and those big broad trends of species-level data, which is really important—like Carolyn, I think that we should be linking back to the Environment Act targets—but it is not sufficient. We must keep in place the rules that protect the particular, the peculiar and the exciting at the local level that matter to important people, and those local populations of species and habitats that are so important. Otherwise, we get into a runaway offsetting mentality where the assurance that things will be better overall can be taken to obscure a lot of harm to the natural environment at the local level.
So there are some good things in clause 117 and some nice sentiments in clause 120, but overall they do not give the reassurance that would be provided by simply taking time to work up provisions in full and bring them forward in primary legislation rather than giving Ministers the power to swip and swap through regulations.
Paul Miner: I have nothing further to add on this question.
Carolyn McKenzie: I have nothing further to add other than to reiterate the local element. You do get lots of peculiarities in different areas, and they can be lost, so we must make sure that they are not.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Paul Miner: We think that a brownfield-first approach to new housing and commercial building development can have a number of benefits. We have seen constantly over the years that there is enough brownfield land available for over 1 million new homes in any given year, and this supply of brownfield is constantly replenishing as more sites come forward, and it is possible to build at higher densities.
We think there are a number of clauses in the Bill that could help with brownfield regeneration, such as those relating to changing compulsory purchase order powers, as you have mentioned, and the infrastructure levy. Getting local plans in place more quickly will also help to bring brownfield sites forward. So we see a lot of benefits to a brownfield-first approach.
However, the problem we have consistently had over the past 15 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, is that it has been easier for large housebuilders to bring forward speculative developments through the planning system, often not contained within local plans, than to be able to get these schemes through at appeal. We think there are a number of measures the Government need to look at.
Some of these may involve legislation but more involve changes to policy to give councils more power to set targets for the amount of housing needed in their area, to make sure that housing targets reflect what is likely to be built in the area, as opposed to what house builders say when they claim to be meeting housing targets that they then do not build, and to identify local needs for affordable homes. In many areas of the country they are crying out for affordable homes, but the kind of housing that is being built is not meeting those identified needs.
We recognise that there is a lot in the Bill that is helping to bring forward the benefits of a brownfield-first approach, in terms of, as you say, embodied carbon, saving precious agricultural land and regenerating communities in of need levelling up. At the same time, we think there is scope to do much more.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Carolyn McKenzie: To build on what Paul has said, I think the circular economy is missing from the Bill. There is not much that is looking at what can be reused, recycled or reclaimed. It is about the new, and sometimes that is not the best way to go. Specifically around things like housing retrofits, it is about repair and regenerate rather than new housing. There is not that look at retrofitting that there should be, bearing in mind that the majority of housing we have is already in existence.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Carolyn McKenzie: The first thing would be to actually have a mission in the Bill that relates to environmental outcomes, as the Bill does not have such a mission in there. Even though there has been some commitment to sustainable and non-competitive funding, if there is no mission then you cannot link that back. When you have funds such as the shared prosperity fund, which will take regard of the environment, if there is no mission you cannot just say, “Well, this is a priority.” So having a mission on the environment would definitely push this along.
There is a need within devolution to be clear about people’s roles. At the minute, everything that is done around climate change is done by local authorities, both at county and district level, because they have been driven to do so by the public through climate emergencies. It is not because we are being asked to do it. That drives action, absolutely, but it drives different types of action—inconsistent action—and the data is different so you cannot compare.
Also, when you get things like covid coming along, or Ukraine, or inflation, the risk of dropping down the agenda is really high, so that sustainable approach to funding is needed, rather than there being small pots of funding and grant-based funding, which can change and is short-run and competitive. That approach is not great for really putting down the foundations and encouraging local authorities to work with partners and to partner up. We are looking at working with the private sector, residents and other public sector bodies to really partner up their funding with our funding, to get more bang for our bucks and to achieve more through things like volunteering to plant trees, which involves health and social, and tackling fuel poverty, which keeps people out of hospital as well as reducing carbon emissions. As I keep saying, that integration is really key.
Again, when we look at things to spend money on, we really need to look at what is needed at the local level. There are lots of things that will be consistent that people need to spend money on, but there will be lots of differences and nuances at the local level that will make it better spent. I reiterate again that 41% of Surrey’s emissions—we are not unusual among other authorities—are down to the private car. With little or no funding for public transport, it is a really difficult target to hit to get people out of the car. You can get people to change to electric vehicles, but that has an equalities aspect to it: not everybody drives and not everybody can afford it. Public transport and good safe routes for walking and cycling are really crucial, as is the housing side, again.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Paul Miner: Yes, we have done plenty of work on that, which we can send to the Committee. In particular, we produced a report a few years ago on public transport-oriented development, which showed that you could get much higher densities in urban areas that were already served by an intensive public transport network. In turn, that mutually reinforced and made sustainable public transport improvements within that area. There is certainly more on that that we could send to the Committee, which we would be very happy to do.
In addition to Carolyn’s point, I also want to say something very quickly on the rural aspect as well. Cornwall in particular is a possible trailblazer on rural devolution, in terms of what it has been able to do to integrate its transport network—that is in trains, ticketing and single points of information. It has also done some great work in terms of setting housing policies and on retrofitting rural housing stock. It does seem to be an exciting model that others could look at.
The Chair
Richard, we have not forgotten you; we will ask you to comment in a second.
Carolyn McKenzie: The key point on that is that there are so many different actors and so many different funds in respect of devolution. It is about looking at how we co-ordinate that. I am proposing to my authority to look at taking a lead climate change authority approach, similar to the lead local flood authority approach, so that we can actually co-ordinate, get the data down, look at what is relevant for the local level and deliver on that. We can then use that data to influence the funding that we bring in or to influence Government funding pots, so it is appropriate. That co-ordination element among all the different sectors is really key. At the minute, it is not there around environment. There are lots of different people and lots of different areas to come from.
The Chair
For your benefit, Sir, the purpose of this Committee is to gather evidence to help us when we consider the Bill as we go through it line by line next week. One advantage of this Committee is that the Minister gets to ask questions. That is the only fun that he will have in this Committee, so I think we will start with him.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis, thank you very much for your time this afternoon. Could you perhaps tell us what your organisation and its members think about many of the reforming aspects of the planning system that are contained in the Bill?
Dr Ellis: I think they regard it, and we regard it, as a mixed picture. We welcome the issues on hope value and on development corporations, and strengthening the development plan is certainly welcome. But then there are a series of issues on which we need some serious reassurance. There are just three. First, how can we drive delivery and does the Bill do enough on that. Secondly, democracy and public trust are absolutely critical to everyone because, as we have already heard, there is a lack of public trust in the system. Finally, there are the really positive measures that could be taken on climate change.
Briefly, I will throw one more in. When we write legislation on planning and when planners think about the future, we often have a tendency to think about it through our lens. I think it would have been great to see more creative, local community solutions in the Bill, particularly on the cost of living. The planning system has enormous potential to be a solution for things such as local food growing and local flood defence. It would have been great to see some concrete measures enabling that kind of activity from the bottom up.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis: The primacy of the local plan is really important. We are very worried about the relationship with national development policies and whether that masks a centralising tendency. Local and neighbourhood plans are so important in giving certainty to communities. As is often the case, we are making some changes to the process of planning reform—that is nothing new—but the fundamental issue is about resources. Most people who talk to us about planning and the delivery of local plans would say, “Well, if we had more resources we could deliver them more quickly, and if we had more certainty we could also do that.” So we should not get too hung up about changing the law.
We have divided the local plan into several pieces now through this Bill: we have said there is a local plan, then a supplementary plan, and then a strategic plan, and two of those are voluntary and one is not. In that sense, we have created that framework. The answer is that it all depends: it depends on resources and on how much power the Secretary of State wants to take to the centre on the content of local plans. We have an honest concern that if you want to rebuild public trust, you need to handle those powers with extreme caution.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis: I think we do. We are obviously desperate to preserve the rights to be heard. That is an important point. We are losing some rights to be heard and communities really need them. The TCPA fought for them from the 1960s onwards so that people had a right to be in the inquiry of a plan. Our planning system is very asymmetrical; the development sector is very dominant in that process.
A lot of people are sceptical about the idea of neighbourhood planning. I admit my own scepticism about it, because plans are often happening in places with more social and economic capital than others and we absolutely have to address that, but they are proving powerful—I speak as an ex-parish councillor, so I have served my time on this. Whether the statements get us over the line in creating something simple and meaningful is the challenge we want to see explored through this Bill’s progress. Will those statements actually have weight? Yes, you have to have regard to them, but what exactly will that mean in detail? Local and parish councils are denigrated, but they do have a powerful and meaningful role in the planning process.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis: There are two sides to that reaction. First, what is not to like about digitisation? There are some very archaic practices in the planning process and it would be great if we could catch up and have the resources to digitise. That will make information more accessible. It is also really important that we are able to integrate environmental data, because there are competing datasets out there. One of the most important recommendations is that we sort of need a national laboratory for that spatial data, as that would simplify the process no end.
But digital data goes so far. There is an issue about digital exclusion that worries us for communities. We can have as much digital information as we like, but we also need access to the arenas where decisions are made, so there is a twin relationship between understanding what is going on and being able to do something about it. That is where rights to be heard, which we are so exercised about in the planning process, are so important.
Neil O’Brien
Q
As we negotiate devolution deals with areas such as Derbyshire, where we are in talks at present, how do we best bring together the new instruments and new combined authorities to achieve everything we potentially can through spatial planning to drive the kind of join-up you have been arguing for in this session?
Dr Ellis: That is a complex question, but time is short. The single biggest issue is with trust and public consent—whether the people of Derbyshire understand the benefits of the combined authority. I am tempted to say, at the moment, that they do not. People have talked in the past about double devolution, and I think that is still important. You have two problems going on; you have the fantastic opportunity that devolution presents to empower local authorities and collections of local authorities, but then you have an important issue about the citizen and trust within communities, and how they relate to that.
In thinking about the devolution agenda, it is important to show regard and care to things such as parish and town councils—that lower tier—and what powers they might get. Otherwise, all that happens is that you shift the trust problem down a notch. The opportunity is there when resources and powers are provided for places to begin to set a new course that tells a story about that place. That is desperately needed in this country.
My only fear is that we need coverage across most of England—we do need that—and the ad hoc nature of this is giving different powers to different areas. The status of the strategic plan in Liverpool, legally, is different to the one in Manchester, which is different again to the London plan. That might be fine, but it also creates levels of legal uncertainty. There is a tension between those things, but I would continually emphasise the point on community trust and what communities can do, as well as what local authorities can do.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Ellis, for your clear and concise evidence. We very much appreciate it. We must now move on to our seventh session of the day.
Examination of Witnesses
Gavin Smart and Kate Henderson gave evidence.
The Chair
We are having slight problems with the sound. We will just give it a second. Do you want to carry on?
Kate Henderson: I was just saying that we are very, very keen that, as test and learn is rolled out, housing associations, working with councils and developers, are part of that programme, so we ensure we set the levies at a level that enables the delivery of great places with high-quality affordable housing on site in mixed communities. Doing that in a phased way to make sure it is working, while retaining parts of the old system as this is transitioned out, sounds like a sensible, pragmatic way forward.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Kate Henderson: Taking the second part first, transparency on land ownership is hugely welcome, as are the clauses in part 7 on compulsory purchase. I know this is not the same thing, but they are interlinked. Being able to access land at the right price to capture that land value is a really important mechanism for ensuring that we are able to deliver affordable housing. The best section 106 agreements do that because they understand the infrastructure need in a local area and those policies are in the local plan, so that when you go in for your planning application it is all costed in. I think the main principle of the infrastructure levy is that the cost of the levy is costed in so it can be factored into the price, which factors into what you are willing to pay for the land.
Land transparency is welcome, as is part 7 on compulsory purchase, regeneration and the enhanced role of Homes England, not just as a housing agency but as an agency involved in regeneration and place making.
Gavin Smart: I support much of what Kate says. I do not want to repeat her, but I have a couple of observations. Some of this is about the creation of a new planning system and some of it is about the resourcing of local authorities. Some of what characterises good section 106 negotiations is the ability to negotiate effectively. It is quite hard to design either a section 106 or a levy system in which developers may not come back, either legitimately or less legitimately, to argue that the situation has changed and needs to be looked at again. We have to accept that as a fact of life in these negotiations. It is not done until it is done.
I agree with Kate that land transparency is very helpful. Considering whether compensation needs to be paid in quite the same way as it has until now, and addressing hope value, is a very sensible proposition that we would support.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Gavin Smart: I do not know about adding measures to the Bill, but it is about the quality of local plans and the quality of local decision making. Going back to Kate’s point, it is about making sure we are operating on an objective assessment of need. We need to be sure that in our plans we are delivering the housing that is required for the whole community, rather than simply housing that can make the best return. In that sense, the planning system is something of an intervention to prevent what one might describe as a kind of market failure, which is that the housing market will not deliver the housing we need without being provided with a degree of direction. It is as much about what happens in implementation as what is actually in the Bill and the quality and strength of local plan-making behaviour.
Kate Henderson: There are already tools in the planning toolbox that enable local authorities to deliver different types of development that are right for their area. One example is rural exemption sites. I know your constituency is in York, so you are not necessarily rural, but our rural areas often have high land values and pressing affordability issues. The rural exemption policy enables affordable housing to be developed in perpetuity. A local landowner might be more likely to put forward a piece of land for affordable housing if they know it is going to stay in the community, for the community, so there are policies such as those that can be used. I agree with Gavin: it is really important that the local authority has a good evidence base of what is actually needed, so that when it is making decisions on schemes coming forward, there is an opportunity to argue for the social mix that it wants to see, including affordable housing.
I also think there is a role for different actors in the housing market: who is actually coming forward with proposals? What is the role of Homes England in terms of its land assembly role and its partnership role with local authorities, and how do we get HE more in the mix in its place-making role, as well?
Neil O'Brien
Q
Alex and Will, thank you for joining us in person. The Bill takes forward the devolution agenda by making it easier and quicker to set up new combined authorities, particularly in two-tier areas. It also contains a number of powers to speed up and improve regeneration, from the infrastructure levy to compulsory purchase order powers, high street rental auctions, street votes, heritage protections and land market transparency. How can we use both the devolution agenda and these new tools best to drive urban regeneration and more brownfield development—the kind of development that a lot of people want to see? How can we build on what we are doing in the Bill and make the powers that we are creating work most effectively? I will pick first on Will and then go to Alex.
Will Tanner: First, thank you for having me. It is a very important question, and the Bill goes some way towards answering it. The Bill tries—if I may infer Ministers’ intentions from it—to establish a much greater level of strategic authority in the planning system to bring together different elements that are important for regeneration and economic development in local areas. That includes building some of the institutional framework in the form of both more and stronger mayoral combined authorities or equivalents in counties and giving them clearer incentives to intervene and bring land together with other forms of intervention—I point to the infrastructure levy in particular in that regard, not just at mayoral level but below—as well as creating much greater transparency in information to allow the system to work more effectively and generate more community buy-in. That is both at a national level through the levelling-up mission framework that the Bill sets out, setting a clear direction on where the levelling-up agenda is due to go, and more information for consumers of the planning system through the digital planning framework and, indeed, through greater powers to require information on behalf of local authorities such as owners of high street shops and other parties locally.
Alex Morton: I am a little more sceptical on parts of the devolution agenda. It has worked very well in some places, such as Manchester, but less so in others. London has probably one of the biggest housing backlogs, and obviously it has had a Mayor for a very long time.
For me, the most interesting and best thing about the Bill is the focus or push around trying to make local plans more delivery-oriented, moving towards a system of local plans as delivery mechanisms and not huge, long lists of policies by moving some of that policy up to a national level. It would be good to discuss that further. I think that is the right aim, but there are some difficulties in how that is planned to be done. The shift away from a five-year land supply is also welcome.
Listening to people earlier, what often came up is planning issues x, y and z. Really, planning is just to deliver enough land, so that enough homes are built, we meet housing delivery targets and we do not have a housing crisis. Almost everyone else has a strong interest in planning doing mixed communities, planning doing sustainability, planning doing an ageing society and planning doing obesity. Planning is not really meant to do all those things; it is not some kind of titan that can hold the world on its shoulders. The whole point of planning is that there are sufficient land released to a different mix of developers who will build enough homes so that we do not have a housing crisis. If the Minister is inclined to put in place some kind of definition of what planning is, I would say that planning is designed to make sure that we build sufficient homes of sufficient quality in the right places—full stop. If the planning system could just focus on doing that, we might have less of a housing crisis, with everyone shoehorning everything else under the sun—important and noble though those other things are—into the planning system.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Alex Morton: I think street votes are a very good idea. They are a way to try and encourage communities. They are not a solution to everything—I think we have to be honest about what street votes are. Street votes are in areas where there is high demand in housing and you have relatively low density—particularly Metroland, for example, in London—where you might be able to persuade people to replace a certain amount of terraced housing with four or five-storey terrace streetscapes, which would be quite attractive. That could be a good way in lots of high-demand areas, without building on green belts and green fields, to get a recycling of space. That used to happen. For most of our city’s history, that densification process was natural. You had a single landowner usually—sometimes aristocratic, sometimes merchants, sometimes commercial holdings—who would buy blocks, demolish them and build them up. You have to do that now in a way that is consensual and fit for the 21st century.
Street votes are a way to try to get people together and say, “Look, we can all, on our street, agree that we can build up another few storeys. We will all benefit from this. This will mean that we do not have to build on greenfield sites on the edge of London.” I do not think we should be too optimistic about it in the next, say, five years solving the south-east’s housing crisis. However, it has to be something that the Government moves at great speed on, to try and put pilots in place to get this going, so that if it can work—I think it should—we can then roll it out on a wider scale. That said, I do not think, sadly, that it will alleviate the pressure on green fields in the next five or 10 years, but it is a thing we need to do now if we are to stop building on more and more of our land surface.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Will Tanner: I thoroughly welcome the commitment to maintain the neighbourhood share within the new consolidated infrastructure levy. As you say, the infrastructure levy is compulsory rather than optional and it will apply everywhere, so it represents an opportunity to share a considerable amount of revenue directly with communities where the right governance exists. Parish and town councils only cover about 37% of the English population at current levels—about a third of local authorities are fully parished—so only a relatively small number of places will be able to take advantage of this at first. The inclusion of the neighbourhood share will create a very strong incentive for local areas to put in place strong, hyperlocal governance to control local decision making and some local services within a general power of competence that exists for parish and town councils.
We know from our research that there are strong benefits from that. If you look at rates of volunteering, rates of group membership or rates of local philanthropy, all those things are higher in areas where parish and town councils exist. So I am very supportive of the Government’s efforts to try and create a stronger incentive for places to put in that local governance and to benefit from the gain from development. I would also suggest that it should create a stronger incentive for places to become more welcoming of development as a whole and therefore embrace new housing.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Will Tanner: As the Minister will know, Onward’s first ever paper looked at this issue in some detail. As the Committee will know, at the stroke of a planner’s pen, the value of a piece of land can go up 100-fold. There is an opportunity for the UK to do much more to capture the gains from development in a way that other countries, such as the Netherlands, do more systematically. The Bill goes some way towards doing that through the simplification and clarification of when local authorities can use CPO powers, which will hopefully make CPO more widespread.
I think the greatest opportunity lies in the clarification of what constitutes fair market value. That is a relatively contested area of policy; there are lots of different views from different areas. I thoroughly welcome the proposed Law Commission review into this area of legislation more generally, because I think legislation has spread over a number of years. However, there is an opportunity for the UK to more systematically capture those gains for development, and allow local authorities to buy and assemble land—especially with regard to ransom strips and small plots that hold up development—to capture those gains for public benefit. So I am supportive in principle but keen to see a bit more detail.
Alex Morton: I support the idea of streamlining CPO. I would be quite nervous, as a small “c” conservative and a small “l” liberal, about the measure to have a direction from the Secretary of State setting out the value of land. As Will has just suggested, there is a potential area in terms of ransom strips or other areas. If that was narrowly defined in legislation, so that, for example, on brownfield sites where there is multiple land ownership, there may, in exceptional circumstances, be a direction by the Secretary of State, that would be quite different from the current powers, which look like they could be abused by a future Government that was not sympathetic to property rights.
There is a case, with some ransom strip owners and some landowners who hold out and are unreasonable, for there to be some kind of change to get those people. But that is a big shift in property rights, which should probably be set out in primary legislation and very tightly circumscribed to small areas of brownfield land where there are multiple landowners, or be more tightly defined than the current situation, which I think could be abused—probably not under this Government, but under a future, more radical Government that did not support property rights.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 28th June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
There is a lot of interest in the idea of levelling up and its lofty and laudable aims, but warm words and good intentions, of themselves, will not reduce inequality across the UK. There is a real flaw in the Bill’s lack of accountability and ownership of each of the 12 levelling-up missions on the part of individual UK Government Departments. Amendments 3, 5, 10 and 12 and new clause 1 seek to address that lack of accountability.
Of course, the Government have given themselves the power to move the goalposts, change their targets, and look as if they are doing what they said they would do even if they are not. Rather than merely marking their own homework, they are also ready to lower the pass mark of the test if they fail it. That tells us how important the Government’s levelling-up plans are. If they really had the confidence in this flagship commitment that they profess to have, why would there be any baulking about objectively measuring their progress on levelling up?
These amendments seek to lock independent scrutiny of the progress of levelling up into this flagship Bill. Here we are, having to debate it, when it should be taken as read. The Institute for Public Policy Research has also called for an independent body, established in law, to oversee and judge the UK’s progress on levelling up. What Government with true confidence in their ability to deliver their goals, as this Government say they have, would resist that kind of scrutiny and accountability? Surely they would exalt in it; it would be the opportunity to demonstrate their success. What have this Government to fear from transparent and objective allocation mechanisms for delivery? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government know that there is more bluster here than actual substance.
True levelling up, of course, requires actual investment, but the necessary financial backing appears to be absent. Any investment must be delivered in a non-partisan and transparent way. Let us not forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that departmental budgets will actually be lower in 2025 than they were in 2010. How that chimes with and supports the idea of levelling up is something that I am struggling to understand.
Levelling up is an admirable principle, but if the Government are confident that they can deliver, as they say they are, what possible objection can there be to scrutiny? With such attempts to avoid independent scrutiny, it feels as if there is agenda beyond levelling up. If the levelling-up missions do not have the effect of reducing inequality across the UK, then they will have objectively failed in their goal. These amendments seek to measure that progress. Who can object to that?
If the very foundation of the Bill—the ability to deliver greater equality across the UK—is not open to full and transparent, evaluative, published scrutiny, and if that is not written into the Bill, the very principles on which it purports to stand are built on sand, will not inspire confidence and, I fear, will not deliver. I absolutely agree that we do not need the fanfare of a Bill to reduce inequality; it could just be done—a Bill is not needed. A Bill whose stated aims are not open to transparency and independent scrutiny is definitely not a Bill we need, and we are right to be sceptical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to begin line-by-line scrutiny of this important Bill with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. We have a very distinguished Committee and I look forward to some thoughtful and enlightening debates.
The Government’s defining mission is to level up our country—to close the gap in productivity, health, incomes and opportunity between different parts of the country. That goal is made all the more urgent in the face of cost of living pressures and the inequalities laid bare and deepened by the pandemic.
The levelling-up White Paper sets out that levelling up is a moral, social and economic programme for the whole of Government, not just one Department, to spread opportunity and prosperity more equally throughout the country. The Bill sets out the framework for delivering on our levelling-up missions and places a statutory duty on the Government for the first time to set missions to reduce geographic disparities and to produce an annual report on our progress.
The Government absolutely recognise that scrutiny and seeking expert advice will be important to ensuring that we deliver on our missions and level up the country. That is why we have established the Levelling Up Advisory Council, chaired by Andy Haldane, former chief economist at the Bank of England, to provide the Government with expert advice to inform the design and delivery of the missions.
The council is made up of an expert and distinguished group of people. It includes Katherine Bennett, chief executive officer of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult and chair of the Western Gateway, which brings together the research and development strengths of the Bristol region with south Wales; Sir Tim Besley and Sir Paul Collier, two of our most distinguished economists from the London School of Economics and Oxford; Cathy Gormley-Hennan from Ulster University; Sally Mapstone, principal of the University of St Andrews; Laxman Narasimhan from Reckitt Benckiser; Sacha Romanovitch from Fair4All Finance; Hayaatun Sillem, chief executive officer of the Royal Academy of Engineering; and Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal and General. These are very independent-minded people—serious people with deep expertise. The reason why we have brought them together is that we respect and value independent, thoughtful, expert advice.
The Government are committed to enabling Parliament, the public and other experts outside the advisory panel to fully scrutinise progress against our missions. The proposed initial set of metrics have already been published in the levelling-up White Paper, in the technical annex—40 pages, which give all the different ways we will measure all the different missions in incredible, unprecedented detail. I do not remember such detail under any previous Government. The metrics were published in the White Paper and will be refined over time. The analysis included in the annual report to Parliament will be based on the metrics that are here and included in the statement of levelling-up missions that will be laid before the House.
Given the level of transparency and reporting, and the level of input from deep experts, it is unclear what value an independent body would add. The Government will be required to report on set missions within set metrics and methodologies. Instead of creating a new independent body, the Government believe that levelling-up missions can be better supported by focusing on delivering those missions themselves—by getting on with it, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said. It is also wrong to argue that without an independent body, the Government’s progress towards delivering missions will not be subject to independent external scrutiny. Parliament, the public, think-tanks and civil society will all have an opportunity to comment and report on how well the Government deliver missions, in response to our annual reports.
Patricia Gibson
This has just occurred to me as the Minister has been speaking. I am curious: if child poverty does not reduce, will the levelling-up programme and mission be considered a success or a failure?
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The last Labour Government had a statutory child poverty target; that target was literally locked into legislation. Was it hit? It was not hit, no. That is why we have adopted the approach that we have; just writing something into law does not mean that it happens, unfortunately. That is why we have created the independent architecture around levelling-up missions: to provide both really serious external expertise in the work that we are doing—I do not think anybody disputes the fact that these are really independent, serious people; and an unprecedented level of detail, to give everybody who wants to criticise the programme all the resources and exact detail they need to do just that. I do not remember any of those things happening under previous Governments.
Missions are intended to anchor Government policy and decision making to level up the UK. However they should not be set in stone. As the economy adapts, so too might the missions, to reflect the changing environment and lessons learned. Of course, some of these things can be tightened over time; we have made remarkable progress on our missions to roll out Project Gigabit and the Shared Rural Network, which are a £5 billion intervention and £1 billion intervention respectively. Over the course of just the last two years, they have transformed the availability of gigabit internet and rural 4G.
Opposition Front-Benchers said, “Why do you have to change some of the missions? That seems very dodgy to us.” Some of the missions will literally have to change. For example, one of the missions that I am very proud of is the one to increase domestic public R&D spending outside the greater south-east of England by a third over the period covered by the spending review. Of course, that prompts the question, “What will happen after the spending review?” We will have to change that mission, otherwise it will just become meaningless. Things have to adapt over time, of course, and I think that everyone recognises that levelling up is a long-term mission; nobody thinks that any of these things, some of which are century-long problems, can be solved in the course of one or two years.
However, the Opposition Front-Benchers made a very important point: the Bill sets out that any changes to missions should be—indeed, have to be—fully and transparently explained and justified through a statement to Parliament where they occur. Nothing will happen without Parliament knowing about it.
Hon. Members on the Opposition front page—Freudian slip; Front Bench—would recognise that some of the missions will just have to change over time; there is no point locking in a three-year mission for the next 30 years. This layer of transparency enables the public and civil society at large to comment on the Government’s decisions. It is unclear what additional benefit an independent body would bring. The Bill sets out that any changes to missions should be fully and transparently explained and justified where they occur. The missions will be rolling endeavours.
Rachael Maskell
The big challenges facing our society, such as climate and the economy, have independent bodies, but inequality and the injustices that come from it will not. What do the Government see as the value of independence when it comes to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Climate Change Committee that they do not see with this particular agenda?
Neil O'Brien
That is an extremely good and useful question. Everyone remembers the backstory about why we created the OBR. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown changed the assumption about how fast the UK economy would grow, to prop up and justify to the public extraordinarily high levels of public spending. When the financial crisis happened, his decision to change the assumption about how fast the UK economy would grow proved catastrophic, and we ended up with the largest structural deficit of any major developed economy in the world going into the financial crisis, with catastrophic effects on public spending and public services that lasted for a generation.
We changed that because it is very difficult for anyone outside the Treasury to challenge or see some of the forecasting assumptions being made; the macroeconomic and technical work that was happening only within the Treasury prior to the OBR was difficult for anybody to scrutinise externally. Anybody, even Opposition Front-Benchers, could tomorrow update every single bit of data in this document. All these things are public sources; it is straightforward for anybody to hold us to account for them.
However, when it comes to the OBR, it is not quite so straightforward to say, “No, I think the output gap should be different. I think that your assumptions about the fiscal impact of excise duty changes interacting with changes in consumer behaviour are wrong.” That is a fundamentally more difficult thing to do. Ultimately, the OBR was created to protect the Treasury from the kind of behaviours that, I am afraid, we saw under the last Labour Government.
Neil O'Brien
We are going to have to make progress this morning, I am afraid, because we have a lot of clauses to get through. The Opposition amendments are well intentioned—given who the shadow Ministers are, it could not be otherwise—but they are unnecessary and that is why we must resist them.
The Chair
Rachael Maskell, you can make another speech, as this is line-by-line scrutiny.
The Chair
Does any other Member wish to catch my eye? Does the Minister wish to respond?
Alex Norris
I start by saying—given that one of my Whips is in the room, I should not say this—that, for the reasons mentioned, I enjoy these Bill Committees. I am not sure whether I will enjoy them in a few weeks’ time, because we will have been at it for a long time.
Patricia Gibson
Amendment 13 would place
“a responsibility on the Government to publish the resources made available to communities in order to level-up”.
Who could argue with that? In not arguing with it, I cannot help reminding the Minister that Scotland was promised a £1.5-billion-a-year bonanza as part of the Brexit windfall. Of course, the reality is that Scotland has received 40% less funding than it did under the EU funding agenda, and it has suffered a 5.2% cut in its resource budget and a 9.7% cut in its capital budget. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how that supports the levelling-up agenda, because I certainly cannot understand. It is quite galling that as this Government show disrespect to devolved Parliaments—democratically elected Parliaments—by impinging on devolved powers and bypassing the democratic will of the Scottish people in devolved areas, they simultaneously cut their budget in the context of levelling up.
Despite the stated goals of the legislation, the Minister has been unable to say—perhaps he will do so when he gets to his feet—whether the levelling-up missions would result in a reduction in inequality to the point where we would see a reduction in child poverty. What kind of levelling-up commitment would not address the basic social scourge of child poverty? I cannot think what the point of any of this is if we are not committed to tackling that most basic and serious ill.
Of course, as we have heard, we do not need a fanfare to tackle inequality; we just need to get on and do it. We can exalt in our success if indeed we have it, but we do not need a Bill that runs to hundreds of pages but cannot even commit to transparency or to publishing details of the resources that it is willing to use.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government have tried, with their limited powers, to instigate levelling up—for example, with the Scottish child payment of £20 per child per week. That is real levelling up, and these are the kinds of measures that the Bill really ought to tackle to build a more inclusive society. As food bank use rises, we have a real opportunity if we are serious about levelling up, but it takes targeted political will and a determination to tackle the causes of inequality. That is not an easy thing to do—we have to put in a real shift—but a Bill that runs to a few hundred pages with vague missions that objectively cannot be held to account will not convince anybody.
It is clear to see that the resources for true levelling up will not be made available, certainly from the Scottish perspective with the figures I have cited. For all the warm words, and there have been many, it is difficult to have confidence that our communities will see any tangible difference as a result of this fanfare—sorry, this Bill. The Government should have no problem with amendment 13, because they know that no levelling up can happen without resources. Presumably, if they are serious about levelling up, those resources will be committed, so why not publish them? Why do the Government not exalt in their success and the resources they are willing to expend? If this levelling-up Bill and agenda do not reduce inequality or tackle poverty, child poverty or child hunger, I honestly cannot see the point of them.
Neil O'Brien
I agree completely with the spirit behind the amendment, and we are actively working to bring about what Opposition Members want. However, we do not think the amendment works, and I will explain why. Official statistics about public spending in different places are widely available already. Her Majesty’s Treasury already publishes a regional breakdown for total current and capital identifiable expenditure per head through PESA—Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses—which is my favourite regional statistical document.
We are also taking steps to improve the quality of spatial data. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data transformation required in central Government. It is frustrating to us that many of the types of data that should have existed for years still do not. The spatial data unit supports the delivery of levelling up by transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and use sub-national data, so that it can underpin transparent and open policy making and delivery decisions. It is completely in that spirit that we are acting to improve data on all levels.
Rachael Maskell
I am listening carefully to the Minister, who has talked about input as opposed to outcomes. In the light of our seeing gross inequalities and life expectancy for some people in our poorest communities decreasing, there is clearly something that is not working in the Minister’s methodology to deliver the outcomes we want to see to close the inequality gap. Will he expand on how he sees the shifting of the dial, as opposed to what we on the Opposition Benches perceive as more of a scattergun approach in terms of where the money still seems to be going through the methodologies he has described?
Neil O’Brien
We are the Government who are creating—literally, through the Bill and the clauses we are debating this very morning—a mission to close the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas, and between the highest and lowest areas, and to raise it by five years by 2035. These are the missions that the Bill will be getting us to report on every year to Parliament, so we are addressing the hon. Lady’s point. Through the health disparities White Paper and the other things the Government are doing, we are addressing as one of our central priorities the underlying causes of lower life expectancy and the inequalities she mentioned.
To summarise, while we are completely with the spirit of the Opposition’s amendments—we are trying to get better data and have processes in place that are generating better data, because we recognise its importance to the levelling-up agenda—there is, in truth, no hard and fast difference between levelling-up resources and the rest of Government resources. Indeed, philosophically, it is important to recognise that one should not think just about levelling-up funds. Much as one can rattle off an impressive list, one should think about how we reform the totality of Government spending.
That is one of the novel aspects of the White Paper’s approach. For a long time, people thought of science funding in a science policy silo, and thought that it should be allocated to science excellence, with no spatial dimension. We are the first Government to set regional targets for science spending, recognising its importance to potentially addressing some of the inequalities that the Opposition have mentioned this morning. We have changed the Treasury Green Book. We have started to allocate housing and regeneration spending differently so that we can get out of the cycles that Tom Forth and other regional economic policy experts have talked about: some bits of the country are overloaded and people cannot get on a train or buy a house, while other parts are crying out for investment and have lots of scope to take on growth.
I hope that I have given the Opposition at least an honest account of why we are resisting the amendment, even though we absolutely agree with its spirit.
Alex Norris
I am really grateful for the contributions to what has been a good debate. I will cover some of the points made by my Opposition colleagues and then move on to what the Minister said. Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, Great British Railways is a brilliant example of what we are talking about. We remember the press release on, I think, 5 February, which came shortly after the White Paper and was seen very much as an element of the levelling-up agenda—indeed, it says that on the Government’s website. The location of Great British Railways will be determined through an online public vote. It is like “Love Island”, Mr Paisley. Anyone watching this series knows that we badly need a vote to try to shake things up, but I do not think it is how we should determine the location of—
Alex Norris
I apologise, Mr Paisley. I will get straight back to Great British Railways and levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a strong case for York and, if the hon. Member for Broxtowe promises not to tell my constituents, I might make a strong case for Derby. We are generally not allowed to do such things, but that is my one for the year—[Laughter.]
Alex Norris
Happily, it does not look like the hon. Member for Broxtowe is going to grass me up.
The whole process—we can already see this because people are being encouraged to use a hashtag—will involve TikTok videos and be nauseatingly modern. I know that the Minister does not like things as nauseatingly modern as that, so I cannot believe it for a second—he is sitting sphinx-like, which is of course fine. The constant beauty parade and artificial competition just take energy out of things. Of course, someone will win, and that will be wonderful news, and I will be very pleased for them, but multiple places will lose as a result. That cannot be the best way to level up. I know the Minister talked about a balanced diet, but I will cover that shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central spoke about where she sees the future for her community and her region, with an emphasis on biotech, rail and the creative sector, and that will be different in Nottingham, Leicestershire or West Yorkshire. That is a good thing. Part of levelling up will be about, as we understand it, sub-regions taking control of where they think their local economies are going to go and the skills they will need to ensure they get that. Getting the resources to make sure they can do that, which is what this amendment is about, is fundamental. This is about resource going to those communities so that they can make those decisions for themselves. I think that the people of York and the sub-region in which my hon. Friend works will have a better say about that than Ministers themselves.
Neil O’Brien
The PAC reported on the levelling-up fund. Are there any particular levelling-up fund bids that we are funding that the hon. Gentleman would like to say represent bad value for money and should be withdrawn?
Alex Norris
The Minister knows that is unkind. I am not going to stand here and pick at one. We could go down the entire list of 157 local authorities, virtually all of which are significantly worse off, by tens of millions of pounds; I am not going to turn around and say that one of their projects should not happen. Please—of course I am not going to say that. The Minister says that the Public Accounts Committee picked up on the levelling-up fund, but that is not true: it has reported on the towns fund, too. This is a long-running issue and there are more than three years-worth of reports.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 28th June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Seventh sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 30th June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 June 2022 - (30 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want communities to be involved in their own destiny before there is any ink on the paper. That consultation and working through the stage of each process to bring the CCAs together is also important. That is why we want that process to be embedded in the Bill.
We have recently been through a local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire, and that has been quite a painful process for many of the district councils as they have come together to form the new North Yorkshire County Council. York was part of the initial consultation and because we had a voice, we were able to stake our claim not to be brought into that authority. We argued that we had our own identity, going back to King John and the charter that established York as a city. If we had lost that identity, we would have lost a significant place on the global stage. The original proposal was for York to disappear and to be replaced by a North Yorkshire East and North Yorkshire West model. If the identity of such a significant city had disappeared, there would have been no heart to Yorkshire, nor any identity. That is why I am glad that we had proper consultation about that process, and that is why it must be replicated in this legislation.
To Labour, the people’s voice really matters, and we want to see people’s voices coming through so that they are involved. Nothing in a Government agency should be superior to those we represent. I trust that the Government will reconsider the amendments and see the opportunity that they present to them, if not to the people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I echo the comments from those on the Opposition Front Bench about the quality of the debate on the first day of line-by-line scrutiny. I hope to continue that tenor and interesting dialogue.
We completely agree with much of what Opposition Members have said, which is why we have provided for exactly what they want in the Bill. Let me expand on that. In the levelling up White Paper, we announced a new institution that we believe can provide the strong leadership and effective and coherent collaboration needed for a strong devolution deal in certain circumstances. This new institution is the new combined county authority model, referred to in the Bill as a CCA.
As Opposition Members have said, the appropriate circumstances for that model is where a county deal covers an area with two or more upper tier local authorities. Those upper tier local authorities will be the constituent members of the CCA. Although we have not yet of course established any combined county authorities, because we are legislating for them here, we need to look to the future, as Opposition Members have said, and anticipate a scenario where an established CCA wishes to change its boundary. Since there is no benefit in a shell institution existing in perpetuity, it is only right that the legislation provides for such an institution to be abolished.
Wherever a CCA is planned to be established, its boundaries changed, or is to be abolished, we absolutely want to see the local public being consulted on the proposal, but the amendments are unnecessary, because the requirement for a consultation on a proposal to establish, amend or abolish a CCA is already provided for in clauses 42(4)(a) and (b), and 44(3)(a) and (b). Those provide an opportunity for local residents, businesses, organisations and other key stakeholders to have a say on the proposal, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley pointed out. A summary of the consultation results must be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the proposal and have regard taken of it.
There is a further safeguard in clauses 43 and 45, which provide that the Secretary of State has to undertake a consultation before creating, amending the boundary of, or abolishing a CCA, unless there has already been a consultation in the affected areas and further such consultation would be unnecessary. That will ensure that there has been sufficient public involvement in the consideration of whether it is appropriate to establish, change the area of or abolish a CCA. As such, I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance that the amendments would be purely duplicative for the hon. Members to withdraw them.
To touch on a specific point, the hon. Member for Nottingham North talked about initiators of devolution at the centre, we are the initiators of the devolution process in one sense. However, we are not the initiators of devolution deals for particular places. Ahead of the levelling-up White Paper, we called for expressions of interest, and we only move forward—we can only move forward—with a devolution deal if it has the support of locally elected leaders. In that sense, we are not the initiators; it takes two to tango, and that is the nature of devolution. In this Bill, it comes with what I hope for Opposition Members is sufficient requirement to engage in deep public consultation, and for that consultation to be listened to properly, as said by various people.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for colleagues’ contributions. They were good ones. Briefly, the example given by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, was a salutary tale. Again, there is the idea that something so significant might be engaged in by only 1% of the population; if that is where we end up with these structures in future, it would be really problematic and almost undermine their ability to perform from the outset.
On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, I have not quite found the right moment in the debate to talk about integrated care systems, but that is a good example of another very significant body that will have to engage with the county combined authorities in some way. The footprints do not sit elegantly, and they do not in life—I understand that. It is easy in countries such as the US perhaps, where they have defined, existing state borders—okay, everything can fit elegantly around that, but it can still get confusing at the margins.
There is a challenge there, but I think that it gives greater strength to the case for public involvement, rather than saying we ought to sit here with a map and carve things up. The people who know that best and how the sensible natural geographies work are the general public. The answers lie there, and it happens naturally—people know at what point they start to look, say, northwards to the hospitals in the north of the county, rather than to the one in the south, as happens in Nottinghamshire. That is a strong case for greater public involvement.
I am, however, reassured by what the Minister said about the provisions in clause 42(4)(a) and so on—the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned them, too. The reason for the separate amendment was my concern for the process to be one that happened not as an ABC condition right at the beginning, but as a co-equivalent term of engagement. Clearly, from what the Minister said, the intent is not to come alongside a proposal: “Have you brought your consultation with you? Right, that is ticked, therefore it is done.” On that basis, I will not press my amendment to a Division.
I will finish on the point the Minister made about initiating devolution. I am not sure that I quite agree with what he said. First, of course the centre is the initiator, in the sense that we could not have these bodies if we did not have the Bill, and we could not have the Bill if a Minister of the Crown had not presented it—so the centre is the initiator in that sense.
Also, I love the idea that the Government’s view is that local communities of a natural geography would come together to ask for county combined authorities and, most importantly, the powers that come with that, and the Government would respond on the quality of that application, but the White Paper already tells us the 10 areas that the Government are prioritising. That is “initiating” in any sense of the word; those are the areas chosen and the geographies for those areas have been chosen. There is no sense that this is a “come one, come all” process, as the Prime Minister has previously said— come to him or the Minister with ideas and “We will give you the powers you need.” That is not what is in the White Paper—it is very clear who it is who is being called forward. So I challenge the Minister’s point on that, but I am grateful for the comfort he has given on the amendment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tim Farron
This is important because the suspicion of many people is that this is a back-door way of circumventing district councils. We have been through reorganisations in much of the country, and for those places that have escaped somehow, such as Lancashire for instance, the Bill is a way of making sure that they all behave themselves and come under an aegis of an organisation set up by the Government.
In many cases, there is great value in two-tier authorities. If we believe in devolution, it should be knitted together and initiated from the grass roots and not from Whitehall down. If the CCAs are the building blocks through which levelling up is to be delivered, that must be done on the basis of an accurate analysis of the respective needs and desires of the communities involved. Independence in this context applies to the assessment of the value of the boundaries and the nature of the CCA. That is vital, particularly to put at rest those who may fear that CCAs represent a back-door way of scrubbing out the powers and relevance of district councils, even parish councils. I hope that the Government appreciate that fear and seek to address it.
Neil O'Brien
In my earlier comments, I set out the CCA model and talked about the rationale for it. Some areas that we are discussing a devolution deal with are considering adopting that CCA model. But even with those first areas, it is highly unlikely that the deals will be negotiated, announced and implemented via secondary legislation, and CCAs established and up and running within the 12-month period of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. That would render the report’s evaluation no different in 12 months’ time from today.
Opposition Members rightly want to have a debate in Committee about the CCA model. I have said a bit in our previous sessions about why we are doing it, but let us take the discussion a bit further. The purpose of the CCA model is to make devolution practically possible in two-tier areas without requiring unitarisation. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about districts coming under the aegis of a CCA, but that is not quite right. It could easily be that only top-tier authority powers are devolved to the top-tier authorities in a CCA. If they do not want to, the districts may choose not to take part. They are not having their powers or responsibilities changed, but the difference is that they are not able to veto their neighbours from getting devolution or making progress.
I am perfectly happy to stand here and make an argument about fairness, because I do not think it is fair that one district can veto progress for a large number of neighbouring districts and boroughs for top-tier authorities, particularly if it is not being forced to do anything, as is the case under the Bill. It is simply unfair for such a district to be able to stop their neighbours going ahead.
The Opposition sort of alluded to the practical reality in that although I would not rule further mayoral combined authorities in the future, in a lot of a country that currently does not have a devolution deal, the CCA model will be the practical way of delivering that. In practice, if we do not have that model, we will just not make progress. I can think of one area that we currently discussing that has a very, very large number of district councils, and it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to agree a sensible agreement if every single one of them were given a veto.
In a sense, the amendment is to push us, not unreasonably, to talk about the whether the CCA model is the right one. The proposed evaluation is in one sense called for so that we can now discuss whether this is the right thing or not. I think we have been clear. There is no back door. I am standing here telling Members why we are doing it right now and what it does and does not mean. We will discuss some of the nuances when we consider further clauses, and we absolutely have to get that right. However, the amendment and the evaluation proposed would essentially not add anything to our conversation this morning, whether one believes that the CCA model and the removal of that veto is right or not. That is why I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I share a lot of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about districts, which we will have the opportunity to discuss further in the debates on future amendments. I also agree with what he said about parishes. I hope the Bill is the single biggest step forward for parish and town councils in terms of the community powers that they can exercise, closest to the lowest possible level, to give communities a real say in what happens in their area. The Bill does not currently say that but we will seek to add it in due course.
I have a number of points to make about what the Minister said. I appreciate his candour, which reflects well, as it would be easy for him to obfuscate. I take him at his word, but I am surprised that there is a sense that within a year of the Bill achieving Royal Assent, which itself is some months away and probably nearer to Christmas, we will not have had any future deals agreed under these provisions. That genuinely surprises me, and I suspect it will surprise quite a few people who are currently negotiating such deals. I understand that the Minister has May 2024 in mind for elections; that timescale does not give us an awful lot of time, which poses its own desirability problems.
I disagreed with the Minister’s point that rather than this being about circumventing districts it is about making combined authorities possible without requiring unitarisation; that is not quite right. Deals have been made that involved district councils and they did not require unitarisation; they required consensus and understanding. I do not think it follows that it is either what is in the Bill or unitarisation, which leads to the point about districts not losing power. We will test that later, but I am glad that the Minister has put that on the record because it is important.
The Minister made a point about fairness, which I understand. He alluded to an example in which a deal with perhaps 15, 18 or 20 partners could not go ahead because one partner was able to say no to the whole process; I agree with him that that is probably not a good thing. Possibly, that is a point about fairness, but there would be other ways around it, such as to allow districts to exit a process and others to carry on. Again, there are benefits and disbenefits to that. Rather than a single district being able to veto the whole process, it could be done by a super-majority, given the significant nature of the decision.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Gentleman has touched on a really important point. He has encapsulated in a very neat way what we are trying to establish here, which is the ability of districts to participate if they want to and not to if they do not want to.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister, but I do not think that will be the effect of the legislation. The reality is that a combined authority area can be formed for the area that includes the district council, whether it wants that or not. Indeed, the district council will have limited say. I do not want to prejudge the discussion we will have when we come to clause 16. It is welcome that the Minister has nailed his colours to the mast, but the reality is other mechanisms could have been chosen. The Government have chosen this mechanism, so it is right that we probe it. We have been able to do that and, as I am at risk of moving ahead of the discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Constitutional arrangements
Alex Norris
I share my hon. Friend’s view. That point was made very clearly in Tracy Brabin’s evidence. Having said that we in this place have an interest in constitutions and the rules of the game, my strong belief, as someone who wants to see change happen in my community and to see my community improve in a vast range of areas, is that form should follow function. What are we trying to get out of these bodies? The structures—the bodies and committees that need to be in place—should then flow from that. I strongly believe that the people best able to decide that will be those who operate locally in the combined authorities.
The Government have to set the broader parameters, but I am hoping to hear from the Minister that those are likely to be de minimis involvement and that, instead, they will positively cut the link and allow county combined authorities to drive action forward without worrying about that tap on the shoulder telling them that even though they said they wanted to do that, they cannot.
Neil O’Brien
In our response to this amendment, it is crucial that we hold in our minds the distinction between local standing orders for combined authorities on the one hand and the statutory instrument setting out things such as voting arrangements on the other. It is essential for the stability and the establishment of combined authorities that things such as voting rights can be set out in secondary legislation to ensure a stable institution. Of course, the CCA can set out its own local constitution by itself, but those two things are very different.
We have talked already about the county combined authority model; clause 8 is vital to permit the effective operation of a CCA. Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State needs the consent of the constituent councils and, where it already exists, the CCA. In other words, the arrangements cannot be imposed against the local area’s will.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, the clause closely mirrors the provision for combined authorities, which has supported the establishment of 10 combined authorities, each approved by Parliament. In this instance, “constitutional arrangements” means the fundamental working mechanisms of the CCA, including things such as its constituent membership and voting powers. It is vital that those things are set out in secondary legislation and approved by Parliament. That ensures that CCAs are stable institutions with good governance, in line with agreed devolution deals. It is only right that the core design and operating model of the CCA, such as the constituent membership and the voting arrangements on key decisions, remain in line with the devolution deal agreed by Government and local partners at the outset, with the secondary legislation establishing the CCA being approved by this Parliament.
A CCA can set out its own local constitution or standing orders with additional local working arrangements. It might, for example, set out meeting procedures, committees, sub-committees and joint committees of the CCA. That is done locally, at the right level consistent with our position on localism, and does not require secondary legislation. The Mayor of West Yorkshire pointed out that they were making changes to go from one to three scrutiny committees, which is quite right.
The amendment is really inappropriate and potentially quite dangerous to the devolution process. It is inappropriate because it would allow a CCA to change elements of its constitution that are rightly approved by Parliament and part of the initial devolution deal agreed by all parties locally. It is unnecessary because all the other elements of a constitution can already be changed by the CCA locally. I hope to have given sufficient explanation for why we will ask Members to withdraw amendments 16 and 17.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that response. I take slight exception to the idea that the constitutions cannot be imposed without will. Yes, of course, all the members of the county combined authority will have had to have signed up to it—I understand that—but it will presumably be an indispensable part of the wider package, so we would be asking for local areas to turn down possibly many millions of pounds’ worth of funding, plus transport powers, extra housing powers and powers on skills, because they do not like the shape of the constitution. Of course they are not going to do that. I would not characterise that as them entering into it with the freest of free wills.
Neil O’Brien
Perhaps it would help if I were to expand a little. If I were a local government leader considering joining a CCA, I would want to know that the key arrangements for it, such as voting arrangements, would be stable over time and could not suddenly be changed by a potentially transient majority of local authority leaders who are members of it. To be honest, if I felt that that could happen to my local authority, I would be wary about signing up to a devolution deal on that basis. That is why certain core functions of these things are rightly set in secondary legislation, while other elements are rightly for local decisions so that they can make arrangements work for them and make things work locally.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that, but I would like to know that local authorities will not fall victim to a one-size-fits-all arrangement. One could argue either way, which is fine.
The Minister’s point about local standing orders has addressed most of my concerns. He said that the arrangements remain in line with the original deal, but that cuts both ways. If he is saying no to local variation but yes to the idea of local standing orders, that must also mean that the Secretary of State will not make such changes. If we start to see variation between those deals, that becomes challenging, but I am getting ahead of the amendment before us. I am grateful for the clarification on local standing orders, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Non-constituent members of a CCA
Tim Farron
This is the third sitting of line-by-line scrutiny and the Minister is yet to accept an amendment, but I have noticed that his tone has been positive and he has engaged with everything that has been put forward, which is very welcome. The tone of debate on all sides has been really positive and constructive. The Government Front Bench has not been dismissive—I am grateful for that; I have been impressed. This amendment seems to be one that he could accept, so I wish he would.
I have a few observations, a couple of which are key. First, it is very important that CCAs, indeed all local authorities, should be engaged and listen to chambers of commerce, trade unions and other community groups. It is vital that they do. There is a slight worry that all this looks a little bit like what happened post the abolition of metropolitan counties in the 1980s, when counties were effectively stitched together afterwards, partly by people who were not elected at all.
The people on the CCAs as non-constituent and associate members may be wonderful people whom we should be listening to, but there is a mechanism for them to become full voting members of the authorities if the elected members choose to give them that right. We are therefore looking at the possibility of having not a version of democratically elected local government, but in essence a quango. I am not sure that we need more quangos; we need more democracy. If devolution is to take place, it needs to take place on the terms of the community to which power has been devolved.
That is part and parcel of the Bill, however, and the Government are quite explicit about this: it is part and parcel of a movement towards devolution and a change in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions, sub-regions and nations of the United Kingdom. It is therefore worth bearing in mind that what we have seen already—the combined authorities, the unitary authorities and potentially now the CCAs—is in effect a scaling up of local government. It might be argued that it is the professionalisation of local government—there are all sorts of ways in which it could be advocated as a positive thing. I have my doubts.
One of the areas I have doubts about is diversity. That is why I think the amendments are important. For example, Cumbria—the centre of the universe, or the centre of the United Kingdom actually: if we draw a line from the Scilly Isles to Shetland, the middle point is at Selside, just north of Kendal, and it is important to say that—had something in the region of 300 to 350 elected members on the two-tier local authorities pre-reorganisation, and roughly 100 post reorganisation. Some people might say, “Good; that’s saving money” or, “Fewer politicians; that’s a good thing,” but what it actually means is that those people who are part-time politicians—most have other lives and other responsibilities—have to do three times more work.
The observation from across the country, not just in Cumbria, is that when we do that, we push out certain groups of people—we limit the number of people who are able to take part in local government. It therefore tends to be older people, with time on their hands, and the men who stay behind. Anecdotally, looking at the people who have chosen not to put themselves forward to the new unitary authority, they are principally people with caring and childcare responsibilities, people in full-time work, and more women than men. They are the ones choosing not to go to the new world of the unitary authority.
That scaling up of local government, making local government less local, in itself has a tendency to be bad for diversity. That is not the Government’s intention—I am 100% sure that it is not—but it will happen, I am certain. That is why the amendment is important and an easy one for the Government to accept.
Neil O'Brien
Let me start by gently taking issue with something the hon. Gentleman said: that this measure is very much like the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. I argue that it is almost diametrically the opposite of that abolition; it is restoring a directly elected and directly sackable leadership for a strategic area.
Tim Farron
The reason it reminds me of that is that once those county councils went, there had to be a stitching together of some kind—so Tyne and Wear went for the Passenger Transport Executive to run the Metro, the buses and all the rest of it. The people on that body were not directly elected, whereas the people who ran it when there was a county council were—that was the analogy, but I take the Minister’s point.
Neil O'Brien
I am grateful to the hon. Member for taking the point, because I agree with the tenor of the argument, that we do not want to have major strategic decisions made by a quango. That is what we spent the past eight years fixing—starting in the coalition years, in fairness. We are on the case with his concerns.
Let me take a step back for a moment and set out what the clauses are doing. Clause 9 provides a flexible framework for combined county authorities to appoint non-constituent members, who are representatives of a local organisation or body, such as a district council, a local enterprise partnership or health body. Clause 10 provides for CCAs to appoint associate members, who are individual persons with expertise, such as a local business leader or an expert in a particular policy area.
Combined authorities have appointed commissioners with specific expertise to focus on a challenging local policy area and drive change—for example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority appointed Dame Sarah Storey as a commissioner on active travel. It is a way of bringing in experts and other institutional stakeholders locally to complement the core of, ideally, directly elected local leadership so that everyone works together as well as possible.
It is only right that those nominations, or appointments, are the decisions of local leaders, who best know their areas. The clauses set out transparent processes for the nomination and appointment of both types of members. For a non-constituent member, the CCA designates the local organisation or body as the “nominating body”, which then selects a person to represent it at the CCA. It is for that nominating body to make that decision. For example, the CCA might designate the district council as a nominating body and then the district council selects its leader, for example, as its non-constituent member representative at CCA meetings—ex officio, as it were.
The clauses provide a way for local experts and key stakeholders to have a seat at the table of a CCA, bringing their local expertise and knowledge to facilitate better action to tackle local challenges. Those are vital public roles and transparency on them is equally vital. That is why clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the process of designating nominating bodies, the nomination of non-constituent members and the process of appointing associate members. We expect that all appointments of associate members will be undertaken through an open and transparent process, of course.
By their very nature those roles will be public roles—for example, a public body such as a district council nominating its leader to a role in another public body. In the Bill’s spirit of localism—a key word—this is a matter to be decided locally by the CCA and nominating bodies. They are independent of central Government and it is right that they make the decisions about how and with whom to collaborate.
The amendments seek annual reporting regarding the persons selected by the nominating bodies to be non-constituent and associate members. The Government do not believe that they should prescribe to CCAs that they should be informing Government of the specific make-up of their non-constituent and associate members. As with all good public bodies, a CCA should promote equality and diversity in the organisation. What is more, non-constituent and associate members are only one part of the membership of the CCA. The amendment calls for a report on one group of members of a CCA and does not reflect the CCA as a whole, including its constituent members, which is slightly odd. It is also slightly concerning that, as the hon. Member for York Central mentioned, the amendment mentions only some but not all of the protected characteristics. That would open up some potential legal questions that I am not really qualified to opine on.
The core point is that non-constituent and associate members of CCAs have an important role to play, but the amendment is unnecessary. It fails to consider the independence of CCAs and nominating bodies and does not reflect the fact that the positions of associate members and non-constituent members will, by their very nature, be public; these are not secret roles. I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who expressed the hope that we are not establishing a quango. We are definitely establishing a new class of leadership, however, and it is less local and less directly accountable.
I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I did not get a sense—
Neil O'Brien
I have to take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the process being less local. If I think about the devolution of powers over a number of things that are already done through combined authorities, such as the devolution of adult skills spending, if an authority is not in a CA, that decision is made in Whitehall. The decision is made here. In the combined authorities, such a decision is made more locally, for example by the West Midlands Combined Authority, which I visited the other day. Such authorities are making better decisions; because they are more local, they can create the co-ordination between local colleges. I take issue with the idea that decision making is less local as a result of what we are doing for devolution.
Alex Norris
The Minister is of course right that such decisions are more local than central Government, but that goes back to my argument on the first set of amendments. Having told people that communities will get the power to shape place, if what comes through the process is devolution to a new level of politics consisting of politicians and public figures who are further way from those people than their local councils, I do not think we will have passed the localism test. That may be a point of difference but that is certainly my view.
I had hoped to hear the Minister offer a slightly stronger commitment from the Government that the new bodies really ought to represent the communities they serve in terms of their make-up. I am surprised that was not said. We were left to believe that the make-up was for local decision making. Just as in the Health and Social Care Act 2014, I fear that we will end up with Schrödinger’s localism: when there is a difficult decision to be made, “That’s a local decision”; and when the decision is something that the Government want to reserve to themselves, “Of course we have to set the rules of the game, because otherwise it is dangerous”—as the Minister argued in response to the debate on the previous set of amendments. The Government are in danger of falling into some cakeism, but I hope that is not the case.
Neil O'Brien
This is an opportunity for me to repeat that, like all good public sector bodies, the CCA should promote equality and diversity within the organisation and it is for the CCA to do that locally. On the point about cakeism, these are two very different things. In the case of the voting arrangements for a combined authority, allowing them to be changed locally by a transient majority might cause a lot of local authorities to simply not join in the first place.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that; I would never want to misrepresent what he has said. On the second point, we are likely to test it considerably over the next however long.
I struggled with the Minister’s criticism that the amendments excluded the constituent members of the CCA. That would be a valid criticism had he put in a provision that included them, but he has chosen not to. Similarly, his criticism that I have not included all the protected characteristics would be valid had he put in a provision covering them all. I do not believe that he wants to do those things, so I think that was slightly unfair. On the question of legality, he has access to more lawyers than I do, but I spoke to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and it did not have a problem with this, so I do not think legality would be an issue.
I am willing to accept the Minister’s point about non-constituent members, pertaining to amendment 18, in that, as he says, they are appointees of their own organisation. I remember chairing my health and wellbeing board and my discomfort at the fact that it fitted the characteristics the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale described more than it ought to have in a community that was very diverse, but when it came to trying to do something about that, the point was made to me that the board members were representatives of organisations, including the police, the council, the universities and so on, which themselves had diversity challenges that led to that common challenge, to which there was no elegant solution. On that basis, I will not press amendment 18, but amendment 19 involves choices—direct choices—whereby a county combined authority decides who to put on. I want to know whether we are trying to address inequities or just repeating the same failings. That is an important point of substance, so I will withdraw amendment 18 and press amendment 19 at the appropriate time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Associate members of a CCA
Amendment proposed: 19, in clause 10, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
“(5) “The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the associate members appointed to each CCA. This report must include:
(a) the age of all associate members,
(b) the gender of all associate members, and
(c) the ethnicity of all associate members.” —(Alex Norris.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make the age, gender and ethnicity of associate members of CCAs publicly available.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tim Farron
I will be brief, given the time. Personally, I have no problem with asymmetrical devolution. A contrived central devolution is perhaps why Lord Prescott’s proposals in the ’90s and noughties did not work and were not popular. I have no problem with asymmetrical outcomes, but I have a serious problem with asymmetrical autonomy. Each community should have the same access to powers, even if gained in a different way. This is an important probing amendment, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. For example, a rural community such as Cornwall, Northumberland or Cumbria should not have a Mayor forced on it if it does not want one, yet it should still have the same access to the same levels of power that the Government are offering through devolutions to those communities that do have a Mayor.
Neil O’Brien
The amendment brings us to a series of other amendments bound together by a particular philosophy encapsulated in the statement by the hon. Member for Nottingham North that the default should be alignment. The amendment is a particular and bleak way into this philosophical debate, and amendments to some later clauses—in particular amendment 26—make the Opposition’s position much clearer: that things should move in lockstep and that there should be more one-size-fits-all.
Fundamentally, we pretty profoundly disagree with that philosophy for a number of reasons. Devolution agreements should be different in multiple different ways, because there are different local wants. Simply, the point of devolution is that different people in different places want different things, and devolution makes that possible. Pragmatically, there are also different readiness levels. In some places, a process has been going on— for example, the Healthier Together work in Greater Manchester, which had been going on for a decade before health devolution in Greater Manchester. Also, different places are set up with various partners that they work with at different readiness levels.
On a pragmatic point, my great fear about adopting the one-size-fits-all, lockstep approach of the convoy moving at the speed of the slowest is that we will just not make significant progress. Were the hon. Gentleman to find himself in my place and I in his, he would discover that he could not make much progress in getting Whitehall to devolve powers. That is no small thing—to ask the elected Government of the day to give up control of the things for which they will be held accountable by the electorate to local politicians, who in many cases may be of a different political party. That is no small thing to agree. If it were said that a power could not be offered to a particular place unless it was offered to all—like the most-favoured-nation principle—I promise that devolution would grind to a halt extremely swiftly.
There is a framework. The basics are set out in the levelling-up White Paper, but variation is intended. Variation is a feature, not a bug of our devolution agenda. We believe in localism, in particularism, and in adapting things to the particular needs and particular local politics of different places—I agreed at least partly with what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, which in some ways chimed with our view of this.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked us to explain why that might be so, in particular in relation to the amendment, which is about membership. Simply put, there might well be different numbers of members in different CCAs. We could have one with two members or one with a lot of members. Or we could have ones where the members were relatively similar authorities, or one where one member had radically different characteristics from the others—we might imagine a load of urban authorities and one that was more rural, or something like that. However, this amendment is the start of a series of amendments, so I will not labour the point at this stage.
Something else that the hon. Member for Nottingham North said that chimed with me and stuck out was that the centre should let go. That statement is very much our intention, in practice, with the desire for uniform devolution. We do have to let different places do different things because, fundamentally, they have different priorities. One place might care a lot about housing issues, but another might care about its innovation strategy. These things should be different, reflecting different wants.
To recap why we still want voting arrangements, for example, to be in secondary legislation, it is not primarily us in central Government that that arrangement is protecting; it is protecting local leadership from someone joining something only to find that they have been stitched up and then have their powers taken away due to a particular alignment of local leaders. Some things must be certain for local leaders and should be locked down and made safe for them in order for them to make progress, but in other ways there should be diversity, variation and localism.
This amendment represents just one aspect of that philosophy in practice, and we will talk about it again under other amendments, but the Opposition spokesman called on me to be direct, and I will be. There is just a difference in philosophy here about how we should approach devolution.
Alex Norris
There is a difference of philosophy, but the Minister slightly misrepresents the point I am trying to make, or perhaps I am not explaining it well. Our intention is not, as he characterises it, a lockstep, one-size-fits-all movement forward or, as he says, that the convoy must move at the same speed; it is that divergence, where it exists, should be the choice of the local community, not central Government. That is what we have today. The Minister is reserving for himself the ability to pick and choose who the Government feel is able and willing to exercise certain powers in certain ways in certain contexts. I do not agree with that, and that is the difference.
We are not saying that the settlement will be the same in every part of the country. The Minister says that this is a feature rather than a bug. I agree with that, and that is the point that we will be probing in subsequent amendments. We do not need to fight things out on constitutions at this stage. We will need to return to that, but on the principle that we are not saying that one size fits all, rather that the Government should not get to pick the winners. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Miss Dines.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Eighth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 30th June 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 June 2022 - (30 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 12, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
“(8) If an appropriate person carries out a review under subsection (2), they must make the report of its findings publicly available.”
This amendment would ensure that the findings of any review of a CCA is made available publicly.
It is a pleasure to reconvene with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. Clause 12 allows a combined county authority to review its constitutional arrangements. That is a wise provision because, of course, there will be moments when CCAs will want to be sure of whether form fits function. There must clearly be local scope for review and understanding, with as much transparency as possible. It is with that in mind that I move this amendment.
Transparency is important, because it strengthens our democracy by opening up the decision-making process to the whole population. As we build new political institutions, such as the proposed CCAs, it is vital that we put transparency in them at the beginning. As we discussed previously, transparent and open government makes better policy, delivers better outcomes and is generally a good thing for our democracy.
This amendment proposes that if any review is conducted to investigate changing the constitutional arrangements of a CCA, it must be published publicly. That would improve the function of the Government’s proposed CCA. It will be part of the honest conversation about the work the body is doing and the work we want it to do, and it will ensure that it serves not its own members or vested interests but the whole population. That is really important. These debates are too important to take place behind closed doors.
That does not need to be a negative process. It can be an open process that gives the population, as well as all the constituent members that we have discussed under previous clauses, the chance to engage. Amendment 21 is a fair and reasonable requirement to be added to the review mechanism, and I hope the Minister is minded to agree.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
As we discussed during our consideration of previous clauses, the key constitutional arrangements—membership, voting and decision making—will be set out in the secondary legislation establishing the CCA. That legislation, which requires consent from both the relevant local authorities and Parliament, would also enable a combined county authority to set a local constitution specifying how detailed decisions are taken on aspects of how the CCA is to operate. It could cover, for example, meeting procedures, committees, sub-committees and joint committees of the CCA.
Clause 12 enables a CCA to review and amend its own local constitution in certain circumstances, and I hope it provides some of the flexibility that the Opposition have been arguing for. A review of the local constitution can be undertaken if proposed by constituent member or the mayor, if there is one, and if the proposal is supported by a simple majority of the constituent members. The local constitution can be amended if the amendments are supported by a simple majority of constituent members including the mayor, if there is one.
At each of these stages, the CCA’s decision must be made at a meeting of the CCA. CCA meetings, like those of all local authorities, are conducted with full transparency. That means that interested parties, including the public, can attend CCA meetings, and papers must be made available in advance. The CCA will also need to publish its constitution. Amendment 21 is therefore unnecessary. There is no need for a separate report of findings, which would place a disproportionate and unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the combined county authority, and distract it from the implementing the changes that it needs. I hope that, with those explanations, the hon. Gentleman is content to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. In general, I think his response does suffice, but I would like to push back on two points. As he says, these will be public meetings and there ought to be full transparency. However, we know that is not universally the way things operate. At local authority level, for instance, I would expect rules to operate exempting certain parts of meetings for reasons of commercial confidentiality. We know that there are points of friction for local authorities up and down the country. There can be the sense that things are being hidden behind the exempt part of the meeting. I would not say it is inevitable and unavoidable that we will get full transparency, but I have heard the spirit of what the Minister said. I am not sure it would have been an administrative burden, not least because the thing will have been done anyway and will exist already. Someone would just have to upload it to the website. That would satisfy the requirement of the amendment as I wrote it. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Overview and scrutiny committees
Tim Farron
I will not speak for long, Mr Paisley, but I want to reemphasise some things we have talked about today and build on the wise comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
Equality is hugely important and not to be taken for granted. The issue is that a movement towards a form of local government that is by definition more removed from the public than a district council, for example, will undoubtedly affect those with protected characteristics. We must prevent the tendency we discussed earlier to have people on the board and the committees—running the CCAs, in this case—who are much more likely to be older, male and white. That tendency will naturally occur because, while devolution is happening in one sense, it is also a centralisation locally, away from district councils. That will inevitably happen unless we work hard to prevent it. That is why these equality impact assessments are very important—not just in terms of the representative nature of the people who are on the CCA, but on the kind of policies that they pursue.
I am bound also to remind Members of the Rural Services Network’s report, published this week, which pointed out that if rural England was a separate region, it would be poorer than all the other regions. It would be the poorest region and the region most in need of levelling up. Pretty much every CCA in the country will have a rural element to it, but the chances are that it will not be the central part or the part where most of the members come from.
I want us to think very carefully about the impact of our decisions, particularly on rural communities. I spent part of the break between this morning’s sitting and this one on the phone to a local GP surgery in Cumbria that has lost something like £70,000 of its income in recent years. It has a patient roll of 5,000 to 6,000 people, but it sees on average 2,000 to 2,500 patients every year who are not registered with the surgery—they are visitors coming to the Lake district. The surgery gets not a penny for that.
Earlier, the hon. Member for York Central rightly mentioned the interaction between the integrated care systems, which will come into force this week, and the new CCAs. It is vital that we consider the differences in access to services between rural areas and urban areas, and consider disadvantage as being different. There are much higher levels of unemployment in the Barrow part of the Westmorland and Furness Council area, for example, and much lower unemployment in the part of the area that I represent; however, the gap between average incomes and average house prices is bigger than anywhere outside the south-east of England. The consequence in terms of poverty is therefore much greater, and the need for us to pay attention to those differential metrics—and, more importantly, the impact on individuals’ lives—is that much greater.
That is why it is important that equality is built into this legislation. Accountability would come out of the fact that impact assessments would be provided on a regular basis and there would be scrutiny as a consequence. It would force members who are either from demographic profiles that are not a minority or under-represented or from non-rural parts of the geographical community represented by a CCA to be held to account on behalf of those people and those communities who are.
Neil O'Brien
The public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 ensures that public bodies play their part in making society fairer by tackling discrimination and providing equality of opportunity for all. As public bodies, CCAs must integrate equality considerations into decision-making processes from the outset, including in the development, implementation and review of policies. However, the equality duty does not require public bodies to follow a prescribed process and leaves it to their local discretion as to when it is appropriate to carry out an equality impact assessment to ensure compliance with the duty that binds them. The amendment would place an additional unnecessary duty on combined county authorities that does not apply to other public authorities, including existing combined authorities, which relates to the point made by Opposition Members about ensuring there is equal treatment and similar legal bases between MCAs and CCAs.
It is the Government’s intention that CCAs will be expressly subject to the public sector equality duty, which we will do by consequential amendments to the Equality Act, meaning that CCAs have to integrate equality considerations into their decision-making processes as soon as they are established. There is therefore no need to place a further burden on CCAs by requiring them to produce a separate equalities impact assessment. In fact, equalities considerations will already be at the very heart of what they do. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, for his contribution. His points about rural poverty are well made and are grist for the mill because, as he said, in all CCAs there will be levelling-up features. Everyone will seek to take such measures. Rather than an individualised, exceptionalised programme, we are talking about a collective advance of CCAs. Slowly but surely we are making a fine socialist of the Minister, speaking for collectivism rather than individual exceptionalism. Any day now, I am sure that he will wear that badge with pride.
I was a little disappointed in the Minister’s reply. Yes, the public sector equality duty exists, but if the Government’s answer is to rely on that, we should remember that it has not removed all the inequalities that I spoke about. At some point, we must do something differently in this country, and I would have thought that this legislation was a really good place to start. I put it to the Minister that doing things the same way will only produce the same answers in the future, and I fear that that is what will happen unless we insert a firm commitment to tackle inequalities in all their forms into the DNA of the proposed new bodies. I am disappointed.
I was not happy with the answer about the divergence from combined authorities. If the Minister had such a problem with combined county authorities differing from combined authorities, he would not have introduced combined county authorities; he would have just relied on combined authorities. There then would have been no divergence between the two. The Minister has chosen to make that change, because it is more convenient for the Government so that they can work with the communities with which they have struggled to work over the past few years. In doing that, they have opened themselves to the divergence issue. That is not my problem, nor my fault, but that is of the Government’s choosing and it is baked into the Bill; otherwise, we would not need the legislation.
I will not press the amendments to a vote, because the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central is better than my amendment. I am happy to withdraw it on the basis that it could be better, and perhaps we might seek elsewhere to improve it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Combined county authorities: overview and scrutiny committees and audit committee
Tim Farron
This seems to be a really sensible and proportionate proposal. The Conservative leader of the District Councils Network talked to us in the evidence session on Tuesday 21 June. He speaks very clearly on behalf of members of all political parties who are on district councils: Liberal Democrat, Labour, independent, Green and, of course, the leading Conservative group among district council members.
There is a concern about district councils being slowly but surely erased—and they are. In Cumbria, we are living proof of that, because some good district councils are being dismantled this year, hopefully with very good unitary authorities taking over their responsibilities and being reflective of what the local communities desire. However, if we are to move forward in this direction and if CCAs are to be the building blocks by which these decisions and the delivery of levelling up will take place, it is surely right to demonstrate to district councils that we and the Government value them—not only that we value them as district councils but, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North rightly said, that we value their expertise.
In this amendment, the Government are being asked to consider picking the people who already do this job in their home patch, so to speak, and to bring the skills, expertise and experience that they have from providing scrutiny of their own councils’ business and the operation of democracy internally within their district councils to the sub-regional level.
The amendment seems to be not only a very effective and sensible practical proposal but one that would allow the Government to demonstrate to district councils that they are not being erased and that they are a very important part of our future. We talked earlier about whether symmetry mattered. If we believe that local communities are best at designing their own destiny and if they choose to maintain two-tier authorities, as many do, then reflecting that autonomy and its outcome—not begrudging it, but welcoming it—seems to me a wise thing to do. Let us have the chairs of the overview and scrutiny committees from the constituent district councils within a CCA on the overview and scrutiny committee of that CCA.
Neil O’Brien
I would say that the amendment is well-intentioned, but that would not really do it justice; I actually completely agree with the broad thrust of what Opposition Members are trying to achieve. However, I think that we should do it in a slightly different way.
Schedule 1 places a requirement on all combined county authorities to establish one or more overview and scrutiny committees, and provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations for such committees. That mirrors the provisions for combined authorities; regulations were made in 2017 that already apply to all the combined authorities.
As for the majority of the CCA model, it is our intention that the overview and scrutiny arrangements for CCAs will adopt the same broad principles as those for combined authorities. Regulations made under schedule 1 must ensure that the majority of members of overview and scrutiny committees are drawn from the CCA’s constituent councils. Furthermore, an overview and scrutiny committee cannot include a member of the CCA, including the mayor.
The regulations and powers in schedule 1 enable scrutiny committees to be established with membership appropriate to the CCA, so that they are able to effectively challenge, advise and make recommendations to the decision takers. To do this, each CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee needs to be flexible enough to reflect the bespoke role of the CCA, as agreed in individual devolution deals—how they are constituted, the powers they are responsible for delivering, and so on. That will affect the background and interests of the members that it would be appropriate to appoint.
Alex Norris
I do not want the decision on clause stand part to go by without any discussion. I want some clarity from the Minister. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about how to pay for the combined county authority, with the understanding in subsection (2) that it has to be done with the consent of the constituent councils. I want to understand how the Minister thinks that will work in practice. Presumably, the Secretary of State will hope to receive a proposal from the constituent councils that they have all agreed to, rather than suggesting a model.
Neil O’Brien
Let me reassure the hon. Member by saying that clause 14 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how an individual CCA is to be funded by contributions from constituent councils. Such regulations can be made only with the consent of the constituent councils and—where one already exists—the CCA. The CCA will decide how its activities are funded and how its funding is sourced, whether that is from investment funds and other devolved funding or from contributions from constituent councils.
Where constituent councils are providing contributions, regulations under clause 14 can set out how the CCA decides the proportion of contribution from each council. Similar regulations for combined authorities usually state that that is for agreement locally but provide a default split if agreement is not reached. That underpins the very nature of the collaborative approach we are trying to support through the new CCA model. The clause will be instrumental in ensuring that combined county authorities are strong institutions with sustainable funding to which to devolve functions and flexibilities, which is essential to achieving our ambitious local leadership levelling-up mission. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Change of name
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 23 in clause 15, page 12, line 14, leave out “not less than two-thirds” and insert “a simple majority”.
This amendment would remove the need for a super-majority to change the name of a CCA.
In preparing amendments, we had the hundreds of pages of the Bill, and hundreds of pages of explanatory notes. The delegated powers memorandum is even longer—never mind the White Paper. As a result, one started to go deep in the weeds, and I am very deep into them here.
This significant clause makes provision for the process of changing the name of a combined county authority. Subsection (2) sets out the requirements, with paragraph (c) requiring a super-majority of no less than two-thirds of CCA members to vote in favour of the rule change. That is a high bar—far higher than for most decisions that we make in Parliament. I am interested in why there is such a high bar, so, to probe that, my amendment suggests reducing it to a simple majority.
I have a couple paragraphs here that I wrote last night about “What’s in a name?” I will spare the Committee those; I think we can establish what is in a name. I will say that I am not completely ignorant of the value of super-majorities. They can be very important to protect the rights of minorities, but they can also be used—the US Senate is a good example—by a concerted majority for a number of decades to protect special interests.
I am not sure why the clause requires a super-majority. We want to give these combined county authorities significant money—tens of millions of pounds, and I suspect those negotiating them want even more than that—and significant powers over things that shape our communities. If we cannot trust them to change their name on a simple majority, how can we trust them to do anything else on a simple majority basis? I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
Neil O’Brien
We are honoured by the depth of the forensic scrutiny that the Opposition are offering us on these clauses. They are quite right to probe all these questions, which are important. Few things are more likely to arouse the passions than names of local authorities and county authorities, as we heard in the impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. We recognise the importance of people living in an area having a strong attachment to, and identity with, that place, which is something both he and the hon. Member for Nottingham North have alluded to.
When we establish a county combined authority by regulations, we will specify the legal name of that institution. Of course, it is only right that the name can be changed to adapt to local circumstances over time, and the clause allows a CCA to change the name it is known by, subject to various safeguards and conditions, one of which is a requirement that two thirds of members of the CCA consent to the change. The threshold was chosen quite deliberately to ensure that name changes are undertaken only where they will make a real impact, rather than where they are just a rebranding exercise. Names really matter to local communities, as we have heard, and it is important that a strong majority of a CCA supports any change.
The amendment is designed to reduce the consent threshold to a simple majority, which would mean that CCAs would have a lower threshold for such a change than existing combined authorities, for which the threshold is a minimum of two thirds. Two of our existing combined authorities, South Yorkshire and Liverpool city region, have already changed their names since their establishment. A lot of politics were involved in that, so clearly there is flexibility under the two-thirds arrangement to change the name when that is felt to be important. I remember that there was a lot of consideration of that choice during the run-up to the devolution deal with Sheffield city region—it is now called South Yorkshire—and likewise with Liverpool city region.
My officials are in regular contact with the mayoral combined authorities, and we have not heard of any difficulties with the existing legislative process. As we have discussed before, it is important to keep parity between the CCA and combined authority models as much as possible, including in respect of name changes. A further consideration—this is why we have the higher threshold—is that many organisations will have made legal contracts with a combined authority, and changing the name is a non-trivial thing to do, given that it will require many things to change.
Fundamentally, as Members have said, names really do matter. What’s in a name? We do not want them to be something that flips over from time to time. We could end up having a tit-for-tat war whereby the majority changes the name of an authority and then it changes again. We want the name of an authority to be stable and lasting. Opposition Members have quite rightly asked why that is so, and I hope that I have given sufficient assurance that they might be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those contributions. The debate has had a bit of lightness to it, but as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, identity does matter to people. I think identity can be a big driver in levelling up, by providing that passion, commitment and love of place that makes people want to do better and tackle inequalities. That is a really positive thing and it does matter, but I do not think it is the be all and end all.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 16, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
“(aa) affected local district councils”.
When I wrote my speech I thought that clause 16 was perhaps the most significant of the 60 or so clauses that establish CCAs. It was certainly the only one that had a particular debate on Second Reading, although largely among multiple members on the Minister’s side.
The clause allows for functions of a local authority to be exercisable at a CCA level. There will be points at which there will be a keenness to do that. It allows for functions to be exercisable by the CCA, rather than the county council or district council. It also allows for: functions to be exercisable concurrently with the county council or district council; for the function to be exercisable by the CCA and the county council or district council jointly; and for the function to be exercisable by the CCA jointly with the county council or distract council but also continue to be exercisable by the council alone. That essentially means that councils can collaborate and share in whichever way they choose to— subsection (5)(a) requires the constituent councils’ consent—with the CCA.
This has twitched my antennae a little. We have discussed some of this already. I believe that devolution as it forms part of the levelling-up agenda is about devolving power out from the centre—from the centre to sub-regions, and from local authorities to local communities. The latter, community power, is broadly absent from the Bill, and I hope we will get the opportunity to add it back later in these proceedings. On the former, the direction of travel is supposed to be towards communities—towards the lowest proper level—rather than away from them. Indeed, local authorities are already free to collaborate, and there are many good examples of that. I do not think the purpose of the new sub-regional bodies established by part 2 of the Bill is to draw powers upwards from local councils; rather, it is to draw them downwards from the centre.
I am willing to accept—if this is the case, perhaps the Minister could give us a little detail—that that might be desirable in order, perhaps from a finance point of view, to share budget arrangements, or to have lead council arrangements on spend and receipt in a certain policy area. Crucially, under subsection (5)(a), the regulations will be made only if the constituent councils of the CCA consent. Those local authorities essentially have a lock on that process: it can happen only with their consent. On that basis, who am I to stop them? I think that is fair enough.
The issue here is that all four of the scenarios under subsection (4) involve the CCA also taking on the power of district councils, which are not—this is certainly my understanding—“constituent councils” and therefore cannot consent. It looks to me—I will qualify this shortly —like district councils could have powers taken from them.
Several Members have raised concerns that this part of the Bill is about removing district councils from this sort of decision making, the argument being that current statute makes it too hard so we need to free ourselves of the district veto, which the Minister described in the evidence sessions as an
“unintended consequence of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009”.—[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2022; c. 57, Q87.]
I am not sure that is necessarily true, although I am happy to be wrong. I think that the expectation at that time was that communities would proceed by consensus. That is why it is a de facto veto. It may now be deemed impractical, but I do not think it was an unintended consequence.
That poses a problem: if these bodies get up and running, and particularly if they choose to have a mayor elected to lead them, and they get off the ground already with local opposition, that will be a shame. I think that will hold back their work, build cynicism and erode public confidence. Therefore, the approach of working around districts rather than with them is perhaps the wrong one. As I have said before, districts have a proven track record of delivery. The amendment is modest: it seeks to add a provision that affected district councils must have consented to having their powers taken away. That seems reasonable to me.
I have hedged my bets a little because I am really hoping that the Minister will say that this is a moot point. In the evidence sessions, Councillor Oliver from the County Councils Network said:
“I am grateful to the Minister for clarification on some confusion around clause 16.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2022; c. 58, Q88.]
I confess that I did not know what he meant by that; it was not anything that was clarified on Second Reading or in the evidence sessions. I did a bit of digging and I understand—this is second hand, so I apologise to the Minister if it is not right—that the Minister may have written to the representative bodies of local government to clarify that the Government do not intend for the powers to be applied in this way. That would be a very good thing if it were true.
Alex Norris
I can see the Minister nodding, so that gives me hope. However, I have not had any such contact, so I can only go on what is written in the Bill. If that is the case, perhaps we should tidy up what is in the Bill so that there is no doubt. Clearly, it can be read the other way, which is why there has been so much interest in it, even if that interest is happily unnecessary.
Neil O’Brien
Although many of the things we have talked about today have been interesting and thought provoking, this is perhaps the most interesting and thought-provoking amendment so far.
Clause 16 gives the Secretary of State the power to confer any local authority functions—including those of a county council, unitary council and district council—on to a combined county authority by regulations, subject to local consent and parliamentary approval. Any existing function of a local authority could be given to a combined county authority; these could be modified or have limitations and conditions attached. Functions could be specified as exercisable by the CCA concurrently with the local authority, jointly with the local authority, or instead of the local authority.
Clause 16 will enable effective co-operation between CCAs and local authorities where it is desired by the local area. Clause 16 mirrors section 105 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 for the conferral of local authority functions on to combined authorities. It also mirrors section 16 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 for the conferral of public authority functions on to an individual local authority, in terms of both the mechanism and the consent mechanisms. These powers already exist. Consequently, the consent requirements for regulations under clause 16 relate to the constituent councils and, where a CCA already exists, the CCA.
Amendment 24 seeks to make affected district councils have a say on the conferral of local authority functions. The necessary irreducible core of a county deal is a county council and any associated unitary council. Many of the powers that have been devolved through devolution deals so far have tended to be upper-tier powers. These are agreements between the Government and the upper-tier local authorities. That is absolutely not to say that district councils have no part to play in such agreements. They do—I hope they will—and we expect the devolution deal with the upper-tier local authorities to include details of how the new CCA, the county council and the districts that wish to will work together to deliver the outcomes envisaged in the devolution deal agreement.
As for providing for districts to have a say on the conferral of local authority powers, within the context I have described, they will indeed have a say, if they wish. First, they will have had discussions and reached agreements with their upper tier councils about how they will be involved in implementing the devolution deal. Secondly, powers are conferred through regulations. Before regulations to establish the CCA and confer powers on it, there must be a public consultation on the proposal, as we discussed earlier. This is an opportunity over and above the devolution deal that district councils will have to make their input, in the context that we are clear the agreement is with the upper-tier local authorities.
There is a good reason why we have taken the approach of having an agreement with the upper-tier local authorities: to avoid past experiences where one or two district councils have frustrated the wish of many in the area to have an effective devolution deal. However, we are equally clear that the appropriate involvement of district councils that wish to be involved is important and, indeed, essential to the delivery of certain outcomes that the devolution deal is seeking to achieve. It is, in short, a question of balance. We believe we have struck the right balance between an agreement with the upper-tier local authorities to establish it and flexibility so that the involvement can reflect local wishes of both the districts and the upper-tier local authorities in the area.
I know concerns have been expressed about district councils’ functions being removed and transferred to a CCA. I want to put on record something I have said to local authority leaders and which we have repeatedly made clear over the years. The Government are clear that there is no intention to use this provision to reallocate functions between tiers of local authorities when there is no consent. From the start, the devolution agenda has been about power flowing down to local leaders to enable decisions closer to the public, not flowing up. To the best of my knowledge, I do not think the powers in the two Acts I mentioned earlier have been used to date.
Parliamentary scrutiny provides a very secure safeguard here. The Secretary of State cannot make any changes to the functions of an individual CCA without parliamentary approval. It has always been the case that Parliament decides where the responsibility for functions lies in local government. An individual CCA cannot exercise functions unless it has been given them in regulations by the Secretary of State following parliamentary approval. A CCA cannot take power from a district or any council. One tier of local government cannot legally usurp the powers of another.
I understand and hear the concerns being that are being expressed about issues relating to the clause. I wish to reassure the Committee that I will take these issues away and readily consider how we might reflect the role of district councils in devolution deals. I hope that gives sufficient reassurance for amendment 24 to be withdrawn. We will think further about this important issue.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that full answer and happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis. The Minister was as explicit as possible about how he envisages things working. I hope that, in his reflections, he will consider whether what is in the Bill needs to catch up and is as clear as it might be. I hope he will continue to engage with us in such conversations and, if he has engaged with those bodies in writing, that he will make a copy of the letter available in Committee or in the Library, so that we have full information for continued consideration. On the basis of the response provided by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Other public authority functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Clause 16 dealt with the conferral of local authority functions on CCAs. Further clauses, such as the ones between 30 and 37, deal with the conferral of police and crime commissioner functions, and clauses 19 and 20 confer transport, highways and traffic functions. With clause 17, I wondered what the Minister’s understanding of “Other” might be. What ideas does he have in mind?
Neil O'Brien
I will have to come back to the hon. Member in slower time on that. To explain a little about the clause, it is in essence the devolution clause that will enable the CCA to take on the functions of public bodies, including Ministers in central Government, the Greater London Mayor and Assembly, and agencies such as Homes England. Broadly, the clause allows devolution to happen. On his specific point, I will have to write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Section 17 regulations: procedure
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 26, clause 18, page 14, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) But notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), if a CCA prepares and submits a proposal for conferred powers under section 17(1) and the Secretary of State has already made provision for another CCA to be granted identical powers, the Secretary of State must consent to that proposal.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to accept an application for conferred powers from a CCA where they have already accepted an identical application from another CCA.
At the end of the previous sitting, the Minister started the debate on this issue, which is a point of distinction, so I think the amendment will be an interesting one to discuss. Notwithstanding the sorts of functions that the Minister has in mind, which he will follow up with, the clause sets the rules by which county combined authorities can receive more powers from central Government. We are supportive of that: we want to move powers from Whitehall to our town halls, but in doing so the Bill can be improved.
I touched a little on the asymmetry of the devolution of power in England, and it is worth covering something of that. Metro Mayors hold powers over spatial planning, regional transport, the provision of skills training, business support services and economic development. The detail of the powers and budgets devolved, however, varies massively between areas.
For example, in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire the powers of the police and crime commissioner have been merged into the mayoral role, but not in other mayoralties. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority oversees devolved health and welfare budgets, working in partnership with the lead Whitehall Departments, but other combined authorities do not have such powers. All Mayors can establish mayoral development corporations, except for the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. All Mayors can raise a council tax precept, except in the West of England.
That is an odd hotchpotch. If we were to sit down and plan a devolved settlement, which we are doing quite a bit of, we would never pick a model that is quite as uneven and such a mishmash. That is what happens when settlements are negotiated case by case behind closed doors, on the basis of what Ministers judge communities are ready to have. Furthermore—this is part of what we are addressing today—those disparities in power do not even account for the fact that vast swathes of the country do not even have combined authorities; they just have their council.
We are in the odd situation where Manchester gets to elect a Mayor with a PCC, but in Nottingham we cannot vote for a Mayor—we don’t have one; we do not have a combined authority in the county terms yet—but we vote for councils and a PCC. That gets very hard to explain to constituents, and means that different parts of the country get access to different powers. I think we should do better there.
The Minister characterised that position as being for either a one-size-fits-all model or moving at the pace of the slowest. I am not saying that. My dissatisfaction with asymmetry aside, I live in the real world; we have an asymmetric settlement and it would not be practical or desirable to change that. Where those combined authorities are motoring along, they must keep doing so; they are doing crucial and impressive work, and of course we would not want to change that. However, we have the power to ensure that the combined county authorities, which cover big parts of the country, and will hopefully bring devolution to the bulk of the country, have some sense of commonality in the powers that they are able to access, but not have to access—not a floor but a ceiling.
I do not think that I am actually asking the Minister to do anything more than has already been set out by the Government. The White Paper itself sets out those three tiers of powers. We will get to the point about the governance structures at a later date, and as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said earlier, I also completely dispute the point that we should have to accept a Mayor in order to get tier 3 powers.
Nevertheless, the Government have established a common framework—a common menu, as it were—from which to pick. This is the significant point of difference: I believe that should be a local choice. It should be the local leaders and local public deciding what powers they want. I must say that I think the bulk will want something towards the upper end, because they will understand that decisions will be made better locally and that they will have a better understanding than the centre about what they want for their communities and how to get it. The Government’s approach—the approach of the past 12 years—is to pick and choose, depending on the qualifications, or otherwise, they think the local leaders have. I think that is a significant mistake.
Amendment 26 seeks to improve that. Essentially, it would prevent the Secretary of State from doing a blizzard of different side deals with different communities, based on the powers they confer on a CCA by saying that, if they confer a certain power on the CCA, then an identical application from another CCA must also be accepted. That is saying that, if new ceilings are set, then everyone should have access to that. As I said, that will not result in perfect symmetry—anything but—that is not the intention of the amendment. However, it will mean that all communities have access to the same powers.
I am interested in what the Minister says to that and will listen carefully. If, in practice, the way in which the amendment is worded does not deliver that effect but, in the Minister’s view, there is a better way of doing it, then I would accept that heartily—it is the substance, rather than the amendment itself, that means something to me. However, it is a very important point.
This is the moment, on county combined authorities, to say that we are going to break free from this individual deal-by-deal way of devolution, and say that we just think the powers are better exercised locally—we should be explicit about that because it is a good thing to say—and that in doing so, everybody gets access to them, not just the ones that are deemed to be good enough. I think that would be a significant step forward for this legislation.
Neil O'Brien
We have had asymmetric devolution in this country since 1998, when the Labour Government introduced devolution for London, Scotland and Wales, but not the rest of the country. In 2010, when we came into power, London was the only part of England that had a devolution deal; that was great for London, but the problem was that other areas of the country were not enjoying the same advantages. It was not even the case that there was symmetry between Scotland and Wales: there were differences in the name of the legislative body—Parliament versus Assembly—and in tax-raising powers, so the revealed preference of the last Labour Government was to have asymmetric devolution. I think that was justified by the different levels of readiness.
Rachael Maskell
We are all learning on this issue, but does the Minister acknowledge that that approach has brought us a call for an English Parliament from some quarters and, from other quarters, a greater propensity to want independence? We have to be careful that we do not break up the Union, or the federation, by what is being created in this Bill, and ensure that we maintain those ties that still bind us together.
Neil O'Brien
I do not want to critique the decisions of the last Labour Government; I am merely pointing out that there was an acceptance of asymmetric devolution throughout that time, for all kinds of reasons of practicality.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North said earlier in the debate that the default should be alignment. We fundamentally do not agree with that, for reasons of localism; it is not what every local area wants. He also asked why these devolution deals are different, and mentioned two examples: the West of England not having a precept, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough not having development corporations. The reason why those areas are different from the others is that that is what local people wanted, and it is what local leaders would agree to. That was their choice. That is localism, and that is generally the case for most of the variations in devolution agreements. It is about what local political leaders wanted to agree to—it is fundamentally about localism.
However, that is not the only reason why devolution agreements differ between areas. I will be candid: there are things that make it possible to go further in some areas than in others. It is partly about geography; does an area’s combined authority—the CCA, potentially—fit with the governance of the thing for which the area is trying to devolve powers? Is there geographic alignment, or will it take time to achieve in respect of various public services? Are local partners—perhaps the NHS, in the case of Greater Manchester’s health devolution agreement—ready to work with an area? Has an area been working on it for a long time prior to the devolution agreement?
In some cases, there is a tie to whether an area has a directly elected leader. We are clear that we prefer the direct accountability and clarity that comes with the directly elected leader model, which is why the framework we have set out enables places to go further if they choose to go with that model. In some cases, in respect of things such as the functions of a police and crime commissioner, we are not legally able to devolve powers to someone who is not directly elected.
I said earlier in the debate that, fundamentally, we will not make progress and the devolution agenda will not make progress if we have to move in lockstep—if a power offered to one place has to be offered to all. To quote the great Tony Blair,
“I bear the scars on my back”
from negotiating all these devolution agreements in Whitehall. It is no small thing to get elected Ministers of the Crown to give up their powers to people in different political parties. It is the case that different places are ready to do different things, and it is important for them to do different things.
It is not the case that there is no framework—a framework is set out on page 140 of the levelling-up White Paper—but it is clear that there will be variation within that. It is a basic framework. Indeed, the White Paper includes principle three, on flexibility:
“Devolution deals will be tailored to each area”—
they will be bespoke—
“with not every area necessarily having the same powers.”
It does, though, set out what may comprise a typical devolution deal at each level of the framework. It is clear from our experience that we can add to devolution deals over time, that areas will have more ideas about the things they want to pursue, that they will get ready to do new things and that we can go further over time. It is an iterative process, not a once-and-for-all deal.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked who this is for—is it for Whitehall or for the people? I put it to him that our flexible model is for the people, not for Whitehall. Tidy-minded Whitehall officials would love nothing more than to have a rigid framework in which “Each of these things must mean exactly the same. If one’s got it, everyone must have it. We’ll put you in a grid. Oh, the matrix is not right!” I assure the hon. Gentleman that Whitehall would love that. It would absolutely adore that—it is what Whitehall would fundamentally like. Our approach rejects that bureaucratic approach and instead gives people what they want locally and what they are ready for in an area. Doing that enables us to make iterative progress.
I am not having a go at the Opposition, but we inherited a situation in which there was no devolution in England outside London. We have been able to make progress partly because we have been able to work iteratively. If we had said in 2014, “If you are offering these new and novel powers to Greater Manchester, you must offer them to every other single place in England,” we would never have got anywhere. It is as simple as that. We have to work iteratively, and by doing so we have made good progress.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I am a little confused. My understanding was that the amendment does not say it has to be the same everywhere. It simply says that if an area requests a power that people have elsewhere, the Secretary of State should grant that request. I think the Minister misunderstands what the amendment is about.
Neil O’Brien
I think I have directly addressed that point. I reject the Opposition statement that “The default should be alignment.” I have taken on quite directly the point that it is about not just each area wanting different things but different places having different geographies that do or do not fit with different local partners. It is the case that different places do or do not have the agreement of local institutional partners and it is the case that some places are more or less ready and have further institutional maturity and, indeed, that we continue to add to that. I am not hiding or running away from the fact that part of this is about a view of what is achievable, along with, most importantly, what local places want. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to take that on directly. I will not hide from the fact that that is one of the reasons for variation. My final point is that one reason why we are able to make progress is that we can move the convoy not at the speed of the slowest.
Alex Norris
This has been a really good discussion. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, the fundamental question is, “Who is this for?”—that is exactly the question posed by the amendment—and I would add, “Who decides?”. At the moment, we will have devolution as long as it is what Ministers want—that is disappointing. Sadly, it is why, as the hon. Gentleman said, preconditions will be put on access to powers that do not relate to the exercise of those powers,
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made an important point about patchwork Britain. As I have said, we are willing to live with local choice provided that it is the local choice—that is perfectly legitimate. I actually think that most communities will turn to the highest levels of power. I was perhaps too bashful to say this at the outset, but we need only set the operation of the powers against the Government’s record over 12 years. I do not think many councils will be thinking, “Please let this Government keep doing more things for me because it is going so well”—those that do will be very limited in number.
Yes, there has been asymmetry. I am glad that the Minister accepts the brilliance and goodness of Tony Blair. I must correct the Minister, though: he keeps saying the “last Labour Government”, but it is only the previous Labour Government—there is nothing final about it! [Laughter.] In all seriousness, this has to be about what communities want, not what Ministers want. The Minister said that for some communities, it is not the right time. Okay, but if the common ground for decisions to be made locally is the alignment of public services—that point was well made—could geographies that do not match naturally be converged if that is what local people want? I would support that, but it would take time. Provision should be included to allow them to access the powers when they want to. They should not have to rely on further regulations.
Neil O’Brien
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at what is probably quite an annoying time for me to intervene, but I want to highlight mission 10 of the missions that we discussed earlier. It states:
“By 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.”
I think that makes it clear that our intention is for the powers and the scope of devolution to move upwards over time. That has been the direction of travel since 2014.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention because he has made an excellent case for my amendment. That is what it would do: all communities would have access to the highest level of power. The Minister used the word “bespoke”, but how does that fit? Why would we have a series of bespoke arrangements if we wanted all local communities to have access to the highest powers? Those two things do not sit together naturally.
The point I made earlier about the default position being one of alignment was in relation to the constitution of CCAs. Let us say that ten deals are done and ten sets of regulations are made. The default should be that those regulations say the same thing, unless there is a really good reason for them not to. I am not saying that for the entire settlement. As I have said, things will move over time, but access should be to the highest level of power.
This is not about moving in lockstep; I am sure that there will be different paces. I dare say that although I do not have the Minister’s perspective—I do not work with local communities on this day to day—I have a lot more confidence in local communities to take the powers on more quickly. They only have to beat the Government of the day, and I have a lot of confidence in them in that respect.
Certainly, I do not disagree with what the Minister said about the White Paper, but I am not willing to rely on it in lieu of a better alternative in the Bill. I must rely on what is in the Bill, so I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tim Farron
I, too, support this wise and important amendment. I am thinking again about my community in Cumbria. Many bus routes that serve the county cross boundaries including, indeed, regional boundaries, because many of Cumbria’s routes are through to: Northumberland and Durham, a different region; into North Yorkshire, a different region; and to Scotland, a different nation—not necessarily a matter for this Committee, I am afraid. We are bounded on one side by the sea and then at the bottom there is Lancashire—the same region, but very likely to be in a different CCA, if that is the direction in which the Government and the community seek to move.
Bus services cross boundaries, and of course people work in different communities. People in the south end of Cumbria will look to work in Lancaster and further south. Towards the eastern end, the dales part of my community will look towards Leeds or Skipton. Further north, people will work in Carlisle and Penrith, and so on. Bus services rightly do not respect artificial boundaries, and it is important that we regulate fairly.
It is also worth bearing in mind, though, that there are far too few bus services to regulate and they are far too expensive. In a rural community like mine—in fact in most communities, urban or rural—bus services do not make much money, if they make money at all. Rather than thinking about the burden on the taxpayer of a subsidy that we might ask for, we need to consider public transport as a crucial investment in the oiling of a community, and of an economy.
As we move towards CCAs, part of the ambition that I would like them to have, as they are integrated with transport authorities, is to be able to bring more services. It seems odd that we are in a country where most local authorities are forbidden from being operators themselves. We should allow authorities to become bus operators and make their own luck, and indeed to compete properly in order to provide services to their communities.
For people living in a rural community such as mine—living off the A6, the A591, or the A590—on those arterial routes there will be a very expensive bus service. Often, there will not even be an expensive bus service; there might be one a week if people are lucky. Giving power to local communities, and putting in a provision and an expectation that they will co-ordinate, regulate and make sure that there is fairness and continuity across boundaries, should also go hand in hand with ensuring that there is sufficient investment, so that we have more buses and indeed more light rail serving our communities, particularly in rural areas that are so remote and where the distances to travel are that much greater.
Neil O’Brien
I agree with so much of what has been said by Members on the Opposition Benches. I agree about the importance of co-operation across boundaries. I have been very pleased to see the way that the West Midlands Combined Authority has improved transport even beyond its boundaries. Places that are negotiating devolution deals with us at the moment, from the south-west to the north-east, are thinking about that very actively.
I agree with what the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for York Central said about the importance of integration. It is one of the reasons that we have been keen to support bus franchising where people want that. I remember it being advocated to me nearly 22 years ago by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is a former leader of Manchester City Council. He spoke about the advantages of integration through having that London-style bus franchising, which we would be able to approach in different ways through devolution.
Our approach is to achieve voluntary co-operation, rather than setting a requirement or duty to co-operate. We always try to encourage co-operation wherever we can—indeed, to the point of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale revealing that he had encouraged it across the England-Scotland border, through the wonderful borderlands growth deal.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister acknowledge that many of those negotiations can take a significant amount of time, and can be not only incredibly painful when it comes to making progress, but at times quite conflictual, because there are conflicting interests at play, depending on the model of bus ownership and franchise that is operating?
Neil O’Brien
I absolutely agree. That is one reason why we are resisting the amendment—there are profound choices and it should be for local areas to make those choices.
The devolution framework absolutely recognises the importance of neighbouring authorities working together. Clearly, that is very important in CCAs being able to deliver their transport functions properly and to exercise control over local transport plans, and specifically to use these powers and controls to deliver high-quality bus services, as the hon. Member for York Central and the hon. Member for Nottingham North have said.
The amendment is unnecessary. There is already extensive collaboration between local transport authorities. Under current arrangements, there is a formal duty to co-operate, but not in the way that the amendment proposes. The current framework for local transport planning and guidance issued following the national bus strategy recently encouraged the joint development of bus service improvement plans. Examples exist in the West of England Combined Authority and North Somerset—two different areas—and also in Lancashire, with Blackburn and Darwen again working across the boundary of two top-tier local authorities. Those examples offer some further positive models of collaboration between local transport authorities in relation to planning local bus service improvements, which will include fare levels and service patterns, and all the other key issues.
We would expect CCAs to take the same collaborative approach with their neighbouring authorities, and I have to say that all the signs from the discussions we have had so far suggest that they want to take the same collaborative approach. We therefore feel that the existing mechanisms are sufficient to deliver and ensure the co-operation between authorities that we are talking about. As such, this amendment is unnecessary.
I hope that, given those assurances, the hon. Member for York Central will withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
This is an important amendment. Having served as a shadow Transport Minister, I know the importance of getting a system in place to ensure connectivity and reliability, as well as modal shift. These amendments would hold the Secretary of State to account through the requirement to set out the reasons for any inequality in the transport functions conferred on CCAs. Ultimately, the public have a right to understand the Secretary of State’s thinking on such matters, particularly as it could well have an impact on them.
As we will debate further as the Bill progresses, the national development management policies will be making particular demands around transport infrastructure in our country. I am sure that will be a major area of contentious debate, but if we are looking at some authorities having the means to address their local transport system and other local authorities not having equal means, that will create even more discontent and inequality.
Ultimately, our transport system is a national system because our connectivity across the country has to connect—that might seem an obvious point. My fear is that this inequality could mean a more stop-start approach to transport planning, as opposed to the smoothing that we know the road and bus industries—and indeed the transport sector as a whole—are calling for. Accountability for any differentiation of powers is important, and that is what these amendments call for. It is also important to understand the Secretary of State’s thinking about how they are putting the transport system together across our country.
I appreciate the Minister’s role, but what happens in what I described earlier as the capillary routes, as opposed to arterial routes, is of equal importance, because people will not maximise the opportunity of those routes if they cannot reach them. There has to be joined-up thinking that stretches beyond the remit of the Minister, but which is crucial to the Bill.
Neil O’Brien
These amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out any differences in transport, highway and traffic functions conferred on CCAs, the reasons for those differences and the extent to which economic, social and environmental wellbeing factors were considered in coming to decisions to confer different powers. The reports that the amendments seek are unnecessary as the information will already be available. The hon. Member for Nottingham North said that there should be an account, and I am happy to say that there will be.
Following a successful devolution deal negotiation, the devolution deal document and councils’ proposal will set out any transport and highways roles that the CCA will have, the intended outcome and the difference these will make to the area. Whatever functions to be conferred, including any on transport and highways, will be set out in regulations, which are considered by Parliament and must be approved by Parliament before they can be made. Parliament will have an explanatory memorandum explaining which transport powers are being conferred, and why, the views of the consultees and how the conferral meets the statutory test of improving economic, social and environmental wellbeing—the exact set of issues that the Opposition are keen to hear more about.
There will be differences, as I have said, to reflect the bespoke nature of devolution deals that address the needs of an individual area, seeking to maximise local opportunities to drive levelling up. At the moment, there are no integrated transport authorities in place, but the possibility of establishing one remains. Parliament will have all of this information available through other means; this amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy.
Alex Norris
I am happy on the basis that this information will be available to Parliament. I hope that, if it is debated, Ministers will be as candid as the Minister has been throughout today’s proceedings and explain the precise reasons for any differences. That is an important part of effective scrutiny. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Directions relating to highways and traffic functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
These are significant powers. We have talked about the importance of devolving highway and traffic functions to CCAs. The clause allows those powers to revert and the Secretary of State to direct. I want an assurance from the Minister that those powers would be used only in very exceptional circumstances, because I cannot believe that that ministerial lock is that necessary if we are really intending to devolve these powers.
Neil O’Brien
I should reply to that, Mr Paisley. I cannot think of any instances where these powers have been used so far. Of course, there is a scenario in which a CCA was wound up. There are some issues in a particular case in the north-east at the moment about moving from a combined authority that covers part of the area to one that covers all of the metropolitan area. It might be that there are some legal powers one needs to make that happen, which is the will of the local authorities. However, in general, it is not our intention to suck powers upwards, but to devolve them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Contravention of regulations under section 20
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
The clause concerns contraventions of the directions in clause 20. I know these powers have not been used and they mirror powers in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. However, I wonder whether the Minister would understandably think that there would be some sort of arbitration before these powers were perhaps used to their fullest. Of course, finance is involved in this clause.
Neil O’Brien
I am sure there would be a lot of discussion before one came to these kind of steps, which are pretty dramatic. I am happy to discuss that further with the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Changes to boundaries of a CCA’s area
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 22, page 19, line 15, at end insert—
“(14) Where the Secretary of State makes provision under subsection (1)(b) to remove a local government area from a CCA, they must publish a statement setting out how that local government area that will have access to the powers they have lost in the future.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain how a local government area will in future have access to the powers they have lost as a result of removal from a CCA.
Alex Norris
The amendments alter clauses 22 and 23. Clause 22 allows the Secretary of State, with the consent of the relevant local authorities in the CCA, to change a CCA’s boundaries. I would not expect it to be a frequently used power or, certainly, to be used soon after Royal Assent, but given the Minister’s earlier example of north and south of Tyne, I can understand that there could be a context, perhaps for a combined county authority, where something similar could happen.
Similarly, clause 23 allows for dissolution. Again, there might be a context where a CCA does not leave the husk body—I think that was how the Minister characterised it earlier. What is important, and what I am probing with these amendments, is that there will be some sense that this is not about the end of the devolution settlement for those areas and that they will not lose powers, but rather there will be a confirmation that these communities still have access to the same powers. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to provide an explanation of how those communities will still get access to those powers.
Neil O’Brien
Although we have not yet established any combined county authorities, we need to look to the future and anticipate some scenario in which an established CCA wishes to change its boundary, or a CCA needs to be abolished. If that happens, Parliament will receive a statement and an explanatory memorandum explaining the boundary change or dissolution, any conferral of powers, the views of the consultees, and how it meets the statutory tests of improving economic, social and environmental wellbeing. It will then be considered in a debate. In addition, the Secretary of State may make regulations changing the area of a CCA only if that is something that the area consents to, and a CCA cannot be abolished without the consent of a majority of its members and of the Mayor, if there is one. It cannot be imposed.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply, which gives me some confidence that things will happen as we would have hoped. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Miss Dines.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Ninth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 5th July 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 July 2022 - (5 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In the spirit of unity and collegiality, which has marked the tone of the debate in Committee over the past few weeks, as a Lancastrian I wish the Yorkshiremen at the crease in Edgbaston all the very best. I still dare to believe, although there are two wickets and it could all go horribly wrong, could it not? However, let us focus on the matter at hand.
This is an important area for all of us. The Government have clearly set their heart on having a Mayor at the head of CCAs around the country and that being their chosen model for delivering devolution. I want to press the Minister to understand that that must not be something that is forced on communities. We must not be in a situation in which elected Mayors are deemed to be an essential, otherwise devolution deals would not be permitted.
I worry for lots of reasons, some of which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Many Mayors of all political colours do a great job around the country, and it is a mode of local government leadership that can work—it sometimes does and sometimes does not. The people of Bristol have demonstrated to us that it might not work for everybody. There is still time to reflect and think, “That’s not the way we wish to go as a community.”
The fundamental thing that I would like the Minister to state, in response to the debate on this particular aspect of the Bill, is that the Government will not make an elected Mayor a mandatory, compulsory element of any kind of devolution deal in any part of the country. There are reasons why communities might reject or not wish to have—or not benefit specifically from having—a directly elected Mayor as their mode of local government leadership.
For example, many people feel, as I do, that the election of a single Mayor to lead a local government area can personalise and trivialise politics. It can undermine collegiality, in which people from different parties and communities reach common decisions. It makes consensual outcomes with all political and geographical views properly represented much less likely. It can also distance local government from the people it is meant to serve. It feels to me to be part of a movement that is making local government less local.
If a councillor representing 2,000 or 3,000 people has direct access to the cabinet or executive of a local authority, a local person is much more likely to see that councillor, who is more likely to be someone they bump into at a supermarket, in the pub, at church, in the street or what have you, and to be able to hold them to account. Such a councillor is much more likely to absorb that person’s views and perspectives than a Mayor who represents hundreds of thousands of people. A Mayor makes local government less local, and what is the point of local government if it is not local?
One of the problems with communities such as mine—we have just gone through unitary reorganisation in Cumbria, with the two new authorities of Cumberland and of Westmorland and Furness—is that, in both authorities, parties were elected to run them that were clearly opposed to the mayoral model. To use us as an example, it would be very peculiar and anti-democratic if the Government were to make any kind of devolution deal contingent on the people of those communities having to accept something that they had just rejected only a few weeks ago.
That is the fundamental thing. It is not that there should never be Mayors. As the Committee can tell, I have my views—on whether I think that on the whole directly elected Mayors are a good form of local government—but I can absolutely see the case for them in some communities, if those communities choose them. The fundamental point to make about the clause is that the Government must not seek to enforce something on—or, in effect, to bribe—a community, by saying, “Yes, you can have your devolution deal, but only if you accept this model of local government.” That is not devolution, and it would be unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
I concur with the hon. Member for Nottingham North that it is a pleasure to have an all-Yorkshire Front Bench on this third day of the test—sorry, I mean on line-by-line scrutiny. He will recall that some years ago, Yorkshire allowed people who were not born in Yorkshire to play for the team, and I should break to him the news that my colleague the Housing Minister was born in Wales—“Greater Yorkshire” would be the definition here. However, I agree with him on the pleasures of this wicket-by-wicket, single-by-single approach to going through the legislation. I have never been accused of being a flair player, but I hope I can answer his questions.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a typically sensible set of observations. I will answer a number of them. For the first time, through the framework in the White Paper, there is an option to have a devolution deal without a Mayor, so that option clearly is there; it is possible. We are clear about that, and that may well the right thing, as either a transitional or permanent step, for a number of different places. However, the Government have made it clear that they will go further for places that do have a Mayor because then there is that accountable leadership.
The hon. Gentleman made some important points about the importance of collegiality. In the best functioning mayoral combined authorities, that still very much does happen. We have a clearly accountable front person in the form of the directly elected Mayor, who is a wonderful face for the area on the world and national stage and someone who can be held to account by voters. Where these things work well, there is still a great deal of cross-party collegiality going on below the surface, as it were.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the decision making was a less local model. I would challenge that a little, in so far as decision making for many of the existing combined authorities was already happening at that city-regional basis. Most of these places, after the abolition of the previous elected governments in 1986, had quangos running transport, for example, across the city region. It is just that nobody was directly elected and accountable for the decisions of those quangos.
To take a controversial example, in West Yorkshire there were two failed attempts, led by Metro, to create a tram for Leeds. However, it was not obvious to any normal voter who they should hold to account for those two previous attempts, because no one was elected. It was a quango—the kind that the hon. Member quite rightly complained about in previous sittings.
On the Opposition Front Bench, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Nottingham North said on the important role that Mayors are playing around the country. On the specific point that he raised about election days, the first election of the Mayor will take place
“on the first day of ordinary elections”
for the constituent councils, which is the first Thursday in May. That is how it is written in schedule 2. Areas do not have to wait until the next scheduled election. It is that date—the first Thursday in May is the day of ordinary election. I hope that that answers the hon. Member’s question on the meaning. I do not blame him at all for asking the question; there is a particular meaning in law for that day.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that clarity. That will be enough for me not to labour the point. However, I hope the Minister might take that away and think about it, because the Bill refers to
“ordinary elections of councillors of a constituent council”.
I might have misunderstood, but that implies that it is not just ordinary elections, as in just “the first Thursday of May”, which might have been a better way to put it.
Neil O'Brien
I am very happy to look at that. I think it is to do with the language of the legislation sounding a particular way, but I am very happy to take that point on board and think further about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 25
Requirements in connection with regulations under section 24
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 25, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) But the Secretary of State must not make regulations under section 24(1) in relation to a CCA’s area if the constituent authorities of that area have requested that powers be conferred by the Secretary of State without the establishment of a mayor.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State providing for a CCA mayor without the consent of the constituent authorities of that CCA.
If the previous clause stand part debate was my love letter to Mayors, this is slightly the opposite. As I said, it is right that communities that wish to harness the value of an elected Mayor are able to do so. I have no doubt that many will choose that, and it is right that they are able to. However, it is not right that those that would choose not to do so are forced, compelled or coerced to have one when that is not their real wish. I fear that that is the effect of the White Paper.
Tim Farron
This important subject gets to the heart of the motivation behind the Bill. What is it all for? Are we trying to level up different parts of the United Kingdom so that we can make best use of the opportunities available, fulfil the talents of every person and community within the United Kingdom and not waste that talent? Or are we trying to make things neat and tidy for the Government so that they can control things centrally? If it were the former, we would not be having this conversation, which makes me suspect it is the latter.
I was pleased for a few moments when the Minister said it is possible to have a devolution deal without a Mayor, but then that was followed by a whole bunch of “buts”. If a community wants a little devolution deal, it can have it without a Mayor, but if it wants a full-fat deal, it has to have a Mayor. Surely local communities should be presented with two choices, rather than just “Like it or lump it”. They should be asked, “Do you want devolution and do you want a Mayor?” They should not be told, “If you want devolution at level 3 and to have those kinds of powers, you must have a Mayor.”
I concur with the hon. Member for Nottingham North that there is no obvious functional reason—it seems totally arbitrary—to say that that must be the case. The Government say, “Well, that way we can hold people to account better”. Local democracy, local elections and the electorate hold people to account. Mayors and councils are not and should not be accountable to the Government. They are accountable to the people who did, or did not, elect them within their electorate. If we cherish local democracy, that is where the power will lie.
It feels like this issue is not about accountability at all, but about control. If a community decides that the model of local government it wishes to have does not include a Mayor, but it has the appetite, resources and infrastructure to handle and deliver the highest level of a devolution deal, what right has Whitehall to tell it that it cannot? That is not levelling-up; that is condescending to every single community in the United Kingdom. We are talking not about accountability, but control. We asked last week: who is this Bill for? Is it for the people or is it for the convenience of Whitehall? Given the Government’s insistence that devolution deals will not be extended in their fullest form to places that will not have a Mayor, it is pretty obvious that this is a Bill for the convenience of Whitehall and not for the people.
Neil O'Brien
This is a really interesting debate, and it is good to be able to have it in public. Let me be blunt: nothing is hidden here. We are clear that the Government’s view is that we prefer the mayoral model. Although it is possible to get a lower-tier devolution deal without one, there is no secret that our preference is for the mayoral model. Let me explain why.
Clearly, we could devolve all these powers—do all these things—to an unelected committee. We could have said, “Let’s take the 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester—AGMA—give them all the powers that we have now given to the mayoral combined authority. You just sort it out among yourselves. You can have a committee of the 10 of you, and you can decide among yourselves—perhaps by a majority vote—and then make those decisions.” All those things are totally feasible, and we could do that. It is a perfectly viable model. However, it is not the model we prefer, for various reasons—this goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. It is not for our convenience, but for the convenience of voters in these places. If we have just a committee, how is that committee held to account by a normal voter?
Let us take the Greater Manchester example, with 10 local authorities. We have got to choose where the new tramline is going to go. Is it going to go to place A or place B? The committee meets, there is no Mayor, and it decides the tramline is going to go to place A, not place B. I do not like that, as a voter; I wanted it to go to place B. What do I do, and who do I hold to account? Perhaps my local authority leader. I go to my local authority leader and she says, “I voted for place B, sorry, but I got outvoted.” What am I supposed to do now? Do I vote against her or for her at the next election? There is no one for me to hold to account if things are run by a committee.
I believe in steel-manning, not straw-manning, my opponent’s argument, so I could say, “No, what we want is not a committee. We want voters to have a say over what happens in these combined authorities, and what we actually want is to go back to the metropolitan county councils. We want to have an assembly.” It is perfectly viable, but let us be clear that that does mean quite a lot more politicians. It is a less sharp, less clear model for most voters than a mayoral system, which is why the mayoral system is the dominant model around the world: everyone around the world has city Mayors and knows that model. Inward investors know and understand that model. There is a phone number and people know who they are picking up to: is it Judith, is it one of the Andys? People know who they are supposed to speak to. We have clear accountability and clear leadership. Sometimes there are tough choices to be made. Consensus is a good thing—we always want maximum consensus—but in the end, we often have to choose between A and B. Having a directly elected mayor who knows that needs to be done, and to have programmatic government, not the lowest common denominator log-rolling and horse-trading, lets people make that decision and be accountable to the public. It gives visibility to the world.
One reason why Labour was right in 1998 to create a directly elected Mayor for Greater London was that in its absence we had a big committee—a big quango—with decisions made without anybody really being held to account. For the same reason that Labour created a directly elected Mayor for the capital, we have done it for the other cities that did not get one before 2010.
On a point made by the hon. Member for York Central, this is a long-term game. We want to do go further and further with devolution. One of the missions in the levelling-up White Paper is:
“By 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal with powers at approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement.”
We want to keep going and going. The question I have about the unelected committee model of devolution is, once we start to do more and more high-powered things, more and more functions come out of Whitehall and more and more controversial decisions are taken—and take longer—at the local level. Is that a model that can really hack increasingly controversial decisions in the long term?
Evidence from the OECD finds that fragmented city governments—not having that tier at all—leads to worse economic outcomes. I think we are all agreed that a tier is needed to work together across local authorities and city regions. The only question is how the accountability then works. I wonder how many of the places that have now got Mayors would really want to go backwards. A lot of them resisted having a Mayor. They resisted very strongly. Even on the morning of the Greater Manchester devolution deal, one of the local authorities still had questions about it. Now that those cities have Mayors, who seriously thinks that it would be a good idea for them to go back to having just an unelected committee or a quango, and for them not to have either of the Andys or Ben Houchen providing inspirational leadership and working locally in a collegiate and cross-party way? Do people really think that would be an improvement? I wonder about that.
Alex Norris
We have had a really good discussion. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I fear that neatness and tidiness for central Government, rather than for communities, is dominant, which raises the question, who is this for?
The hon. Gentleman asked what right Whitehall—or central Government, or however we might characterise it—has to make such distinctions, and I agree with him. We are talking about two different sets of profound powers that will shape places and—I think there is broad consensus on this—improve and enhance the lives of local people, but one community will have access while another will not, because the Government have made the election of a politician a sticking point. The Minister has made it clear that that is the Government’s preference, but it is a fundamentally distorted vision of devolution. If the powers are to be so impactful, all communities should have access to them.
Neil O'Brien
To be clear, is the Opposition’s preferred model an unelected committee or assembly-type model? What do they prefer to the mayoral model?
Alex Norris
The Minister has never heard me argue for the assembly model—a red herring that he introduced to the debate—and I think the characterisation of committees as “unelected” is unhelpful. He has heard me argue over a significant time for the powers set out on page 140 of the White Paper to be available to county combined authorities. If they choose to be led by an elected Mayor, that is their choice and I would absolutely support it.
I think that is where we will end up in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, although, as I have made clear, it is not my preference—perhaps by repeating how against it I am at all stages, I am attempting desperately to ensure that I never end up a candidate. Nevertheless, that has been my view throughout. The difference between my position and the Minister’s is that I have no intention of foisting mine on other people, whereas the Minister clearly does.
The Minister started by saying that he prefers the mayoral model—that is wonderful—and he made a strong case for it. I advocate that he take that case to the people of Leicester and Leicestershire, and given how persuasive he is, maybe he will succeed in convincing them. That would be an example of the process working well, and I would support his efforts in principle, if not in substance. But let us address this point about unelected committees, which as I said, is a bizarre characterisation. Let me put it this way: the Minister has introduced 60 clauses to create county combined authorities, and that has been important for this Bill Committee, which, by his logic, is unelected. In reality, the constituent members of those committees have very much stood for election and they lead their local authorities. I do not have any problem with that democracy. If four elected leaders meet for a pint after work, do they suddenly form an unelected committee and their democratic mandate ceases? I think they are still elected, and if they misbehaved that night, they would be treated as if they were. The idea that such committees are unelected is for the birds, frankly.
The Minister said—I am not sure that I agree—that this is for the voters. That is excellent news. In that case, I do not think he has anything to fear about what is established as the local preference. Why do something for someone if they do not want it?
Neil O'Brien
The Opposition have spent several days complaining that our devolution model is too messy. This morning they are complaining that it too neat and tidy.
Alex Norris
At no point have I complained that this is too neat and tidy. I am saying that Ministers are seeking convenience; not that the settlement is too neat and tidy but that Ministers are pursuing a life that is neater and tidier than it is ever going to be.
I was hugely discomfited by the Minister’s final point about the M10 Mayors. As I have said, I have family in Manchester who love that model and it really works for them. That is great. Andy Burnham is doing a brilliant job, and that can be said throughout the M10. The Minister’s idea is that many of those communities resisted Mayors but, as it was better for them, we can now say, “Gosh, don’t they see our extraordinary wisdom and they wouldn’t change it.” If that is his preference for devolution—they will like it when they understand it—we are getting off on the wrong foot.
Neil O'Brien
In the communities that resisted it, the leaders of local authorities had lots of questions about it, because they were bringing into existence a new directly elected body across the city. That is no small thing. It was creating somebody who would be in the same space as them. Of course they had all kinds of questions about it. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think it would now be better for them to get rid of those directly elected Mayors for those large cities? Does he really believe it would be better without them?
Alex Norris
I have literally just said that I doubt that that would be the case, but it is for those communities to decide, not me, and I have no intention of doing so. This is about devolution and localism, which will have to take a local flavour and function. The Minister started by saying that the leaders of the communities had resisted, and now that they had questions. I would hope they would have questions. I am saying that there is no value in ramming these things through, or the idea that people later will really see the benefit. That is how we get progress but people do not feel better—because things are done to them. In many ways, that explains why community power is absent in the Bill.
On the place A to B tramline, there will always be a challenge with these things. The Minister talks about having to go back to constituents who want to hold us accountable for a decision we did not make, may have voted against or did not argue for. That is what Parliament is. I have been here five years and have barely ever won a vote. I have to go back to my constituents frequently and say, “Yes, I understand it is terrible that we have skyrocketing inflation, you do not have access to decent housing and the rise in violent crime is awful. I voted against things that caused that to be the case, but the majority voted for it.”
The idea that the existence of an individual suddenly creates that unanimity or direct ability to change is challenging, not least because voters’ decisions are multifactoral. There is an argument for a presidency in this place, which I certainly do not share, but we might wonder why we need so many Ministers if we could just consolidate them in one individual. I cannot agree with that. I have made my point and I will press the amendment to a Division, because there is a substantial difference between the two Benches.
The Minister started by saying that he prefers the mayoral model. That is absolutely fine. Every community that prefers that model should have access to one—I completely support that—but I do not think that every community that does not prefer that model should have to have it.
Neil O'Brien
I want to clarify that spatial development strategies are available to MCAs, and several are already doing them.
Alex Norris
We will have many days to consider that in great detail and at great length to establish those facts.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tim Farron
I think this is a sensible amendment. If we are to have Mayors, I am not against their appointing deputies. That sounds a perfectly sensible thing to do. In the previous debate, the Minister made an interesting and well-presented point about why a mayor is better than an unelected committee—a committee of directly elected councillors, serving smaller areas, who are more likely to be in touch with those areas. Will the Minister contrast and compare his concern for there being a committee making decisions—all of them directly elected—and executive functions being given to a deputy mayor who has been appointed by somebody else? I see a clear equivalence, and a reminder that it is entirely democratic and appropriate for decisions to be taken in a more collegiate way, and not just by one person being elected and then appointing other people to serve executive functions under that person.
Neil O'Brien
The amendment has no effect on its own. As set out in clause 26, the role of deputy Mayor of a CCA is created by that provision. It is therefore already statutory. The clause mirrors the provisions for county combined authorities, creating consistency across the two models. The role of deputy mayor is critical in supporting the effective delivery of the Mayor’s responsibilities and a deputy Mayor would act instead of the Mayor if that person is unable to act or the office of the Mayor becomes vacant. There is no need to add the word “statutory” to what is already a statutory role. Therefore I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North agrees to withdraw the amendment, although he may want to talk more about the point when we discuss amendment 34.
Alex Norris
I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that there is certainly an irony and a contrast between the two debates. Nevertheless, I think it is implied—frankly, it says it on the tin—that once we go for the mayoral model, that is what we choose with it. Again, if that is what a community wants, that is the right thing to do.
I will address the Minister’s points. To be fair, if it is in the statute book, it is probably statutory; I would be willing to concede that point. However, I have had the opportunity to make that clear. Nevertheless, the assurances from the Minister were plenty. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Neil O'Brien
Clause 26 requires the Mayor of a combined county authority to appoint a deputy Mayor from among the constituent members of the CCA. The deputy Mayor would act in the stead of the Mayor should the Mayor be unable to act or should the office of the Mayor become vacant.
We consider the amendment unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because, as we will see shortly, clause 27 enables the Mayor to delegate general mayoral functions to members of the CCA. Members of the CCA can be given subject portfolios—the responsibility for a particular area, such as transport—and would be held to account for it. Such members may have a title—for example, cabinet member for transport or skills portfolio holder—that reflects the terminology and practice in local government.
As the Mayor is required to appoint a deputy Mayor and is able to delegate functions to other members, there is no need for an additional role within a CCA or for any member of a CCA other than the statutory deputy Mayor to be titled deputy Mayor. The risk is that the amendment might result in all CCA members having the position of deputy, which could be confusing and could be a problem if it is necessary to be clear about who the deputy Mayor is so that they can stand in if the Mayor is incapacitated. We think the amendment is not necessary or appropriate.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as he was about to conclude. Just to be clear, the Government’s intention is that deputy Mayors will be members of the county combined authority, and there will not be provision for a Mayor to appoint and give responsibilities to a deputy who is a private citizen.
Neil O'Brien
We discussed in previous sittings the role of the non-constituent and associate members of the authority, which is the way of getting in expertise from outside. Perhaps a transport specialist could come in through that route, but we need someone who is clearly the deputy in case the Mayor is suddenly not available any more. As part of collegiate working, which we have described previously, it is already very common for portfolio roles to be given to members of the combined authority.
Alex Norris
I am really grateful for that discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said—this relates to amendment 35 in my name—we should seek to use these roles as a way of broadening the pool of those who have access to power for very good reasons relating to representation. We will probe that when we debate amendment 35. I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. There are bits of it that I still do not understand, which I will cover when we discuss the next amendment, but hopefully he will help me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I want to build on the points that have been made. One of the things we need to remember about deputy Mayors is that, unlike previous roles we have discussed, they are appointed, rather than elected. As we know, with appointments, there is always the risk of unconscious bias creeping in. Having transparency and accountability is therefore really important when looking at issues of diversity.
If we are creating a new tier of governance across the country, we do not want to repeat the old mistakes we have seen in this place or in local government, where the figures are quite shocking. We do not want it to be the end of this century before we see equality between men and women in local government. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that across our political systems and systems of governance, we are seeing and driving equality around all protected characteristics. I fear that if we are not putting these basic and rudimentary measures in legislation at this point, we risk at this stage of transformation slipping back into bad old ways. I would not want to see that. We are a country that embraces diversity and we should do that within our governance structures as well.
Neil O'Brien
Clause 26 requires the Mayor of a combined county authority to appoint a deputy Mayor from the constituent members, so the Mayor of a CCA could not make—to answer the question directly—a non-constituent or associate member a deputy Mayor. Constituent members will be nominated by the constituent councils and are usually the council leaders, who have been elected at local authority level. It is only right that the membership of the CCA is decided locally by those who best know their areas. CCAs and their constituent members will be independent of central government.
Amendment 35 requires the Secretary of State to report annually regarding certain demographic information about the persons appointed to be deputy Mayors of a CCA. We think that the amendment is not appropriate or necessary. CCAs, their Mayors and their constituent members will be independent of central Government. The Government do not believe they should require CCAs to inform them of the specific make-up of their deputy Mayors.
The Mayor, with their democratic mandate, will appoint one of the constituent members as a deputy Mayor. As a public and statutory position, it will be totally transparent who has been appointed as the deputy. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about this being a bit of a march of the blokes. That is a fear with individual elections, and it is what tends to happen. He made some very strong arguments about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central is right in saying that appointments can go either way: they are either an opportunity to rectify gaps or they can end up, through unconscious biases, continuing to widen those gaps. I think the Minister’s answer has clarified the point and rendered my amendment moot. From what I understood, the deputies are going to be constituent members of the authority; that is a significant distinction from what happens in London and with the Mayor of London. In many ways, combined authorities and combined county authorities do have significant distinctions from the set-up in London, so that is not an inconsistency, but it is important to understand. My fear is that there will now be a march of the tsars. The Mayors are going to end up with lots of different tsars as a way of trying to get that extra talent in, as advisers and as additionality. I wonder about that.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 27, page 21, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the Secretary of State makes provision under subsection (1), they must also publish a report setting out the impact this change will have on the delivery of levelling up missions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the impact of changing the powers available to a mayor on the delivery of levelling up missions.
This amendment highlights the possibility of the Secretary of State’s regulating not only function, but who should undertake that function. Accountability is important, and I would argue that having clear lines of accountability is essential. However, clause 27 feels very much like the tail wagging the dog: the Secretary of State is micromanaging the Mayor, as opposed to letting the Mayor determine who would be best placed to undertake such functions. What functions they are is not clear in the Bill, and subsection (1) maintains the mystery, but I am sure the Minister will say how they will be determined in the devolution deal. However, who executes them should be at the discretion of the Mayor, as there will clearly be a diversity of knowledge and skill at the mayoral office level, and indeed in the wider team. I can understand the Secretary of State’s wanting the Mayor to be accountable for such functions, but to say that only the Mayor can carry them out is operational meddling from the centre.
When writing the amendment, and ahead of the sitting on Tuesday last week, I had understood that levelling up was to be a sustained agenda for tackling the grotesque injustice of inequality by identifying disparity and then using a range of solutions—through economics, transport, housing, spatial planning and so on—to bring justice to an area. I have to say that the Government’s explanation of clause 1 has now left me in doubt. I compare it more to the 1997 New Labour pledge card, with 12 missions rather than five and a tick box to deliver the Tory manifesto commitments that sneakily go beyond these and into an eight-year programme, but there is little to look beyond.
Aligning the purpose of tiers of Government is important if the country is to head in one direction. If everyone rows in one direction, we are more likely to get there, which is why it is important that there should be alignment nationally at CCA level and locally in addressing the ambition to rid this country of inequality—not least as we are the second most inequitable country after the US according to academics, including Pickett and Wilkinson. As we discussed on Tuesday, having levelling-up missions in central Government—including the sustainable development goals at a global level—and then differentiating priorities at a local or mayoral level means that we move forward more slowly than we would if we marched in step. Therefore, ensuring the delivery of missions nationally, and by Metro Mayors and their teams, gives us an opportunity to progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North is a lot closer to this subject than I am, but as he is working on Labour’s ambition for Government, which could come as soon as the autumn, I trust that we will want alignment of function with our national ambition to address the inequalities that our society presents. I am sure we will want a sustained framework that sets a path of ambition for 50 years rather than just eight, and that we will seek to account for the threads that run between the national and the local. I am sure that Labour would not want to place such control on politicians at the devolved level, and would trust them to deliver their work in the most appropriate way to achieve the outcomes that we long to see. The amendment seeks to achieve that by bringing alignment with those levelling-up missions and accountability behind them. That is why I would like the Government to accept it.
Neil O'Brien
We believe the amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State may confer functions on the Mayor of a combined county authority only if they consider that to do so meets the statutory test of
“improving the economic, social or environmental well-being”
of some or all of those who live and work in the area. As our 12 missions show,
“improving the economic, social or environmental well-being”
is at the heart of delivering levelling up. The process for conferring mayoral powers, including the statutory test, is already set out in clauses 42 and 43, for the establishment of a new mayoral CCA, and in clauses 44 and 45, for the conferral of functions on the Mayor of an existing mayoral CCA.
Regulations conferring functions on a Mayor will of course be considered by Parliament. The explanatory memorandum accompanying these regulations will explain why the powers are being conferred, the views of consultees and how the statutory test is met; Parliament will have ample opportunity to consider the impact of conferring any powers on the Mayor of a CCA and whether they will achieve levelling up.
In addition to the information provided by the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations being laid in Parliament, clause 2 requires annual reporting on the progress of the delivery of the levelling-up missions. That will include the achievement against our local leadership mission, which I mentioned earlier—namely that by 2030, every part of England that wants a devolution deal will have one, with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified local funding settlement.
Rachael Maskell
Coming to the nub of the issue, that ability to confer powers is certainly highlighted in clause 27(1). However, why does the Minister believe that the functions are exercisable only—I stress the word “only”—by the Mayor?
Neil O'Brien
Making some of the functions exercisable by the Mayor is at the heart of what we have been doing with devolution. If we are going to have the debate that we had earlier, I should say that the whole point of a Mayor is to have certain functions. If the hon. Lady is probing that, she is in a sense going back to the debate that we were having earlier today about why an area should have a Mayor.
The amendment is about a reporting requirement. As I have just set out, there are already substantial reporting requirements on why any powers are conferred on the Mayor. There is also reporting on progress on the devolution agenda, as part of clause 2 and the mission that we are pursuing, so there is already the kind of reporting that the amendment argues for. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw it.
Alex Norris
I very much agree with the thrust of the amendment; the case that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central made was very strong. It makes us think that these missions should be a central theme running through the programme of work. That programme may, at times, look different in different parts of the country, in terms of how it is exercised, but those fundamental goals, challenges and missions are a collective endeavour. That brings me back to my fear, certainly regarding the earlier parts of the Bill, that the Government feel they have to take all this on themselves. That is, first, an unnecessary level of burden and, secondly, not likely to succeed.
We accept that government is a very difficult business, and at times a fine series of balances. I would argue that this Government make things look particularly hard, but that might be an issue for a different day. However, for Ministers in this Department—one might except the Minister for Housing; there is, after all, a reason why they change every year—[Laughter.] I do not wish that for the Minister who is here today; I hold him in high regard and he can stay until the next election.
However, the rest of the Minister’s ministerial colleagues really could have a slightly lighter time if they just equipped, in terms of both money and power, local authorities to deliver on their goals and then let them get on with it. They would look brilliant; they would look like sensational, revolutionary change-bringers and they could have their feet up for the entire time. That does not seem like such a bad deal to me.
Instead, what we get is this over-centralisation and this lack of trust; it is all to be commanded and controlled from the centre. I am afraid that that just does not quite get things done. The amendment would actually push us into making a further step towards what we hope Ministers want, which is to get the responsibility, the power and the opportunities out to communities, under that shared framework of goals. That would be a positive thing, and there is an awful lot to recommend the amendment.
What the Minister said about the explanatory memorandum is welcome, but I say again—this is a theme throughout all our debates—that the Government have not been able to produce an impact assessment for the Bill, and we sit here, day after day, talking about it. We are led to believe that the Minister has a strong belief in the impact of Mayors, but he cannot evidence that in a conventional way. We have heard a commitment from the Minister. When the decisions are being made on regulations for setting up combined county authorities, I hope that we will have the right information to explain and understand the impact of the decisions that we make.
Tim Farron
This is a very worthwhile amendment, which helps us to explore how we can play into local communities’ hunger for power and control over their own destinies. There is a real sense in many communities—I will speak specifically for rural ones, but this applies right across the country—of people being fed up with things happening to them, seeing things going wrong in their communities and feeling a sense of powerlessness: “What can I do to affect this?”
I will share two experiences. On Saturday, I was in the heart of the lakes, around Hawkshead and Ambleside, talking to tourism businesses struggling to find staff. We have a huge workforce crisis in all of rural Britain, but particularly in the lakes and the dales. We were talking about the things that it would be great to do locally to provide local affordable housing, caps on the number of second homes and limits on the number of holiday lets. That would provide places for a working-age population that is not earning tons of money to be able to live and preserve those communities.
Yesterday morning, I was in the village of Burton, with a good news story: we were beginning some work on developing an affordable housing project in the village that will underpin the sustainability of that community. However, I was talking to the housing association about how difficult it is to replicate that around the area, given the weak planning rules that do not allow them to take advantage of what might be the possibility of building 100% affordable settlements around a community like mine.
Those are all issues that we could tackle if we had the power. I think that communities are hungry for power and the ability to make a difference for their own futures. If the Government are sharing any power with the Mayor, then I want every other authority to know about it so that they can clamour for it too. I am not particularly critical of there being a lack of symmetry in devolution and in the models by which it is delivered. That is not because I am a fan of things being a mess, but because I am a fan of communities making their own choices.
Communities should not be forced to accept a particular model to gain powers that will give them power over their communities and the way in which their economies are run. To reflect that hunger, we must feed it so that everybody knows what is possible and on the table, and they can think, “Well, all right, we’d like those powers too.”
Neil O'Brien
Opposition Members have argued that the process in which new powers are given to CCAs should be transparent and public, and it will be. The processes that lead to the conferring of powers on a Mayor of a CCA are transparent and public. The Mayor must consult the constituent councils of the CCA regarding any requests for additional powers and then report those views to the Secretary of State when submitting their request.
If the Secretary of State agrees to a Mayor’s request, the functions to be conferred will be set out in regulations and then debated here. They must then be approved before they can be made. In considering those regulations, Parliament will have an explanatory memorandum and various other reports explaining why various powers are being conferred. It will therefore already be a public and transparent process—nothing can be hidden—so we regard the amendment as unnecessary.
Alex Norris
I would argue that there is a difference between something not being hidden and its being shared. The points that colleagues have made were very good, and I would echo them. The point and thrust of the issue is to try to ensure that all areas know what is available to them and to give them the chance to reflect on and maybe ask for it themselves to improve their approaches to tackling all the challenges they face.
Of course, as the Bill says, the decisions will be made through a regulation and be taken by a Committee of Members in this place. However, I say gently to the Minister that I would not take that to be full publication. It will be published in a reasonable way—we have no doubt of that—but the idea that busy communities, county combined authorities or Mayors will instantly know that that has happened is not quite the same thing.
I hope that, at least, the Minister will reflect on the need for it to be understood what further powers that maybe even go beyond the White Paper might be available in future to county combined authorities. However, for the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and not labour that point today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Joint exercise of general functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Neil O’Brien
I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member’s detailed question. I will try to understand it. Let me speak to what the clause does, and if that does not make things clear he can come in. We have talked about the flexibility of the CCA model, enabling the Mayor and the CCA to operate effectively and take decisions for the benefit of those who live and work in the area. Clause 29 continues that flexibility. It enables regulations to be made so that a CCA Mayor can jointly exercise any mayoral general function, such as on transport, with a neighbouring local authority if both parties agree. Such regulations may set out the detailed operational arrangements, such as membership, chairing, voting powers and political balance requirements for a joint committee. I hope that hon. Members will agree that enabling the Mayor of a combined authority to work collaboratively with neighbouring local authorities—something various Members have argued for in previous sittings—would be a positive measure, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Functions of mayors: policing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Clause 30 allows for the conferring of police and crime commissioner functions on the Mayor of a combined county authority. I think it is important that something as significant as this does not go through without debate. Again, this is the core aspect of tier 3 powers, which makes the case for a mayor in those cases. Again, we understand the need for the measure to be in the Bill, but we want to hear from the Minister how he thinks this will work in practice.
This is not without precedent. These clauses mirror combined authorities, and those combined authorities in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire have a Mayor with police powers, and of course the same is true in London. It can be done, and it can be done safely. I am less sure about whether there is widespread desire for it. As I say, if it were the determining factor in tier 3 between taking on a Mayor or not, there may be quite a range of decisions taken.
We heard in both oral and written evidence—I genuinely thought it was admirable—about the culture of collaboration and joint working across the West Midlands Combined Authority. It is clear that it has been able to build consensus on virtually everything, except this point. That was quite revealing in and of itself. Again, it is those sorts of powers that local communities often talk about, such as economic levers, transport levers, housing levers and issues relating to net zero, rather than policing. Again, where communities want this, we are happy for it to be an option where desired. The reality is that it is complicated because of the unavoidable point of footprints for police forces, which do not elegantly overlay with even natural geographies, but definitely not geographies of combined authorities. I cannot imagine a situation where they are likely to converge without a lot of pain and disruption.
There will be some places—the West Midlands ironically being quite a good example—where the footprint probably matches up quite nicely, and clearly that is the case in Greater Manchester too. I want clarity from the Minister. Is his intention to use these powers where there is strong demand and where the geographies are suitable? As I say, I think that is likely to prove challenging. What is the Minister minded to do in situations where there is enthusiasm to take these powers on but the natural communities do not work, or maybe there is a police force that covers a small part of a county combined authority? How would that work in practice?
Neil O'Brien
Clause 30 enables the Mayor of a combined county authority to have the functions of the police and crime commissioner conferred on them if that Mayor requests it. The Mayors of the Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire combined authorities already exercise PCC functions in their areas. Committee members will remember the evidence session we held with Tracy Brabin, Mayor of West Yorkshire, in which she talked about the advantages of having those powers aligned with the other powers she was using—for example, using her powers over transport and her PCC powers concurrently to improve women’s safety.
Clause 30 and the linked schedule 3 offer that same option for CCA Mayors if the local authority and policing boundaries align, and if they feel that taking on those functions will help them deliver more effective policing for their area, where that is agreed between the area and Government. The clause and schedule mirror the combined authority provisions for the conferral of PCC functions to ensure that if a CCA Mayor takes on those functions, the process of conferral and the way they are exercised on a day-to-day basis is consistent with those too. As with all regulations on CCAs, these regulations will be subject to parliamentary approval. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Mayors for combined county authority Areas: PCC functions
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 37, in schedule 3, page 206, line 34, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from conferring only partial Police and Crime Commissioner functions on the mayor.
The fun is always in the schedules, is it not? I like to get into the detail and understand some of the reasons why certain approaches have been chosen. Schedule 3 introduces the arrangements that allow for Mayors of combined county authorities to take on police and crime commissioner functions in the way that the Minister has set out. As I said, this is a complex matter, particularly due to geography. I do not think the Minister quite addressed the complexity issue. Again, I would be interested in his thoughts about how that is likely to work in practice, certainly for footprints that clearly do not match up with police force footprints. That argument has been made already, so I will not repeat it.
The thrust of amendment 37 is to not make the devolution of those functions any more complicated than it already is. Paragraph 2(1) of schedule 3 allows the Secretary of State to
“by regulations provide that the mayor may exercise in the CCA area—
(a) all PCC functions,”
—that is all the functions, as the Minister has described. As I say, that has been done elsewhere, and it seems to be beyond debate. However, I want to probe sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (1)(c), which provide for
“all PCC functions other than those specified or described in the regulations, or…only those PCC functions specified or described in the regulations”
to be devolved. Basically, the Secretary of State can by regulation devolve partial police and crime commissioner powers. First, that is unduly fiddly, and it might create an unwise divergence between Mayors. Either an individual has police and crime commissioner functions devolved to them, or they do not.
Alex Norris
As my hon. Friend says, the taking on of the PCC seems to be that sort of totemic tipping moment, making this question all the more compelling. I am interested in a case in which sub-paragraph (1)(b) and (c) were used, in which only some police and crime functions were devolved. Does that mean that the pre-existing police and crime commissioner would continue to exist alongside the Mayor? Are we creating some confusion, if we have a PCC and a Mayor with some police and crime responsibilities? I am not sure that is desirable. Again, that might create variance between Mayors. I am not minded to support the provision, but I might be persuaded if we were clear what sort of circumstances it would apply to and what powers we might not want to give, and if we had clarity on the point about other PCCs.
Neil O'Brien
The schedule provides detail setting out the areas where the Secretary of State either may or has to make regulations to enable a transfer of PCC functions to a CCA Mayor, and provides the framework and arrangements for them to exercise those functions day to day. It is important that CCA Mayors can exercise PCC functions if the authority and policing boundaries align, and if they feel that taking on the functions will help them deliver more effective policing for the area.
Alex Norris
I apologise, but it is helpful that the Minister used the “boundaries align” phrase. Is that a complete alignment of boundaries?
Neil O'Brien
Yes, I think it is, implicitly. The levelling-up White Paper talks about how, if the boundaries did not quite align and there was a strong desire locally for that, we would look at the geographies over time and whether it was worth changing them in order to make them fit. I stress that that is probably a long-term function. Broadly speaking, this is keeping the mayoral combined authority and CCA models aligned, because the power already exists, although it is not being used in the MCA legislation.
Over time, the PCC role has expanded and evolved, and it continues to do so, and the Bill would allow the Home Office at a future date not to devolve all PCC functions, if that were not appropriate in future. At this point, I cannot specify in exactly what circumstances that might arise—it might be to do with edge cases where there is desire to do some policing-adjacent things through transport, of the kind that Tracy talked about—but so far those powers have not been used. At the moment, I do not think that there is an intention to use them. I am aware of no examples of active discussion of any such thing.
As I say, however, the PCC role is evolving over time, as is that of the different combined authorities. We are just holding open that possibility for the future. Were we to explore that future, the possibility of the processes that we have talked about so far in this sitting—things going through Parliament with explanatory memorandums and so on—would all apply. At the moment, this is just holding things open for a potential future, in case there is a desire to do things in this kind of space.
Alex Norris
The Minister knows that I do not give an awful lot of shrift to the argument that we need to do such things because that is how they are in combined authorities. The Minister has chosen to establish a separate class. If we merely had to adopt the same arrangements as combined authorities, basically we should have moved the 60 amendments and simply agreed them. The Minister has chosen to legislate differently, and therefore I believe that the amendment needs to be treated on its own merits.
Similarly, I do not give an awful lot of shrift to the idea of leaving the door open for things that have not been used before in mirroring powers, so that they might be used later for an unspecified purpose. That is not a strong reason to keep something in statute, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 38, in schedule 3, page 207, line 23, leave out paragraph (a)
This amendment would allow the person who is appointed deputy mayor under section 26 to be appointed as deputy mayor for policing and crime.
This is the dangerous bit. I am going to torture the cricket analogy one last time, even though it really does not stand up to it: we are just seeing out the final over before lunch, so I will try not to nick one here if possible.
Paragraph 3(1)(a) of schedule 3 states that the Secretary of State may
“appoint a deputy mayor in respect of PCC functions”
but that that person cannot be what I have called in previous debates “the statutory Mayor”. More than anything, I am keen to know why that measure, which amendment 38 would delete, was included. It may be that the statutory deputy could hold a role outside their normal duties that would mean they were not eligible to take police and crime functions, and could not stand for police and crime commissioner—just as a Member of Parliament cannot be a police and crime commissioner—but I am not clear what that role would be. Short of an unavoidable hurdle, I wonder why we are reducing the options rather than letting the Mayor choose which of their eligible candidates would be best for the role.
Neil O'Brien
The single-word answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is: workload. Clause 30 enables the Mayor of a combined county authority to have the functions of a police and crime commissioner conferred on them, subject to their consent. It includes provisions on the employment of a deputy Mayor for crime and policing, and the rules that govern who is eligible.
The role of the statutory deputy Mayor of the CCA is, as we have discussed, to step in should the Mayor become unable to act or if the office of Mayor is vacant. As we said earlier, the deputy Mayor, as any other member of the combined county authority, may assist the Mayor or be delegated a portfolio to lead for the CCA—that could be transport or all manner of different things. The deputy Mayor is also likely to be a leader or another senior member of the constituent council, so is likely to have plenty on their plate. The role of the deputy Mayor for crime and policing is to dedicate constant focus and attention to the vital areas of crime and policing.
Those are both clearly significant roles, and it is difficult to see how both could be delivered by one person without insufficient attention on policing or the responsibilities of deputy Mayor suffering.
Alex Norris
Is the intention for the role to go to a private citizen, not a constituent member of the authority?
Neil O'Brien
The CCA member also holds an elected position for a specific portion of the CCA area, so they are a constituent member. The Mayor’s PCC power covers the entirety of the police force in the CCA area. That could cause confusion about the democratic mandate that the CCA member has—when compared with the requirement of the deputy Mayor for crime and policing—to support the Mayor, who has been elected to represent constituents from across the whole police force area.
Let me encapsulate it. Why do we have to have a deputy Mayor for crime and policing? Because PCC is a full-time job, and in most of the country outside the MCAs, it is a stand-alone job. There are many advantages to bringing those two things together, as the Mayor of West Yorkshire told us, but it works best when there is a high degree of delegation to a deputy Mayor for crime and policing who can drive forward all that work so that the Mayor can provide strategic join-up between that and other functions. We would still have someone whose full-time job is to do all those things. If we tried to combine the two roles, however, it would be just too much workload for one person.
Alex Norris
The point about workload is well made. I understand now that the portfolio of deputy mayorships will be held by constituent members of the authority, but I am still now sure—maybe that is my fault—whether the deputy Mayor for crime and policing is a constituent member before their appointment by the Secretary of State.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Tenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 5th July 2022
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 July 2022 - (5 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Sir Mark.
These seven clauses deal with a significant change in policy, because they enable the fire and rescue functions and the footprint of the county combined authority to be transferred to the Mayor. I think that significant change deserves debate and recognition. Many of the arguments about clause 30 and the similar delegation of police and crime functions read across to fire and rescue functions, so I do not intend to duplicate them.
I am not sure that I have detected a huge demand for the transfer, nor a sense that fire authorities are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. If there is local enthusiasm to take on those functions and consensus can be built on that, it is for those communities to argue for that rather than me. I would be interested to learn from the Minister what the business case for such a change looks like. Part of the problem of the lack of an impact assessment is that we do not know the impact of the proposed change, nor the upsides that we can expect from it. What is the take-up?
My questions to the Minister are similar to those that I asked about clause 30, and I hope that I will receive similar answers. I take it that this is about local choice and that any change can only be made where there is local consensus. May I take it that the same proviso about geography applies in this case as did under clause 30? Generally, will the arrangement operate according to coterminosity, and work elegantly, rather than trying to make something fiddly work which is not likely to succeed?
Clause 31(2) refers to the involvement of the chief constable of the police. In recent years, it has been a Government policy decision to blur the distinction between fire and rescue and the police. I am keen to hear the Minister’s answer about that involvement. What safeguards will be in place to handle those two organisations, which have separate functions, so that there is at least some sort of distinction between them, certainly in the finances but also, in some senses, on the policy? A case needs to be made for any such involvement because I do not think it is automatically a good idea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Clause 31 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the Mayor of a combined county authority to whom police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue functions have been conferred to delegate fire and rescue functions to the chief constable of the police force for the area. It further allows the chief constable to delegate those functions to both police and fire and rescue personnel, and through it enact what is known as the single employer model.
Those provisions are designed to provide the option for Mayors of CCAs to exercise fire and rescue service functions under the single employer model where they also exercise PCC functions, if they feel that allowing the chief constable to run both operational services will help them to have a stronger role in public safety and to deliver more effective emergency services for their local area. That is the rationale that the hon. Member for Nottingham North is seeking.
It is an equivalent provision to section 107EA of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which made that option available to Mayors of combined authorities when Parliament approved its addition via the Policing and Crime Act 2017. The change is basically about enabling the benefits of blue light integration between the two services.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 32 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Mayors for CCA areas: financial matters
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 38, page 33, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) for and about alternative funding streams (including grants from the Secretary of State) for fire and rescue services if constraints on revenue-raising mean that there is a threat that fire and rescue safety standards may not be maintained in the area.”
This amendment enables the Secretary of State, in circumstances where mayoral revenue raising powers are insufficient for the provision of a safe Fire and Rescue service, to make alternative provision to fund the services, including a grant from the Secretary of State.
I think it is right to declare a number of things. First, North Yorkshire is in deep discussions about a devolution deal. We want to see that progress successfully, but at the same time we face a real challenge with our fire and rescue service. I want to talk about the reality of what we are debating, to ensure that we place it with the right safeguards, which are absolutely essential.
North Yorkshire was one of the first authorities in which the fire and rescue service combined with the police and crime commissioner function. At one point there were just four authorities in that position. Therefore, North Yorkshire has probably the best experience of how that combination works. I must say to the Minister that there have been some benefits from such a combination, such as cost savings, in particular arising from back office integration. That helps with public funding, which must be a positive because that is public money. However, when we look at the reality of what is happening now in the service, we have a very different story to tell.
My amendment is designed to keep the public safe and ensure that there is sufficiency in the service to retain sufficient fire appliances, to operate them safely and to have crew in the vicinity. This is about making sure that the funding flows work. Right now, I am expecting a meeting with the Home Secretary to discuss the matter. If the authority is devolved, I may be looking in a number of different directions to achieve the sufficient funding required to keep my community, and others, safe.
To highlight the challenges ahead of us, we are looking at the removal of night-time cover from Harrogate and Scarborough fire stations, as well as the removal of a second fire appliance. In my community, Huntington’s fire station may be pared back because of funding deficiencies. That means that response times will increase by seven minutes and 59 seconds—eight minutes of burning fire could cause a lot of damage. It is important to consider the issue in the context of today’s debate, because if it takes 16 minutes in total to reach a fire in my constituency, 31,000 residents will be impacted as a result of that change. That is quite significant.
Colleagues will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go into all the ins and outs of the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service, but the sufficiency of the service will be subject to constant challenge. We will be looking ever more at how we can share resources and integrate roles, but there comes a point when the very viability of the service is challenged, and the public is put at risk. That is the point we are at now. If we are to see this integrated into a devolution deal, the money will have to be ringfenced and the community safeguarded, or else we could see a disaster.
In North Yorkshire—this also applies to other Members’ constituencies—we have a mixture of urban and rural. The reality is that North Yorkshire is the biggest county by geographical area, which puts stress on the service. It is not all bad news. The Home Secretary came forward with a fix to this for eight authorities that had kept their reserves. They got additional flexibility around the precept and so were able to fully fund their services and have sufficiency and some headroom for protection. North Yorkshire had spent its reserves and so was not awarded that precept flexibility.
Because of the geographical nature of North Yorkshire, it is now just about the worst-funded fire authority in the country. If there is no flexibility from the Home Secretary and Government, the result is that my constituents’ lives will be put at risk. Their homes could burn. Across North Yorkshire it can get tinder dry at this time of year and we see fires breaking out. It could have a catastrophic impact and put firefighters at risk, as well as the environment and so much more. Who will be responsible for bailing out a service is a serious consideration. Because we will not have proper governance over the funding of the service, as it will be under the new authority, will we keep cutting and cutting, increasing the risk to the public and ultimately placing them in danger?
It is part of a devolution deal, whether the police and crime functions and fire and rescue come together in one role and how that will work out, but it is important to consider where that funding is going to come from. I am really concerned. That is why my amendment is so important. With the scale of the outstanding deficits, if we are going to pare back now, we will see increased energy costs, higher maintenance and issues around salaries, which have not yet been negotiated. The service needs new equipment, uniforms and insurance—the list goes on. That all has to come out of a zero balance. Therefore, being able to get the assurance that when there is devolution there will be sufficiency is going to be really important to ensuring that there are protections.
It could be argued that for a few years there will be greater cost savings. That could be the case, although I am not sure much more could be got out of the service. But the cuts in York, Scarborough and Harrogate will have a significant impact. In fact, only Cambridgeshire and Essex are now worse funded, and actually they have more reserves than North Yorkshire. That is the financial situation.
We need a resolve. The resolve comes in my amendment, which seeks to utilise the efficiency savings we can gain. That has clearly already been done—as has the back office shared facilities and the usual reserves. At that point, do we put the public at risk? Under a devolved authority, what we are talking about is the very homes we are trying to build being put at greater risk. That seems somewhat ironic within itself. Or do we provide that ring of protection around our fire and rescue essential service—emergency services, as we know it? Putting those constraints there is absolutely important.
My amendment would add one paragraph to the Bill. It highlights that if there are constraints around the funding, there will be means of revenue raising that will ensure that the safety standards are maintained in an area. That would essentially be either a grant or flexibility around the precept. That precept flexibility has already been exercised for eight authorities, so we know that is a mechanism that could be triggered. However, that was determined by Whitehall. If it is to be determined by a devolved authority, what would that look like, or will a Mayor have more opportunity in order to protect the community? I would like to understand how that would work functionally, and how we keep those communities safe.
Tim Farron
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We are the wettest bit of England. We need to be, because of the lakes—we have to keep them topped up. Nevertheless, Members will remember that in the past few months there were flash fires at Cartmel Fell, which raged for a full weekend and took many pumps to get under control. I am massively grateful to those who got those fires under control.
With that changing weather, we can go from very damp weather to very dry weather for long periods. In areas with lots of forestry and agriculture, there is the potential for flash fires, which can cause death and damage to wildlife, livestock, homes, businesses and families—human beings. We therefore need to be all the more aware of the fact that we cannot allow the technicalities of funding formulas to get in the way of keeping our people safe.
Neil O’Brien
I am extremely sympathetic to hon. Members campaigning on local services. I know that the Home Office has been engaging with the North Yorkshire fire and rescue service specifically on these issues. In 2022-23, the North Yorkshire fire and rescue authority will have core spending power of £33.5 million, which is an increase of £1.4 million or 4.5% compared with 2021-22. As of 31 March 2020, North Yorkshire held £4.9 million in resource reserves, equivalent to 60% of its 2020-21 core spending power. According to its draft 2020-21 accounts, total resource reserves increased by £8 million by 31 March 2021, an increase of £3.1 million or 62%. The issues that the hon. Member for York Central has raised, which are very important, are certainly being looked at.
Alex Norris
I promised the Committee a debate on alternative mayoral titles when we were talking about changing the names of county combined authorities, and I would never knowingly not keep a promise of such magnitude. I will be honest: I am not very excited by alternative mayoral titles, whatever the right hon. Member for Pudsey might say—not least because I have a lot of confidence in the collective wisdom of the British people. Being a proud Nottinghamian, I know that if someone were to become the Mayor of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and then pursue an alternative title that was too grand to befit their status, they would face significant judgment from some very straight-talking people. In the end, it would not work out well for them. I have confidence that title inflation is not something that the British people are likely to look at fondly.
I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I have three questions for the Minister. Frist, will he indulge us by letting us know what demand there is for alternative mayoral titles and what conversations he has had with communities that wish to have them? I understand that some demand might result from having different geographies and make-ups, and I am interested to hear about that.
Secondly, we had the first part of this debate when we discussed clause 15, which relates to county combined authorities changing their names. Clause 15(2)(c) has a requirement for the CCA to vote by a two-thirds supermajority for a change of name. Under clause 39(3)(c), the resolution to have an alternative mayoral title needs to pass with a simple majority. I did not have a lot of interest in the first proposed usage of the supermajority. A supermajority does have it uses, but only by exception. I am not sure that clause 15 makes a compelling case for one, but that has been disposed with. Why, however, has the Minister chosen to diverge in this way?
Finally, clause 39(2) provides a list of alternative titles, including county commissioner, county governor, elected leader and governor. Clause 39(2)(e) then introduces the possibility of having
“a title that the CCA considers more appropriate than the alternative titles mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d), having regard to the title of other public office holders in the area of the CCA.”
I read that as meaning “any other title”, essentially, but I am keen to hear from the Minister that that is what is meant.
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman is correct to read it as “any other title” that is locally wished for, having respect for the fact that there may be other people with such job titles in the area. He asked about where there is demand. A number of places that we are talking to about devolution deals are thinking about using non-mayoral titles, particularly in non-urban areas and where people feel that “Mayor” may not be the correct term for them. They may prefer leader, governor, commissioner or some of the titles that we have discussed.
I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would ask why a supermajority is required to change the name of the institution but not the title of the directly elected leader. The difference is that many people will have made legal contracts with a CCA, so changing it is a fundamental and non-trivial thing to do, because it would require lots of other consequential changes. We talked in a previous sitting about the need for the stability of the institution. This is a more novel and more experimental area. I do not expect that we would see lots of constant changing and chopping of the name of the directly elected leader, but we think that that is an important part of devolution.
Rachael Maskell
I have a further question about this measure and how we could end up with such a variety of names in different devolved areas: a county commissioner in one place might be a county governor, a governor, a Mayor, or who knows what we might end up with under subsection (3)(e). That could be more confusing for the public. We have already talked about a range of powers and a range of tiers; we now have a range of names, in a whole spectrum of shifting powers and accountabilities. Does the Minister believe this measure to be a necessary step? Does he recognise that it could lead to more confusion than trying to address the very issues he probably intended it to address originally?
Neil O’Brien
I believe it to be a necessary step in the Bill. In previous sittings, I set out that our particularism, our respect of local circumstances and our bespoke nature are features, not bugs, of our devolution agenda. This clause is a further part of that, making the title of the directly elected leader reflect the desires of local people and the history of the local area, and to fit in with local circumstances. It is therefore of a piece with the nature of how we are conducting the devolution agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Power to amend list of alternative titles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Bearing in mind the Minister’s answer that clause 39(2)(e) in essence allows any title to be chosen, if that is the will of the county combined authority, what is the necessity of this clause? It allows the Secretary of State by regulation to change the list of those potential titles. There is an argument to say that there is not much point to having them on the face of the Bill, if a CCA can just choose what they want anyway—but perhaps it is shaping the conversation, in which case I understand that. Given the powers for county combined authorities to choose any name they wish, I find it hard to understand any value in reserving the ability to change the list by regulation. That seems very much after the fact. I am surprised and wonder why the Minister is so keen on the clause.
Neil O’Brien
It is entirely to shape the conversation, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is to give a list of suggestions that may be appropriate, while also allowing others to go for different things if they consider that appropriate locally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Proposal for new CCA
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 42, page 38, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) prepare and publish a report setting out the results of the consultation.”
This amendment would require the authority or authorities submitting a proposal for a new Combined County Authority to make the results of the public consultation publicly available before submission.
Tim Farron
In looking forward to changes in the way in which local government will be organised in the future, we are bound to reflect on how things have been done in the past.
In Cumbria, we are working hard to ensure that the reorganisation to unitary authorities is a big success, and the early signs are positive. It is worth bearing in mind that there was a consultation, and that fewer than 1% of the public engaged with it. We can glean that the massive majority felt it was not necessary to reorganise local government in Cumbria. People in the southern part of Cumberland object to being lumped in with Westmorland and split from the rest of Cumberland, and people think we would be far better off with smaller units of local democracy. After all in Scotland, where it is an entirely unitary local government landscape, there are unitary authorities with as few as 17,000 people living in them. In England, there is no recognition of the similar rurality need for smaller authorities.
Many people also thought, “We are going through a pandemic, what a stupid time to be rearranging the deckchairs.” If there is a need for local government reorganisation they thought that surely now was not the time to do it. We are where we are, and we will make a success of it—we are determined to do. These are important amendments, because they remind us again that we need to scrutinise the motivation behind the Government’s proposals. Who are these proposals for? The Government are minded to reorganise local government to bring in new CCAs, Mayors and all the rest of it, but unless we are clear that the public want those changes and the Government are responding to that, it is yet more evidence that this approach to local government reorganisation is about fixing Whitehall’s desire for control and convenience, rather than about listening to local people anywhere in the country.
Neil O’Brien
We discussed in a previous sitting the new combined county authority model and the associated consultation requirements. At that time, I set out our commitment to ensuring that whenever a CCA is established, its boundaries change or, if it is being abolished, that the local public are consulted on the proposal.
Clauses 42 to 45 set out the requirements, including public consultation, associated with establishing, changing or dissolving a CCA. They include the preconditions for any regulations with those effects to be made. One such condition is for the area or CCA to undertake a public consultation on the proposal to establish, amend or dissolve a CCA. A summary of the consultation responses must be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the proposal, and the decision to submit it must be taken at CCA or council meetings, which are held publicly. As such, that summary of consultation results will be publicly available.
Another condition is the specific duty on the Secretary of State to consider whether, prior to making regulations, further public consultation is needed. Indeed, the absence of a public response to an earlier consultation might give rise to further consultation—that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. If the Secretary of State makes such regulations, they must publish an explanatory memorandum setting out the results of the public consultation. As a result, although we totally agree with the sentiment behind the amendments, they do not add anything to the requirements that are already provided for, and I hope that they will be withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the contributions that have been made by hon. Members. The points about accountability were absolutely right. We have seen a reorganisation of local government in North Yorkshire, and the districts were not supportive of it and felt that it was very much imposed from the centre. Being able to see the rationale and the thinking is important, and that is what these simple amendments would allow. I am happy to withdraw the amendment for now, but I reserve the right to bring it back at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 43
Requirements in connection with establishment of CCA
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 43, page 39, line 23, at end insert—
“(5A) When the Secretary of State makes regulations under this section they must publish an accompanying statement stating—
(a) whether or not the CCA has access to the fullest conferred powers, and
(b) if not, the reasons why not.”
I will be brief, because this is a counterpart conversation to discussions that we have had before. The amendment would enhance the clause by putting in a requirement to report on whether a combined county authority has access to the fullest conferred powers, and if not, an explanation for why. That would help the Government to maintain their stance in the White Paper, in which they seemed to want to offer such measures by 2030. It would perhaps be a positive step if we did that a little quicker.
Neil O’Brien
The amendment is not appropriate for two main reasons. First, it uses the term “fullest conferred powers”, which is undefinable and incalculable. Our devolution framework does not provide a minimum offer, and our local leadership mission and desire to deepen devolution mean there is no upper limit to the conferral of powers, nor should we seek to impose one.
Rachael Maskell
On a point of order, Sir Mark. Could the Minister speak a bit slower? I do not know whether it is the acoustics in the room, but I am finding it quite difficult to hear what he is saying.
Neil O’Brien
Are some people finding this not thrilling? That is absolutely outrageous—we are getting to the really exciting bits. I will try to enunciate better. It is perfectly reasonable that the hon. Lady asks me to do so.
It will be appropriate for different CCAs to have different functions due to the different circumstances and priorities in their areas. We have had that same argument a number of times in Committee. Whatever functions are to be conferred will be done by regulations, which will be considered by Parliament and cannot be made without parliamentary approval. In considering the regulations, to rehearse some of the points already made, Parliament will have an explanatory memorandum and other explanatory documents explaining why the powers are conferred, the views of the consultees and how the conferral meets the statutory test of improving economic, social and environmental wellbeing.
I hope that given those explanations, the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I got a little more than I bargained for. I admire the Minister’s characterisation of the Government’s devolution agenda as “incalculable”. I have some doubts about that. I argue that the Minister has set out quite defined and calculable strata in the White Paper, so I am slightly surprised that it would be impossible to know whether a combined county authority had the maximum powers. That is possibly a point of difference. We are in the strange position that our alignment with the White Paper is greater than the Government’s, but I am sure that point will come up again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
General power of CCA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tim Farron
I wonder if I could crowbar something in? Within the combined county authorities there will be housing powers. There is reference of course to a lack of borrowing powers, and I want to push back on that. On both sides of the House, we often talk about the chronic need to build more affordable and social rented homes. Many councils retain ownership of council housing, and I was pleased that one of the upsides of the new authority in Westmorland and Furness is that, because Barrow never got rid of its council houses, our new authority will have a council housing department. That is really positive.
I know that there are fingers on the public sector borrowing requirement, and there are reasons why the Government are reluctant to give authorities’ council housing departments the ability to borrow in order to build the homes we need, but that is clearly wrong. If the Government want to empower local communities to build the houses we desperately need, they are going to have to give housing authorities the power to borrow to build them.
Neil O'Brien
In general, the hon. Gentleman’s question takes us a bit beyond the scope of the clause. However, the narrower part of it, which connects up with the good question put by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, gives me an opportunity to explain what the clause does and does not do.
The clause does not give a combined county authority unbridled power. It gives it the power necessary to do anything it considers appropriate for the purposes of carrying out any of its functions—its “functional purposes” in the law. That might include undertaking a feasibility study as a preliminary stage to an infrastructure project. The clause sets out boundaries and limitations for a combined county authority’s exercise of its powers.
These are therefore broad powers, but there is still a requirement in law that they are related to the carrying out of its actual functions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Power to make provision supplemental to section 46
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 48, page 43, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from conferring different general powers on different CCAs.
Tim Farron
I add my support to Labour’s approach. I am not fixated on symmetry in terms of what devolution looks like across England, but like the hon. Member for York Central I am obsessed with symmetry of opportunity. The amendments would help to raise the bar and raise the expectations of all authorities so that they can see what powers they can aspire to.
If we do not have something like the amendments, and some communities, because they have a Mayor or for other reasons, are offered greater devolution—it is often more delegation than devolution—more powers and more responsibilities, that is not levelling up. It is quite the opposite: it is building privilege into some parts of the country over other parts of the country, and institutionalising privilege. Broadly speaking, it will be institutionalising privilege for urban and metropolitan areas that have city deals, Mayors and the highest levels of devolution and delegation of responsibility. Not allowing all parts of the country to opt in to having the greatest level of devolved powers, should they so choose, is a recipe for creating the need for a different kind of levelling up some time not very far in the future.
Neil O'Brien
This is indeed a continuation of the debate we have been having over several days now. We have stated our belief that one-size-fits-all arrangements of the type provided for by amendment 41 are antithetical to different areas having different functions and progressing at different speeds.
The effect of amendment 41 would be that, regardless of the functions conferred on different CCAs, unless the CCA has had conferred on it the broader general power of competence under clause 49, the conditions imposed on what can be done in pursuit of those functions will have to be the same. That would be an overly rigid approach, in practice requiring all CCAs to be at the same level before any conditions could be changed. That outcome, however unintentional, would not fit with our area-led and bespoke approach to devolution.
The general power of competence, introduced for local authorities by the Localism Act 2011, would allow a CCA to do anything an individual can do that is not prevented by law. For example, if a CCA does not have housing powers, the general power of competence would enable it to buy a house on the market, but it would not enable it to compulsorily purchase that house.
Amendment 42 would require the offer to all areas, implicit in this clause, to confer the general power of competence, if it is appropriate to their circumstance and if they want it, to be restated wherever it is so conferred. That requirement is unnecessary.
We have been clear that if a good case exists for any power to be conferred to any area as part of a devolution deal, we are open to proposals to do so that are in line with the devolution framework. Further, it could be unhelpful and inappropriate to be required to make an unconditional offer that might not be universally appropriate. To date, only three combined authorities have asked for this to be conferred, which we have done.
Both amendments seek to bind matters that should always be the subject of an individual agreement between the area and the Secretary of State, which Parliament will then have to approve. All variations will be public knowledge and the rationale for them will be subject to parliamentary debate informed by explanatory memorandums.
Rachael Maskell
I was very taken by the Minister’s comments about an area-led process. It does not feel like this is area-led; it feels Secretary of State-led—the Secretary of State will determine what the powers will be. Would the Minister consider an amendment that facilitated a more area-led approach at a later stage of the Bill? If there were a more à la carte opportunity and authorities were ready to take on greater powers and responsibilities, could they assume those powers, as opposed to having to renegotiate a deal, which could be quite a bureaucratic process? They could access what other authorities have accessed, in a timely way. Would that be a suitable amendment to the Bill that was palatable to the Government as we move forward?
Neil O'Brien
Without wishing to repeat all the arguments we have been making over the last several days, I would argue that this is the à la carte approach. We are resisting a one-size-fits-all approach in which, if a power is offered to one area, it must be offered to every single area, and in which people can move only at the speed of the slowest. For all the reasons I have already set out, we will continue to resist that approach.
Rachael Maskell
I do not think this is about a one-size-fits-all approach by any means. It is recognition that different authorities will be—
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Sir Mark. I was building my case, but I appreciate your guidance. I simply seek a different mechanism by which authorities could take on greater responsibilities, because it seems it is either full negotiation or a denial of being able to pick to expand. I wonder whether there is a halfway house that could be palatable to the Minister.
Neil O'Brien
As Members will have noticed from us having done six or seven devolution deals to continue to deepen deals we have agreed, and from the fact that we are working on deepening the devolution deals for the West Midlands and Greater Manchester Combined Authorities, we are prepared to go further all the time. That brings me to the end of my remarks.
Neil O'Brien
I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman. Clauses 50 to 54 are basically technical provisions needed to make the CCA model work. Clause 50 grants the Secretary of State the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision in support of regulations made under this chapter. I am happy to set out some examples for him in slow time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Guidance
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 52, page 45, line 16, leave out “may” and insert—
“must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on the establishment and operation of CCAs within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
We are about to reach the end of chapter 1 of part 2, which relates to the formulation and mechanics of combined county authorities. Much of what will pass in the rest of part 2 is consequential and not much to debate, so this will be the last opportunity to make some points. I did not want to miss that opportunity, particularly on guidance.
The discussions we have had, and the mechanics of the organisations as laid out by the Minister, show that the CCAs are fiddly entities. There is much to be established, with Mayors, deputies, changing geographies, changing names, police functions, fire functions and much more. As detailed in the White Paper, at least 10 places are foreseen as potential partners for combined county authorities, so there is likely much to be understood in guidance.
I hope that my amendment is not necessary. It changes the provision allowing the Secretary of State to give guidance to one compelling them to give guidance. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the intention is to have guidance, because clearly there will be a need. I have suggested “within 6 months” of Royal Assent. That is not something to fall out over, but I am keen for a commitment that guidance will follow and to know when it might do so.
Neil O'Brien
The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to issue written guidance about anything that could be done under or by virtue of chapter 1 of the Bill by a combined county authority, combined authority, county council, district council or integrated transport authority. The relevant authority must have regard to any guidance given in exercising any function under this chapter.
The amendment, as we understand its intent, is misplaced. The reference to guidance in the clause relates to the requirement for an authority to have regard to the guidance in exercising a function conferred or imposed by virtue of chapter 1. I can undertake that areas wishing to establish a CCA will be made familiar with the processes required of them during their devolution deal negotiation. We will help them to do all those things. Officials will continue to work closely with area officials to ensure the successful implementation of deals and the establishment of CCAs.
The Secretary of State has no immediate plans to issue guidance. The ability to do so via this clause provides maximum flexibility should the issuing of such guidance ever be appropriate. I hope that reassures hon. Members.
Alex Norris
I am a little surprised that the intention is to provide guidance in a kind of ad hoc manner directly from officials to area officials. It would seem to me valuable for that to be a common and publicly shared thing, not least so that the public can understand it and get the sense that these processes are being done transparently, rather than in phone calls that they do not have access to. I am a bit surprised by that. I will not labour the point by pressing for a Division, but perhaps the Minister will reflect on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Capital finance risk management
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Neil O'Brien
The Government recognise the importance of prudential borrowing and local capital investment for economic growth, improved public services, and meeting local priorities such as housing delivery. That is why we need a robust system that supports the benefits of local decision making and allows for sensible investment, but also that safeguards taxpayers’ money and protects the local government finance system.
In recent years, a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive risks with taxpayers’ money: they have become too indebted, or have made investments that have proved too risky. To give some examples, local authorities have engaged in investment activities in markets they know nothing about, such as energy companies, and lost tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Some have not had the governance structures in place that would enable them to make, or assure themselves of, investment and borrowing decisions. Some have borrowed up to £1 billion when they have only had a core spending power of just over £10 million, and others have not set aside funds to pay off their debt when it becomes due. The National Audit Office reported that 20.8% of local authorities’ property acquisitions in the period 2016-17 to 2018-19 were outside of their region. In summary, there have been a number of problematic activities, which clause 71 seeks to address. The Government have been consistent and clear in their messaging that they will take action to address such activities as needed.
The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee have reported on the risks to the financial system, and the need for urgent action to address them. The Government are making changes to the capital system to support good decision making and constrain risk, but they must also have the powers to directly address excessive risk where necessary and appropriate. The changes will provide a flexible range of interventions for the Government to investigate and remediate issues where capital practices have placed financial sustainability at risk.
To be clear, the Government have no intention of restricting the activities of local authorities that operate responsibly. We are clear that measures must be as targeted and proportionate as possible to protect local services and taxpayers, while letting the Government mandate remedial actions where needed.
However, as the examples I have given show, the need for action is pretty clear. The metrics and thresholds that will underpin the new powers will be set in regulations, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, and we will of course engage with sector experts and local authorities and consult widely as we develop those regulations to ensure they are fit for purpose. That is exactly our intention, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, and it is why I hope the Committee will support the clause.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, and for the oblique references he included in it—there was a well left Easter egg, which I was able to find very easily. In return, I might say—equally obliquely—that if such local authorities had not been more than £60 million worse off in real terms over the past four years, some of those decisions might not have been made. I also say that such concerns have not stopped Ministers in the Department, or indeed the Minister himself, from seeking to bestow more powers and resources on those local authorities, so there must be some limit to the concern that the Minister would have in such cases, were they to occur. I would also suggest that significant mechanisms are already in place, as the Minister has hinted at and as I know very well myself.
However, the Minister has given a generous assurance, one that will be welcomed by the sector, which will be very keen to take part in that process. On that basis, we are happy to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Long-term empty dwellings: England
Rachael Maskell
I rise to support amendments 61, 62 and 63 and speak to amendments 78 and 81. The rural economy has been eloquently described, but I want to talk about my city of York, which is a centre for visitors—we had 8 million pre-pandemic and I am sure we will climb back up to that number again.
The staycation economy has driven a new clientele into our city. In what we are calling an “extraction economy”, investors from London and the south-east are purchasing properties as second homes—whether for private or Airbnb use. Already we can see the inequality building. What is happening is not levelling up. Investors are extracting not only properties from people in my city but the money they get from the properties, which goes back to London and the south-east.
We are left all the poorer, and that means that many in my community are without any housing whatever. In fact, people have been going door to door offering cash to residents in social housing. They say that if the residents purchase their homes under right to buy, they will buy the house from them. I have heard stories of people paying up to £70,000 more for a property that is then used in the investment economy, rather than for people in our city.
The housing crisis could be controlled if the Government put curbs on such activity and ensured that properties were not only developed—we will come to that—but were available for people locally. I have the same challenge to the local economy that we have already heard about in this debate. The hospitality, retail and tourism industry is so strong in York that we do not have enough people to work in it—not least because the pay is low. The overpricing of properties is heating up the market and then pushing people out. |On top of that, there is the problem of the reduction in available stock.
The issue also impacts our public services. We cannot get the social care staff or recruit to our NHS because there is nowhere to live. Families and young couples trying to buy their first home save up for their mortgage, only for that opportunity to be snatched by someone sweeping in and buying up the property. They are having to save up more and more but never realise their aspiration of owning a home.
We are beyond a crisis point: this issue is impacting on the economy, pushing families away, gobbling up residential housing for purposes for which it was not developed in the first place, and destroying communities and the infrastructure. People can now walk down streets in York where four, five or six properties are either second homes or holiday lets, and that, of course, is breaking up the community.
The worst situations that I am hearing about are of families pushed out of the city by section 21 notices. They have to take their children out of school and go to live miles away. What is happening across our communities is really destructive, so we need to put the right deterrents in place. We may have to go further than even these amendments are calling for to try to fix the challenge.
I would argue that a council tax rise of 200% or 300% in the first instance is a modest measure. Wales is the first place to have introduced this kind of rise in council tax, but it still has not been sufficient to deter people from purchasing second homes in Wales. Often the purchasers are asset-rich people who saved a lot of money during the pandemic, so having to pay an additional £3,000 or £4,000 a year is something they build into their costings. Those who go into other sorts of property—for example, leasehold property—are already paying thousands of pounds a year in management costs for the right to live in the property, so actually these are small measures compared with the excesses and headroom that the purchasers of these properties are expecting. The measures will provide resources for local government, for which this is a win-win—both getting the money in and creating a sufficient deterrent. That is why we should give local authorities the powers to decide, should they have need, to impose the additional levy on second homes and ensure that it works for their community. Of course, we would argue that local authorities do not have to do that, but having the option available is important.
Amendment 78 is about how to better determine the duration of occupancy that applies, taking it down from one year to six months. The housing market is moving fast at the moment, so this option should be considered as a way to address the issue far faster, especially in properties that are not primary residences, and to benefit the community by deterring the purchase of second homes. Pacing it, making the increased council tax not mandatory but optional, is really important. Shortening the timescale is appropriate.
Clauses 72 and 73 provide definitions around empty properties. We know that there has been some latitude in how that has worked for businesses that have emptied their property to avoid business rates, but it also works for residential dwellings. It is important that we maximise the opportunity to bring the properties forward and implement the curbs and protections needed in the local area.
Amendment 81 would enable a billing authority to make its determination in six months, rather than a year, so that the authority could see the financial award in-year. That will be important to balancing finances while giving local authorities enough revenue to inspect the properties to determine whether they are occupied or unoccupied, which will enable them to ensure that they get the right levy on the properties to pay the additional council tax for which the amendments call.
Neil O'Brien
I am sympathetic to many of the points made by Opposition Members. The Bill tightens the tax treatment of empty second homes to free up those homes for use by the community. The question is one of balance, of course.
Broadly speaking, the amendments would make the premium paid on second or empty homes more punitive. I absolutely understand the issues that the amendments raise, but they risk unintended consequences for our communities. For both second and empty homes, the amendments would shorten the time before a premium could be applied, and increase or bring forward the maximum that the council could choose to impose. We all want homes to make a positive contribution to the community, but we need to get the balance right between dissuading behaviours that none of us want to see and accidentally catching legitimate uses of properties that benefit communities. The Government believe that homeowners should have sufficient time to take steps to bring an empty property back into use. There is no hard and fast rule for calculating that period, but our judgment is that 12 months gets that balance right. A reduction to six months, as proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, would create a number of challenges where there are very good reasons for a property being empty for a reasonable period, such as substantial refurbishment or a delayed sale. Often, family life is complicated, hence our judgment that 12 months gets the balance right.
For the same reason, an empty property has different impacts on the local community, depending on why and for how long it has been out of use. The Government believe it is appropriate to allow councils to increase the council tax premium in stages that reflect the length of time a property has been left empty, rather than imposing it immediately at the six-month point. We understand and sympathise with the point that a high concentration of second homes can hollow out communities, but they can also benefit local economies and tourism, allowing people to work in and contribute to the local economy and return to a family home in another part of the country.
Neil O’Brien
I will give way in a moment, but I will make some progress first. We have already introduced a higher level of stamp duty for the purchase of second homes, and the Bill could double the council tax bill for those properties, providing additional council tax income for councils to invest in local services and communities. We are investing £11.5 billion in the affordable homes programme, delivering up to 180,000 affordable homes. The Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to adjust the level of the second homes premium in the future, but we need to see the impact and assess the evidence before considering different arrangements in the council tax system.
Wales has been mentioned a couple of times. So far, only three authorities in Wales are using the 100% premium, and the 300% premium will start only next spring. The hon. Member for York Central said that it was not a sufficient deterrent to stop purchases. The truth is that we do not yet know that because it has not come into effect. We do not know how many authorities will use it and what its effects will be. She talked about these being small measures, but it is useful to talk about what it means in cash terms—pounds, shillings and pence. If, in a place like North Norfolk, we took a typical council tax band D property at roughly £2,000, going to a 300% second homes premium would mean a council tax bill each year of £8,120. In Scarborough, it would mean a bill of £8,386. In South Lakeland, it would be £8,242, and somewhere like Dorset it would mean an annual bill of £9,160. These are not trivial sums of money, and it is right for us to consider the impact of the initial measures of the 100% precept before we decide to go further.
Tim Farron
We are contemplating radical measures, and we are dealing with a catastrophe. We are doing our very best—surely we should be—to get the stable door shut before all the horses bolt, and if we ponder and contemplate our navels any longer, there will no horses—no community—left whatever. The problem will have solved itself by fulfilling the terrible prophesy of where I fear we are heading. If the Minister is taking this incremental, cautious approach, might he consider letting national parks be the pilots? I have asked both the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District national parks. They are both up for it. They would bite his hand off if he offered them the opportunity through their constituent local authorities to double or triple council tax on second homes just within their own boundaries.
Neil O’Brien
My fellow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, is doing roundtables to explore the different possibilities on that point. I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says about the scale of the problem. We are seized of it, and there are multiple things we are looking at to tackle it. On the numbers I read out, if someone has a £9,000 council tax bill for a band D property—never mind an expensive fancy property—that is a non-trivial sum of money. That is quite a lot of money for a band D property.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Gentleman says, “brilliant”, but the people who made a long-term commitment to those communities and who face a £9,000 tax bill would be unlikely to have the same reaction. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, they are one local stakeholder, and there are others as well.
However, as the hon. Gentleman says, they are one local stakeholder, and there are others as well. Our argument, which I think he understands, is that although we will have the powers in the Bill to go further and to do the 300%—we will not need to legislate again—it is sensible to look at the effects of things before making further adjustments. [Interruption.] I think he is keen to speak before I turn to amendment 63.
Tim Farron
I simply want to say that a large sum of money would act as a disincentive, and given the crisis that it would tackle, it is worth considering; it is worth looking at pilots to do this in the first place.
Neil O'Brien
I think the hon. Gentleman has in a sense answered his own question, in so far as there are indeed multiple policy tools that we can use to tackle something that we regard as a very serious issue. We are absolutely seized of the fact that, in particular parts of the country, there are hotspots that need action.
I think hon. Members have heard the argument that I have set out. On this issue, we will have the power to go further in the Bill—even further than we are already going, which is pretty far—but we would like to see the evidence and make our plans in the light of evidence, rather than simply jump to that now, given the large sums of money involved.
Turning to amendment 63—
Neil O'Brien
I will just get on to amendment 63 first. Second homes are furnished properties for domestic use by someone who has their main home elsewhere. Owners may occasionally let that property out, but second homes are primarily for personal use. I think I understand what the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to get at with these amendments—he is thinking, I think, of some of the changes to use classes, and things like that, which happened in Wales. Again, that is something that we are actively looking at. It is a serious thing to look at.
On this amendment, there is a blurring of two different things. The hon. Member is bringing in questions about how long a second home can be let out before it should be treated as a business. He will be aware that, at present, where an owner intends to let their property out for short periods, totalling at least 140 days in the coming year, it will generally be treated as a holiday let and liable for non-domestic rates. Properties liable for non-domestic rates would not be in the scope of the second homes council tax premium. I therefore think there was a blurring of those two different things.
Alternatively, the hon. Member may be seeking to increase the thresholds under which a property is treated as a holiday let. Following consultation, the Government have recently taken action to strengthen those thresholds. From April 2023, holiday lets must have been rented out for at least 70 days in the previous year, on top of being advertised for 140 days, to be liable for non-domestic rates. The amendment does not change that, so I am not sure that it has the effect the that the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Additionally, the recent consultation on a similar proposal in Wales demonstrated that there is a real risk that genuine self-catering businesses, making an important contribution to local economies, may not be able to meet the new higher thresholds. I am sure that is something none of us would wish to see.
Broadly, the new rules coming into force in April in England strike a balance between requiring proof of letting and marketing and protecting genuine businesses in a variety of different circumstances. There are, of course, a wide variety of circumstances. We are providing for holiday lets operating in a range of different circumstances, not just those in the most popular tourist destinations. Our rules also provide for new businesses—those just getting going—rural lets, and those with more restricted letting seasons, while protecting the system against possible abuse. We will of course keep those thresholds under review, but we should understand the impact of the forthcoming changes before we take any further action.
To summarise, we are sympathetic to many of the points that have been made and we are taking action in this Bill on many of those points. On some of the points, we will have the powers to go further, but before doing that we will want to look at the evidence. On other issues, although we are looking at the boundaries between the short-term let and the second home, we think there are probably different and better ways to get into those subjects than the amendments. We therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, notwithstanding the fact that we are actively looking at many of those issues.
Rachael Maskell
I am sorry that the Minister did not take my interventions, because I had some points to make in response to his speech. First, on the assumption that the properties used as second homes are in band D, many are in band B, and therefore will be paying £1,440 in council tax. The sums he talks about could be about half, if not more.
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Lady should recognise that that is symmetrical—some of the properties will above band D; therefore the numbers will be much higher even than the £8,000 to £9,000 figures I have been quoting.
Rachael Maskell
I am talking about the impact that is having on my city of York. Many of those properties are in band B—they are smaller properties that people purchase because available properties are few and far between. Even if it was band D, we are only talking about £1,852.45 council tax. It will vary across the country, and that is why giving more powers to local authorities to make those choices is important. The financial deterrent in York will not be there with 100% council tax. As a result, those properties will continue to be purchased and the measures will have little impact. That is why it is important that the Minister has an understanding of the breadth of challenges faced in different communities.
I am looking forward to the Housing Minister coming to York for a roundtable to look at the Airbnb situation. We have specific issues and it is about the pace with which they are occurring, in a holiday destination. That is why the pilot should not just be in rural areas but in cities that are holiday destinations, because it is having a massive impact. There needs to be a bit more reality in the Government’s analysis.
The other point that I wanted to take up with the Minister in an intervention was the benefit to tourism. I would like to see the evidence of that, and to know the basis on which he made that statement. In York we now have an unregulated tourism market, versus a regulated tourism market of the traditional B&Bs and guesthouses that are losing trade at such a rate that they are going out of business. That is having a negative and incredibly destructive impact on our tourism industry. These measures will not provide sufficient deterrence against the impact on our city.
I appreciate that the Minister’s analysis may be in particular areas of the country, but it will not touch our city. That is why I urge him to carry out more research and to understand the different impacts on different communities in the country. We need to ensure that my local authority has the ability to put the right deterrent in place at the right level in order to deter this extraction economy that is, bit by bit, destroying the context and fabric of our city, our industries and people and families. For that reason, I urge the Minister to reconsider.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 12th July 2022
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 July 2022 - (12 Jul 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
Before we begin, I have some preliminary announcements. Please keep electronic devices on silent mode. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during Committee sittings. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if hon. Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 72
Long-term empty dwellings: England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and our predecessors on the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), all of whom did a huge job to bring the Bill to where it is today. Through their diligent work, we are debating a Bill which will help to level up across the country.
Committee Members will be familiar with the challenge in many areas, whereby homes are left empty while local families are struggling to find a home close to their jobs or families, due to the pressures on local housing supply. It cannot be right that there are families left without an affordable home when there are owners not doing their best to bring their properties back into productive use for the benefit of the community. The Government are taking action to encourage those empty properties back into use. The longer a property is empty, the more likely it is to deteriorate and attract antisocial behaviour such as vandalism or squatting, which can reduce the value of properties and drive away the local communities. That is why we have introduced powers for councils to charge extra council tax on homes left empty for more than two years.
In 2018, we introduced a stepped approach so that councils can increase the premium depending on the length of time the property has been empty. Councils now have the power to charge up to four times the amount of the standard council tax bill when a home has been empty for more than 10 years. Nearly every council already makes use of the empty homes premium. I welcome the creative ways in which some councils use these powers to stimulate better use of the housing stock in their areas—for example, by providing refurbishment grants to bring empty homes to the standard for renting out, or conversion grants to help pay for converting a large empty home into smaller units. Why should councils wait two years before they have the power to take action to bring empty homes back into use? Through the Bill, we will give councils the power to apply the 100% premium on properties left empty after one year, rather than the current two years.
Clause 72 makes a simple change to section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It will change the definition of “long-term empty dwelling” from meaning a dwelling that has been unoccupied, and substantially unfurnished, for more than two years, to one that has been unoccupied, and substantially unfurnished, for at least 12 months. To ensure that the change is implemented rapidly, but also provides sufficient opportunity for homeowners who may be affected to take steps to avoid the charge, subsection (2) provides that the amended definition has effect for financial years beginning on or after 1 April 2024. The clause will strengthen the powers for local councils to take action to incentivise owners to bring empty properties back into use, address the impacts of empty homes and help to increase the supply of affordable housing where it is needed. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to serve with new members of the Committee. Perhaps it should be of concern that your predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), sat in the Chair for a number of our sessions, but the idea of just one more seemed less preferable than entering Government. That may be a sign of what is to come between now and the end of September. In all seriousness, we welcome the Ministers to their place and we look forward to working with them.
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough and the right hon. Member for Pudsey for their efforts and communications with the shadow ministerial team inside and outside Committee. They worked very collegiately, which we appreciated, and I think that has been reflected in the quality of the debate so far, and the good spirits. We are here to disagree on points of substance, but are able to do so in good humour, and I know that that will continue with the new Ministers. I also thank the Whip, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for enabling us to work together. I am sad that the new Ministers have missed out on those weeks of debate, which were largely composed of speeches from me. I am happy to start again if they wish—or perhaps not; those who have heard them seem to be moving further and further away, so perhaps I should take that as my cue to move on.
I am glad that the Minister is choosing to address the clause stand part debate, because it is an important part of the legislative process. When law is put on to the statute book, Ministers ought to make a case for it, so we appreciate his contribution. Given today’s development, I hope that the Minister may be able to offer one more. The continued absence of an impact assessment needs to be addressed. According to the Minister’s own words, the Bill is an important piece of legislation that will help to level up the country. At the moment, we do not have much of a base to build that case on, so we would be keen to see the impact assessment. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Clause 72 is important because we are currently in a severe housing crisis, with a lack of supply of affordable homes for young people and no opportunities for families to get on the property ladder. Coupled with that, long-term empty dwellings are sat idly by, serving no purpose. It is right that the Government want to act, and we support the clause. However, we feel that it is a missed opportunity and that even the Bill will not give local authorities sufficient tools to get a grip of the situation and protect their local communities. We should have gone further with a power to levy a greater empty homes premium and to close the loophole through which properties are pushed into the business rates category—or slid into it—to avoid council tax. The Government should revisit that issue. I know that the Minister will have a full inbox, so he does not need to look far for inspiration. The Welsh Government seem streets ahead of the UK Government with their current policies. It is not a matter on which to divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will revisit the issue at a later stage, because we certainly will.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your oversight and chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I offer a huge welcome to the new Ministers. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Pudsey and the hon. Member for Harborough. The debate in Committee has indeed been consensual, collegiate and courteous, and I am sure that is how it will continue. It is a privilege to be on the Opposition side of the room and to join in the important endeavour of scrutinising this important Bill.
When it comes to communities like mine, it is worth bearing in mind that long-term empty dwellings—properties that are not used at all—are a challenge. In my district of South Lakeland, we have something in the region of 900 to 1,000 of such properties at any given time. It is likely that there are between seven and 10 times as many properties not lived in, but classified as second homes. If the Government are committed to retrieving properties that are out of permanent usage, and which are effectively displacing local people and the local workforce, empty homes are important, but not nearly as important as tackling the excessive second home ownership problem in communities such as the lakes and the dales. We look forward to discussing those issues when we consider later amendments today.
Mr Jones
First, I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his very kind welcome. I look forward to working with him and his fellow shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, in a good spirit. I suspect that we may not agree on everything as the Bill goes through the House, but I am confident that we will work together with a good spirit, both in Committee and outside.
In response to a couple of the points that have been made, I know that the impact assessment has been a concern. It will be provided shortly, and I would certainly expect that to be the case before the conclusion of the Committee’s proceedings. I hope that we will provide it as soon as we can.
On Wales, we have already given councils the power to apply a 300% premium to properties that have been empty for more than 10 years. That is part of our stepped approach to increasing the level of premium the longer the property remains empty. What we propose strikes the right balance between providing an incentive to bring empty properties back into use while recognising more challenging cases in which owners are taking action to have property suitable for accommodation within that time frame.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his kind welcome. I do not disagree with his point about the challenges in many areas, especially those that have a strong tourist economy. I am sure that we will debate those challenges when we come to the next set of amendments. It is good to hear his comments, and that the ministerial team are thinking about that issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Dwellings occupied periodically: England
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 73, page 81, line 30, after “dwelling” insert
“for six months or longer per year”.
This amendment seeks to further define how long a property must be empty for to be described as occupied periodically.
Tim Farron
I also agree that the amendments are helpful, and I urge the Government to seriously consider them. There is no doubt in my mind that although the housing crisis is one of supply, the supply that we have is distorted. We live in a strange world in which property is seen more as an investment than places for people to live and have homes. That is the way the market is, but if the market is broken, surely we have to intervene.
Levelling up is an interesting phrase and concept—one that I personally believe in—but we have to understand carefully what drives the absence of opportunity that we are trying to tackle. Housing, more than any other issue that the Government will consider through the Bill, is the cornerstone. There are challenges in every part of our country, so there will need to be an acknowledgment that the market is distorted and broken, and that it will therefore need radical intervention if we are to make best use of the properties we have and maximise opportunities for everybody, in every part of this country.
Empty dwellings—as distinct from second homes and holiday lets—are a challenge. I mentioned that they are a big problem in my community, although not as big a problem as second homes and holiday lets. Properties are empty for a range of reasons, some of which are perfectly understandable, others less so. Having time limits is wise, as is ensuring that homes are effectively monitored. Using fiscal measures—fines, taxation and so on—to encourage people and focus their minds to make the best use of the property they own is also wise.
I encourage Ministers to make the available tools easier to use. They include empty dwelling management orders, which basically allow local authorities to requisition an empty home and turn it into a social rented property. I have seen that work in my own community, but it is hard to do. Such orders are valuable, because a property can be brought back into usage—it effectively becomes a social rented property under the control of the local authority for seven years—but they are most useful because they act as a warning shot to other landlords and show what might happen to them if they do not make good use of their properties. The problem is that the process is lengthy, laborious, expensive and difficult. I encourage Ministers to look carefully at beefing up that existing provision by ensuring that councils can use it more readily.
We want to build more genuinely affordable homes for people, but it is just as important that we made good use of properties that already exist by turning them into formal homes. That is a no-brainer, really. As far as I am aware, empty dwelling management orders are not addressed in the Bill, but I would love it if the Government considered beefing them up and making them more easily accessible, which would draw more homes back into use for local communities.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for her kind welcome to the Committee. It sounds as though I am likely to hear a great deal about York Central—somewhere I am not a stranger to, having been there to present a high streets award to Bishy Road some years ago, in the dim and distant past when I was last a Minister in this Department.
The Government’s proposal for a second homes premium makes clear the situations in which a council may quite properly apply a premium. Those situations are, first, that a property is substantially furnished—distinguishing it from empty property dwellings that may more properly be subject to the empty homes premium—and secondly, that there must be no resident of the property. For the purposes of council tax, a resident is someone who has their sole or main residence in the dwelling. In that case, the resident would pay the council tax normally due on that dwelling as essentially it would be their main home. They would not be subject to a premium as it is their sole or main residence.
Owners of second homes may well occupy those properties during the course of the year, and how much use they make of them will vary depending on circumstances. It may be that the hon. Member’s amendment is to enable the premium to be applied only when the homeowner does not use the property for more than six months a year. If that is the case, it might be helpful to set out how councils already determine what is and is not a second home.
Councils already make judgments as to whether an individual’s property is their sole or main residence and, by default, what might be a second home. That is because they want to be satisfied that any discounts or exemptions are applied correctly and to the right property. In making a judgment on whether a property is a sole or main residence, councils will reflect on legislation and case law and take into account a range of factors including where the person is registered with a doctor, where they are registered to vote and the occupancy of the property.
Given those established processes for assessing what is a second home, I do not believe that a further restriction on the definition of properties that may be subject to a premium is needed. In addition, the assessment of whether a property is a second home will take into account a number of factors and not just the period of occupation. A reference to the number of days may well preclude treatment of the property as a second home when other factors suggest that, in effect, it is being used as a second home. The amendment could result in a reduction in the number of second homes liable for the premium.
Amendment 80 would mean that, where the property has a tenant for more than six months, the premium would not apply. Council tax is usually paid by the occupants of the property and, in cases where a tenant is occupying the property as their sole or main residence, the tenant would be liable for that council tax, not the property owner. Therefore, no premium would be due.
The premium is not aimed at properties that are let out to a tenant as they will be somebody’s sole or main residence. It is right that a second homes premium should not apply to such properties. With those clarifications, I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the considerations given in this debate, and I am sure that the Minister, knowing Bishy Road, will look forward to getting to know other parts of York. He made an interesting point about the definition of a second home. Later we will look at some of those issues, which our constituents are rightly asking about, because when people do not have homes, they ask a lot of questions about housing. Questions are being asked in particular about unoccupied dwellings, which we are considering here.
The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, was right to highlight the fact that many empty dwellings can be targets for antisocial behaviour. In drawing out that important point, he also set out the reason to focus on that and disincentivise it. Empty dwelling management orders can be used effectively. Newham Council is probably the local authority that has used them to best effect, by taking properties and turning them into social housing. However, the legislation is clunky and the processes are slow. I would welcome it if we looked at how to use that legislation. In the light of this debate and those to come, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that we will return to this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tim Farron
This, too, is a welcome amendment. It is also a reminder to us all that if we are to take the radical action needed to make the best use of the properties we have in this country, so that we can underpin communities, particularly those such as mine in the Lakes and the Dales in Cumbria, we will have to be wise in ensuring that the radical measures in the Bill are actually enforced. For example, I can think of countless properties in Cumbria with a local occupancy clause on them that are currently being advertised as Airbnbs. I see that the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority recently made great strides forward, making it clear that new properties to be built within the national park must all be for 100% permanent occupancy. I do not think the authority has the power to enforce that, but the fact that it is showing that leadership is something we should massively welcome.
There will be a whole industry built around trying to create loopholes and get around any mechanisms—those either already in the Bill or that might come into it—to control excessive second home ownership, numbers of holiday lets and the presence of unused, empty properties, so we must be savvy and wise, and prevent that. Not all of that will be about the right legislation; it will also be about the right commitment to funding.
The Government talk about funding levelling up and putting money into projects that may involve construction, and so on. That is absolutely right. It is a great use of money—and will probably cost less money—to invest better in planning departments and to make sure we have the quality and the numbers of people to get out there and police the regulations that already exist and those we hope will come in through the Bill.
There is no point having the power in theory to maintain a permanent population in our towns and villages if we cannot enforce that. At the moment, the evidence before our eyes, certainly in Cumbria, is that we are unable to ensure adequate enforcement. The Government must invest, and it would be a wise investment, as it would rescue many homes for local communities to underpin the local workforce.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for the thought that has gone in to her amendment. I am sure we all agree about the importance of ensuring that people play by the rules and provide accurate information to allow councils to issue the correct council tax bills, and also that when people do not do the right thing, councils can take the appropriate steps.
The proposed amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to create new offences, punishable by a fine, in relation to the submission of occupancy information. I completely understand the objectives of such a measure. However, I assure the hon. Member that existing powers already enable councils to take appropriate action where there is evidence that the individual has taken steps to avoid payment of the premium. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 already provides powers for councils to issue penalties to a person who fails to provide information requested to identify who is liable for council tax on a dwelling, or knowingly supplies information that is inaccurate. In addition, where false representation is made dishonestly for gain, the Fraud Act 2006 may well apply.
I share the hon. Member’s concerns about ensuring that evidence of wrongdoing is tackled and that councils have appropriate powers, and I have described those that already exist. However, if we do become aware of evidence of an underlying problem that cannot be covered by the powers that I have set out, the Secretary of State does have powers to make regulations to create powers for councils to require information and to create offences for a failure to provide information or for providing false information. We have already used those powers in connection with information for local council tax support schemes. We would be able to use them again if evidence were provided that the application of the premium was being frustrated by misinformation that could not be tackled by the existing powers. I trust that, with the assurances that I have described, the hon. Member for York Central will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the measures that are already available to local authorities, in particular under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Fraud Act 2006, and the opportunity to exercise those powers in relation to this set of circumstances. The advice to all people seeking to register their property is to ask for advice from the local authority to ensure that their property is within the right council tax band, and there would then be no need for such measures.
However, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is absolutely right when he talks about loopholes: I have no doubt that individuals will be examining the Bill for such loopholes to exploit. Our responsibility is to close loopholes as we debate the legislation, because we do not want to be back discussing the same measures, when we had the opportunity to bring about change. However, I am satisfied with what the Minister has set out today, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
I will deal with the two amendments in turn. With amendment 83, the hon. Member for York Central’s desire is to ensure that those people who inherit property are not unduly penalised by the rapid imposition of a second homes premium. I will set out what happens with council tax liability when the owner of a property passes away and leaves it empty. Such a property is exempt from council tax as long as it remains unoccupied and until probate is granted. Following a grant of probate, a further six-month exemption can be provided, so long as the property remains unoccupied and the ownership has not been transferred. There are already strong protections in place.
Amendment 83 proposes that in addition to those protections, the property should be exempt from any potential second homes premium for a period of at least two years. A premium would only apply if the property was not someone’s sole or main residence, and if it was furnished. I understand the hon. Member for York Central’s concern. I hope that she will be reassured that the Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from application of the premium. We will reflect on the points that she made and consider whether to consult on potential exemptions to the premium.
Amendment 84 appears to suggest that someone purchasing a second home that requires some improvement should be able to benefit from an exemption for at least one year. While I fully support homeowners investing in their main or second homes by renovating and improving them, I am unclear as to why such work on second homes should benefit from an exemption to the premium. The premium would only apply if a property was furnished. If it required substantial rebuilding work, it seems unlikely that the property would be furnished. In that case, a second homes premium would not be due in any case since the property would not meet the definition in the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for the points he is making. It is possible to be in a situation where part of the property was furnished because that is not the area where dilapidation has occurred, but part of it is unfurnished because it needs, for example, a new roof or an extension. There is a situation where there is furnishing, but the property is still unoccupied due to renovation work.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. It seems clear to me that that property would be partly furnished, but not be occupied by the owner. It would therefore still constitute a second home—that is the argument I am making.
On amendment 84, the hon. Lady gave the example of the roof not being on a property. If a property were not in a fit state for habitation and required substantial work to bring it into a reasonable state, it is quite possible that the Valuation Office Agency would consider a request to remove the property from the council tax list, thereby removing its liability for council tax.
I hope I have been able to clarify my understanding of amendment 84, and I hope that with my reassurances the hon. Lady will withdraw both her amendments.
Rachael Maskell
I welcome the debate we have just had. For the record, I think it is important that we take forward discussions around these issues and understand the challenges our constituents in sensitive circumstances are facing. The Minister’s response on the powers that local authorities already have until probate is granted was helpful and gives us the opportunity to reflect on that issue. It would be my sincere hope that local authorities will be able to work with families who are bereaved to give them the support they need to dispose of a property in a timely way.
On the dilapidation of properties, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was absolutely right to highlight some of the workforce challenges currently facing the construction industry. We know the Government are making many demands on that depleted workforce, which is taking time to recover and has many challenges pressing down on it. We simply do not have the labour supply to address the multiple demands being placed on construction and maintenance. Even the timescales I suggested in the amendment could be challenged due to that demand on the industry.
The Minister’s comments on the role the Valuation Office Agency can play in removing a property from the council tax list during a period of renovation were quite helpful. I am sure they will be well heard by people in those circumstances, but I think I am perhaps just scarred from growing up in a property where we had a tarpaulin roof for many a winter, and living under it posed real challenges. The suggestions the Minister has made and the direction he has shown through his comments to the Committee have been helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 73 contains a power for councils to introduce a council tax premium on second homes. We recognise that second homes can benefit local economies and the tourism sector. Second homes can also provide flexibility to enable people to work in and contribute to the local community, while being able to return to a family home in another part of the country on a regular basis. However, the Government understand the concerns that large numbers of second homes, particularly where they are concentrated in a small area, can have a negative effect on the vitality and viability of local communities.
A large number of second homes impacts on the size of the permanent population who help to generate the demand needed for their local services the year round. It creates a hollowing-out effect. The local schools have insufficient pupils to remain open. The local buses do not have enough passengers to maintain the service. The village pubs and post offices do not have the customers to sustain them through the year. These are all arguments that many Members are familiar with and have made to the Government.
The risk is clear that, without action, some communities will become increasingly unviable as local services close due to a lack of a permanent year-round population. The Government are not prepared to stand by and watch that happen. We are investing £11.5 billion in the affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 180,000 affordable homes.
We have introduced a higher level of stamp duty on the purchase of second homes. The clause supports that by providing new powers for councils to apply a premium of up to 100% extra council tax on second homes. The use of that premium will be discretionary, and it will be for councils to exercise their own judgment as to whether to apply a premium and at what level—up to a maximum of 100%. The premium will provide councils with the flexibility to access additional revenue. It will be for councils to decide how best to use this funding. For example, councils may choose to support the local shop or village pub, or they may invest it in new affordable housing for local families, so they can help maintain the lifeblood of their community.
We are clear that second home owners should be given sufficient notice of the introduction of a premium. The clause will require each council introducing a premium to have a minimum period of 12 months between making its first determination and the financial year in which it takes effect. That will give second home owners plenty of time to make plans for how to respond to the forthcoming premium. Of course, there may be circumstances where it is not appropriate to apply a premium. Proposed new section 11D(1) provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing categories of dwelling in relation to which the council tax premium on second homes cannot be charged. We will consult on such categories.
Proposed new section 11D(3) includes a power for the Secretary of State to vary the maximum council tax premium that can be charged on second homes. It is clearly sensible to maintain a degree of flexibility for the future. If circumstances suggest that consideration should be given to adjusting the level, any consequent regulations will be made through the affirmative resolution procedure and will require approval of this House. The power contained in the clause will enable every council to decide whether to apply a premium at a level that is suitable for their own circumstances. It will enable them to generate additional revenue, and they will be able to use it to mitigate the impact of high levels of second homes in their areas. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris
We have covered much of the debate through the very good amendments, so I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I want to clarify one point with the Minister. As he has said, the clause inserts proposed new sections 11C and 11D in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Proposed new section 11D(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe one or more classes of dwelling in relation to which a billing authority may not make a determination under section 11C.”
It basically says that the powers we have debated and all the very good reasons for them actually do not apply if the Secretary of State decides they do not want them to. That is a concern we have had in previous debates: this is localism, but only where local communities get the answer right.
It is welcome that the Minister has said the measures will be consulted on before being used, but the Government must have a sense of what properties they have in mind, otherwise there would not be much of a case to reserve the power. I am keen to know how that power will be used or certainly what the Minister had in mind when asking for it. I do not think it is enough for us to detain the Committee because we think the clause is important in general, but that specific point needs to be addressed. There is not much of a case for the provision if it is a power that can only be filled out by consultation. I wonder then: why ask for it at all?
Mr Jones
I nearly thought that that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was going to cross the Floor, given his glowing praise of my analysis. I understand his concerns. That is why we have, over time, put in place a number of policies, including increased stamp duty for purchases of second dwellings, and why the Bill introduces a council tax premium. Clearly, there is a wider picture, and we understand that picture. It is a complex issue and we constantly look at it.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North is concerned about the Secretary of State’s involvement. I do not want to pre-empt the result of the consultation, but it might include the points that he has made about probate. I expect the consultation to take place this autumn, and I hope he will look carefully at it and respond to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Alteration of street names: England
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 74, page 83, line 23, at end insert—
“and it has considered the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change”.
This amendment requires cultural, historical and archaeological factors to be considered before making a name change.
We are considering many things in the Bill, and we come now to a clause that deals with street names. Needless to say, the issue of street names is one of much interest not only to the population of York at large but to archaeologists and historians, whom I meet regularly in our city. It is probably obvious why that is the case: we are clearly a proud city and there is much history to be debated.
A lot of streets in York have changed their name over time. A case could be made to change some of them back to their original names. In York, the streets are named gates, the gates are called bars, and the bars are called pubs. Our language is slightly different from that used in other places. Many of the names have been changed for good, sensitive reasons. What was Beggargate, for instance, is now called Nunnery Lane, and some names were far worse. Our approach to the naming of streets evolves. We have many layers of history, and there are areas of Roman, Viking and medieval significance in places such as York.
Names could be changed at the stroke of a vote, but it is important to put in place checks and balances, including a consultation process and engagement with the wider community stakeholders and residents, to ensure that streets have appropriate names.
There are examples of those who were once heroes but are now fallen individuals. We may have seen a darker side of them or of our colonial past. The street name can tell a different story and therefore the changing of a name is not only a process but can be a historical or political act in itself. It may be desirable, but to understand the past is important. Therefore, to explain the name rather than change it may be the action to take to reflect that on a newer estate. Perhaps we will look at the industrial past of an area or some event or place of significance, or perhaps point to a new age and opportunity.
There are countless reasons why a street name vote may be sought. However, recognising the significance of a name or a former name could help define a street or an area, as well as the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a place. My amendment will simply ensure that the history and archaeological understanding of a place is not lost. I am seeking assurances from the Minister that that understanding will form part of a consultation around the name change and the process set out in clause 74.
Alex Norris
This is the third time in part 2 that we have addressed names. We addressed alternative names for Mayors and alternative names for combined county authorities. My view on street names is the same as in those cases. My experience in Nottingham is that if we seek to do anything daft with names, the public pretty soon sniff it out and have a good way of correcting it, whether at the ballot box or through more informal means. I have a lot of confidence in our communities to make the right and sensible decisions given the right framework in law.
We are interested in the clause. I may make some more arguments in the next amendments. It is important that the important historical and archaeological factors are not lost. This is probably a de minimis provision and only asks for consideration. It is no greater fetter than that. I hope the Minister is minded to that.
Mr Jones
The amendment would add additional criteria for local authorities when considering the renaming of a street. I understand the importance of history, archaeology and culture in this process. However, the Government strongly believe that local people should have the final say on changes affecting street names. We would expect those local views to reflect the historical or cultural associations of the names concerned, and the importance that communities place on them. It is not clear that a freestanding additional requirement to consider heritage is necessary, or how it would work. It could, for example, make it harder to secure name changes that have local support but where new considerations, such as the need to honour a local person or event, take precedence over an archaeological interest. For instance, some Olympians had streets named after them following the 2012 Olympics.
We recently consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver those changes. Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about our proposals, with 91% agreeing that the regulations and statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. In view of that support, and the fact that heritage and cultural significance are matters that communities will weigh up, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for his comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North is right to highlight how our residents will do the right thing and we can depend on people to make the right choices, as I am sure they will in York. It is important to hear the Minister’s comment on the record that he will expect residents to reflect on the historical and cultural aspects of their streets and communities. People wanting to honour people or events of note in their communities will have the opportunity.
It is also important to recognise the place-making ability of a vicinity—for example, if there are quarters in a place, certainly in places as historical as York—to ensure that there is an ambience, an identity, given to a place. That could impact on the tourist aspect and the economic opportunity of a place, as well as the name in itself. I am sure there will always be streets in which to honour local individuals and at the same time balance the cultural sensitivities of an area. I found the Minister’s remarks helpful; I put that on the record. I think it will help with the next discussion, so I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I support the amendments, particularly in the light of my withdrawing amendment 85. I believe that what sits at the heart of the clause is proper consultation with community stakeholders, whether they are residents, businesses or wider stakeholders, for instance Historic England, or the city archaeologist in the example I cited. The process of consultation is of key significance, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Nottingham North for setting out in such detail the type of proper consultation that should be embarked on.
I think we can all recall the naming process of the research boat Boaty McBoatface, and there has certainly been learning from that experience about what could happen with a renaming process. I speak as someone who has a street in my constituency called Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate, which means neither one thing nor the other—in itself curious. Names can be curious, but a rigorous consultation that can flush out the issues could avoid those significant pieces of amusement, ensure that the proper voices are heard and confirm a sensible place name. A name is not just a name; it is an identity. We all think about the addresses we have lived at, and the identity they have given us, so it is important that people have ownership. A thorough consultation by a good local authority is what my hon. Friend seeks through his amendment.
On the consultation exercise, although the digitalisation of processes is welcome, I emphasise how important it is that signs are still placed on street corners, as proposed in amendment 71. People in the community need to know what is happening. It is not an either/or; it is a both. People should be able to engage with a physical notice. We all see signs up across our constituencies and stop to read them, because they are an important indicator of how people can get involved. I urge the Government to consider the breadth of that opportunity.
Finally, I highlight my hon. Friend’s points about referendums. We know that they have costs attached, and a referendum on a street name would place an additional cost on a local authority at a time when resources are thin. Given the time and complexity involved, is that really the right focus for the Government, when a consultation could do the job by utilising the existing democratic process through elected councillors? I trust that the Minister will reflect on the realities of the clause when alternative routes, as my hon. Friend set out, could strengthen the process and enable the right outcome.
Mr Jones
The Government are strongly of the belief that people should have the final say on the character of the area in which they live. That must include protecting their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind the amendments. There should be clear processes for making sure that local views on proposed street name changes are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way, so that the processes are robust, but can be adjusted if required.
The Government recently consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver the reform to street naming set out in the Bill. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals set out in the consultation, with 91% agreeing that regulations or statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name.
The amendments would remove the Government’s ability to do that and replace it with less specific requirements than we intend. I reassure the hon. Member for Nottingham North that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation. As I said, a significant number of respondents to the consultation want a proper say, and we can understand why. If the name of a residential street was changed, for example, individuals in any particular property would face significant costs from amending the title of their property or the addresses on their car logbook, bank accounts, utility bills, driving licence, and a number of other things that we could all reel off. Such things are important considerations, and that is why we are setting out down our chosen path.
By setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we will maintain flexibility to update processes in line with changes in circumstances, such as new technology. With that explanation, and those assurances, I hope the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for colleagues’ contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central brought up the good example of Boaty McBoatface. That shows, as always, the brilliant sense of humour of the British people—I have an awful lot of confidence in that—but also how in such cases it is rarely the answer that is daft; perhaps the question was less wise. The key thing, which goes to the point of the clause, is that people with a stake ought to have a say. When people have a stake in things, they take them seriously. I am certain that there will be no Boaty McBoatface Avenues. People would much more likely take a slightly different and perhaps more moderated view for their own street. That is why it is important that, as the Minister said, local questions about the character of a community are addressed.
I agree with the Minister that local residents should have the final say on the character of an area, but that can work in a number of different ways. We have a representative democracy, and change in the character of an area could be about a decision to cut back a tree, or to put bins in collective storage, leave them in the back ginnel or put them outside the house. Every day, there is a combination of hundreds of small actions that are seemingly unimportant until someone gets excited about them, but in aggregate they are substantial to people’s lives. We do not put them to daily referendums with turnout thresholds—we could not operate like that—so we have representatives who are accountable to their communities, and if they do not seem to be doing their job, they are changed for others.
I am not sure that the Minister’s stated aim is measured by what is in the Bill. He said that amendments 70 to 72 would weaken the Government’s ability to meet what was wanted in the consultation. I am afraid that I do not accept that, because 91% of people wanted to have a proper say and to have that set out. I completely agree with them—I am surprised that 9% did not agree—that the worst situation would be one where a local authority could make merely the narrowest compliance effort and not really listen. There is not much evidence of risk there. Again, the Minister could not make the case as to why, in general, there is a problem to be solved—and, absent the impact assessment, there is no case for that. The experts in the field say that there is no problem to be solved. I hope that he will reflect on that. My amendments would in no way restrict the ability to ensure that those 91% of people got what they wanted: a proper say. However, the Minister has gone a step further in prescribing how that looks, which is a disproportionate approach that will not serve.
The Minister has committed to further consultation and engagement. I hope that he will engage with colleagues in the Local Government Association and listen to them about the practical realities. If he has not already had a chance to do so, he should engage with their research about what is really going on and how we might achieve the aims without putting something onerous in the Bill. They will be willing to have those conversations.
I hope that this might be an ongoing part of the conversation as we move through the Bill’s stages, and that the Minister will at least carry this issue away and find a bit more detail. We will not detain the Committee by dividing it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Government are committed to giving a voice to residents over the naming of their street, and we are strongly of the belief that people should have the final say on the character of the area in which they live, which must include protecting their local heritage. Although street names play a fundamental part in representing the rich history of a neighbourhood, the relevant legislation has not been fundamentally reviewed since the early part of the 20th century. The matter is spread over three Acts, rendering the process of changing street names not only opaque but obsolete. I believe it should be uncontentious, if nothing else, to say that a lot has changed since 1907, and therefore a modern framework will be of benefit to local authorities.
Alex Norris
I will not repeat any of the arguments I have made. We agree on the substance of allowing people to decide their street name, but we are troubled by the process and its rigidity. I hope the Minister will keep reflecting on that in the following stages.
I am labouring a point I made the last time I rose, but this is the last time I will make it today—I promise, Mr Hollobone. This is the end of part 2 of the Bill. The Minister made a welcome commitment that we will see the impact assessment before the end of Bill Committee, but I gently say that it will not be much use for parts 1 and 2. Frankly, there be no impact on part 1, because that was a plan to make a plan, but part 2 will make combined county authorities, which presumably are supposed to be quite impactful. It is a problem that we have not been able to argue those in the round.
The next part of the Bill, which is on planning, includes really significant decisions that will shape communities. I am not sure that colleagues on the Government Benches, never mind the Opposition Benches, should be comfortable making those decisions without an impact assessment. I hope to prevail on the Minister that if the impact assessment is not going to appear before part 3 of the Bill today, we may at least have it before the summer recess so that we can have it for our discussion about the remaining clauses.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his comments, which I will look at carefully and consider, and see what more can be done to expedite the impact assessment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 12th July 2022
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 July 2022 - (12 Jul 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, support the amendment. Data is key to everything: we cannot make good, informed, evidence-based decisions unless we have data before us. In my community, I have seen my boundaries change because of the number of empty properties and people not registering. I have seen a real change street by street as well as community by community. Second homes, commuter homes and holiday homes are taking over residential properties, which my local residents cannot afford to live in any more due to the lack of supply. As a result, they are having to move out of my city. We have to look at this extraction economy through the eyes of the people it impacts the most, and collecting data is absolutely key to that.
There is another reason I think data is really important. The Government are driving their whole housing policy through numbers. They are saying, “We are going to build x units in each of these locations across the country.” We have heard hon. Members in various debates discuss whether those levels are right, but if those housing units simply become empty units, second homes or holiday lets, that will not resolve the housing crisis we are dealing with. It will not add to our communities or make a difference to them. It will not have an impact on Government targets for addressing the housing crisis. It is essential that we can identify the issue in the detail it deserves, not just in whole areas but drilling down to understand what is happening in different parts of the community.
In York, we have around 2,000 Airbnbs—last time I checked, the number was 1,999. The vast majority are concentrated in my constituency of York Central. I can name the streets where those properties are. The number of homes is increasing in those areas. We will go on to talk about measures that the Government can introduce—measures that I very much hope they will introduce—to address this serious problem, which is sucking the life out of our community. If we have up to 350,000 Airbnbs nationally, what does that mean for Government targets for house building? How are they going to say they are building additional homes when we are seeing that sharp increase in Airbnbs, second homes and so on?
The Government need the data to drive their own housing policy and to ensure that they are delivering on their targets for improving the housing situation, rather than just watching it get worse while they busily tick boxes and say, “We are delivering, delivering, delivering,” when it is not making a scrap of difference on the ground. That is the feeling in my community. I welcome the amendment. It is a helpful start and a helpful guide to the Government about some of the considerations they should be taking into account in the planning system.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his kind welcome and good wishes. I look forward to working with him across the Dispatch Box, in a reasonable and constructive way.
We spoke at length earlier about second homes, which I suspect will be a running theme for the Committee. We talked about the importance of addressing the issues that can be caused by second homes and holiday lets in an area. I want to focus on why the amendment is not needed.
We acknowledge the importance of data on holiday lets for supporting tourism and manging the impacts on local communities. However, I believe that there may have been some misrepresentation of the intent of clause 75. The clause aims to require planning authorities to process their planning data in accordance with approved data standards, whereas the amendment seeks to regulate for the collection of data by planning authorities. Nothing in the clause can require the collection of data by planning authorities.
Having said that, let me add a point of reassurance: where planning authorities have holiday let data, subsection (2)(b) provides the ability for data standards to be set for it. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is not necessary to achieve his intention. Regulations will specify which planning data can be made subject to data standards and require planning authorities to comply with those standards once created.
We will turn to the substance of second homes and short-term let policy in due course. We take the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale seriously. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance at this point to allow him to withdraw his amendment.
Tim Farron
I will not press the amendment to a vote at this point, but I may bring the measure back later in another guise. I am very grateful that the Minister has accepted the need for this data, so that decisions can be made and otherwise.
As I and other hon. Members said earlier, the existence of second homes and holiday lets is not, by any means, an unalloyed bad. The holiday let market, in particular, is crucial to the economy and the hospitality and tourism industry in Cumbria, which is worth £3.5 billion a year and employs 60,000 people, but we have to get the balance right. There is not a lot of point in having holiday cottages where people go on holiday but find they cannot get a bite to eat, because it turns out that their holiday cottage was the chef’s house last year, and they have been evicted and the balance is all wrong.
One assumes that, if the Government were to accept further amendments that might be proposed later, there would be powers available to local authorities to restrict the number of second homes or holiday lets in a community. We would not want to do that carte blanche; it would have to be done on the basis of information. We might decide that up to 20% of a community could be second homes. How would we know whether that was the case and be able to make a judgment, unless the data were available?
I will not press the amendment to a vote now, and I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. It is important that we make decisions to save our communities based on the reality of the situation out there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 75, page 85, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would prevent the Government from using the powers in this Chapter for information other than that provided or processed by a planning authority under a relevant planning enactment.
Having had just over four productive and, I am sure the Committee will agree, stimulating days of line-by-line consideration of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill relating to levelling up, local democracy and devolution, we now turn to the first of the Bill’s parts on planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North remarked during, I think, our second session, in practice this is not wholly, or even largely, a levelling-up Bill. Indeed, I would even go so far as to describe the legislation before us as essentially a planning Bill in all but name, albeit in a shiny but ultimately flimsy levelling-up wrapper.
To the extent that this is essentially a planning Bill, it is, as hon. Members are aware, a far different beast from the legislation the Government had in mind when they published the “Planning for the future” White Paper in August 2020. The remnants of that White Paper that have found their way into this Bill, augmented with several new initiatives of varying quality, amount collectively to a rather modest set of proposals that we fear fall far short of the kind of reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges we face as a country.
Some of the planning provisions in the Bill are extremely controversial, and we will consider several of those in the hours and days that remain before the summer recess. Others are less so, and chapter 1 of part 3, which we are now considering, falls squarely in the latter category.
The clauses in chapter 1 seek to digitise the planning system, with the objectives of raising standards across planning authorities, facilitating cross-boundary engagement—particularly around infrastructure by better enabling the comparison of planning information—and, perhaps most importantly, making it easier for members of the public to access and easily comprehend information about specific local planning matters. This represents a real step forward, and I want to make it clear at the outset of the Committee’s consideration of clauses 75 to 81 that we strongly support in principle the digitisation of the planning system.
As Dr Hugh Ellis rightly put it to the Committee in our final oral evidence session:
“There are some very archaic practices in the planning process”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 125, Q157.]
As things stand, the planning system is overwhelmingly reliant on outdated software that places a considerable burden on the sector. Often, progress on local planning matters is almost entirely reliant on individual council planning officers and their familiarity with a particular scheme, rather than transparent and accessible information that can be drawn upon by all. Given that the systems in planning authorities more often than not sit on separate platforms, they frequently prevent cross-referencing of data by other council staff and local councillors. More generally, the planning process is too heavily reliant on documents rather than data, and this has a direct impact on the speed and quality of decisions.
Provision for public interaction with the planning system can, in many cases, appear to have been designed to actively discourage engagement, as anyone who has tried to analyse a local plan map will know. Even in cases where online access to information is possible through local authority portals, the data available is often inconsistent, confusing, and a barrier to community participation.
If any hon. Member has had to trawl their local council’s website to find information on a given planning application—I have, many times—they will know that documents often come in the form of hundreds if not thousands of pages of material spread across multiple PDFs, putting off anyone other than committed souls determined for one reason or another to trawl through reams of uploaded documentation to try to understand precisely what changes are being proposed in their local area. In short, there is an unarguable case to upgrade the technology that underpins the planning system in England. Doing so would have myriad benefits.
Perhaps most importantly, digitisation could go a long way to boosting engagement in local planning matters, particularly at the local plan phase, incentivising residents who, as things stand, would not dream of involving themselves in a planning matter. As Tony Burton from Neighbourhood Planners London put it to the Committee in oral evidence relating to local and neighbourhood plans,
“we would point to the opportunities it presents around new, complementary forms of community engagement…and more effective ways of pooling and analysing the evidence that is required”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 80, Q107.]
A digitised and integrated system would make it easier to find and search through the detail of a given application, and to see associated data and drawings, and it could well facilitate opportunities to directly interact or submit feedback. New interactive digital services and tools could even allow members of the public to submit their own ideas or take part in discussions and design workshops at an early stage of a proposal, and to explore different site distributions, massing and densities themselves.
Digitisation could also deliver huge benefits for the development and distribution of local plans. If done well, the roll-out of, for example, 3D model platforms could support the creation of local plans by changing the way councils visualise and make assessments of their localities, as well as aiding the monitoring of their delivery. Similarly, making local plans digitally available and interactive across England could help standardise processes and offer greater accessibility, collaboration and community engagement.
I add a small caveat at this point, in that the clauses in chapter 1 really cover only how data will processed and standardised. The Bill contains no indication of how the Government see consultation and decision-making processes being opened up to a more diverse audience as a result of digital technologies. I hope the Minister will give us a sense of the Department’s thinking in that respect, on issues such as digital mapping, when he responds.
However, that the clauses in this chapter present such opportunities is undeniable. That said, we are firmly of the view that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences, intended or otherwise, and amendment 65, along with amendments 66, 67 and 68, seeks to provide some of those safeguards.
The particular concern that amendment 65 is intended to address is the potential for the broad powers provided by clause 75—to regulate the processing of planning data—to be used as a surreptitious way of prescribing the length, layout and content of local and neighbourhood plans. That concern arises in part from the ways in which the Bill, in other places, centralises the planning system by effectively downgrading the status and the scope of local planning—a theme will we return to many times over the course of this Committee’s life.
Given our concern that the powers in clause 75 give scope for excessive central control of local development plan formulation, we believe it is essential that the Bill clarifies that the powers are to be utilised only for the purposes of technical data handling and processing—hence the suggested removal of the broad language in subsection (2)(b) specifying that planning data can mean any information provided to, or processed by, the authority
“for any other purpose relating to planning or development in England”.
The key point here is the need for the Bill to better define what functions can be regulated by the powers set out in this clause.
Binding “approved data standards” applied to a limited range of technical functions, such as standardising contributions to the preparation of a local plan or how local plans are made accessible, is all to the good and will aid access, engagement and cross-boundary comparison. However, if not more tightly circumscribed on the face of the Bill than at present, our concern is that the proposed regulation of the processing and provision of planning data may, inadvertently or otherwise, enable the central imposition of what can and cannot be in a local or neighbourhood plan.
I appreciate the distinction is a subtle one, but I hope the Minister understands the concern we are trying to highlight. I also hope he will accept the amendment or, if not, at least provide the Committee with robust assurances that the powers in this clause will only ever be used for the narrow purpose of regulating the handling of technical data, rather than in any way dictating the form of local plans.
Mr Jones
I understand and share the desire to ensure that the information in scope of these new powers is proportionate and focuses on digitising the planning system.
Amendment 65 gets to the heart of our digital reforms—how we define planning data—and would narrow that definition. I fear, however, that the amendment underestimates the breadth of information upon which planning authorities rely. It is important to remember that these powers are designed to underpin the entirety of the planning system. We need to encompass information that will support plan making with interactive map-based plans; the flow of information, such as from the heritage sector, to planning authorities; and accessible environmental outcomes monitoring and reports.
As such, information relevant to planning may not in fact arise from a planning enactment. For example, it may come from activities of local authorities under their general power of competence or from information provided or used by that authority for the purposes of other legislation, such as the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Equally it may come voluntarily from other public sector organisations or from private companies and individuals for purposes that are not clearly related to a statutory planning function. We want to ensure that we do not accidentally exclude any of that valuable information from being made even more valuable to planning authorities and others as a result of our reforms.
As we will cover in subsequent clauses, there are underlying safeguards to protect all the information from inappropriate use. That includes protecting against inconsistency with data protection legislation. Equally, as I am sure we will discuss, our continuing pilot work with planning authorities will ensure that data standardisation can be implemented by them.
We will consult to ensure that we hear a diverse range of voices on how this part of the Bill is put into guidance. We will produce new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe different ways in which communities can get involved and highlight best practice.
The hon. Gentleman had some concerns about what is covered in a local or neighbourhood plan. The intent of creating the data standards is to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can contain more information in a standardised format for the benefit of their communities. Data standards will be introduced gradually, and local authorities will not be prevented from using planning data where standards are yet to be introduced.
I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that amendment 65 is not required, and I would be grateful if he withdrew it.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I think the best way to put it would be that I am slightly reassured, but not wholly reassured. I welcome what he said about the recognition that the powers need to be used proportionately. I welcome the clarity on the intent. What I did not hear was a cast-iron guarantee that the powers will not, inadvertently or advertently, in any way end up constraining the length, layout and content of local development plans. Therefore, we still think and are concerned that they could be used to do such. While I will not be pressing the amendment to a vote, this is an issue that relates to our wider concerns about the status and scope of local planning, which we will come back to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The planning system currently relies on information presented in various formats and contained in lengthy PDF documents from which it is hard to extract. Local plans alone can be hundreds of pages long. As the hon. Gentleman said, they can contain dozens and dozens of PDF files, which are difficult for experts to navigate, let alone members of the public.
This clause is the foundation for changing the way planning authorities hold and present their planning information, moving the planning system from being document based to being data driven. The clause does this in a manner that allows the planning system to keep pace with the innovation we hope to promote. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards.
I know that some are concerned that the data standards will outstrip the ability of planning authorities to meet them. I therefore want to reassure the Committee that the very reason for the approach I have just set out is to allow us to bring information into scope as it is ready. We will proceed incrementally and take into account planning authorities’ capabilities and innovation in property technology. I hope that reassures the Committee on that point.
In order to reduce the burden on planning authorities, clause 76 gives them the power to require those submitting planning data to do so in accordance with new planning data standards. In addition to enabling information in the planning system to flow freely, following that approach will help authorities perform their crucial role more effectively, with more ability to compare and co-ordinate with other authorities; will empower more local people to engage with planning, with better tools to support them in meaningfully shaping their areas; and will drive private sector innovation, improving the efficiency of the housing market as well as the planning system.
In summary, the clause begins the modernisation of the planning system, creating accessible, reusable data to the benefit of planning authorities, communities, central Government, developers and the wider private sector. I commend it to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief, but I have some questions for the Minister. Clause 76(1) allows planning authorities, by published notice, to require a person to provide them with planning data that complies with an approved standard that is applicable to the data. Subsection (4) allows planning authorities to reject all or any parts of planning data from a person if they fail to comply with the requirements under subsection (1). Subsection (5) requires that planning authorities must serve the person with a notice by writing to inform them of any such decision, specifying which aspects of planning data have been rejected.
The two examples in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill relate, respectively, to local plan creation and the identification of conservation areas nationally, rather than to individual planning applications. Given that the aim of this chapter is the creation of a data-led planning system, as the Minister said, and that the White Paper specifically referenced the intention to create a
“national data standard for smaller applications”,
it strikes me that there is a need for clarity over what “data not documents” means for individual households in the context of clause 76.
As such, I would simply like to get a sense from the Minister of what impact he believes these provisions will have on households seeking planning permission for projects such as extensions and conservatories, or garage and loft conversions. Specifically—this relates to a point that I will return to when speaking to amendment 66 to clause 77—what does the Department have planned, if anything, to ensure that residents making such applications who may lack the requisite digital skills or access to the internet are provided with appropriate support? Is any element of discretion provided, or other means of assisting such people?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. With regard to that last one, we will probably discuss that as we go through the next few clauses. However, there is no intent to exclude those who do not have the ability to use digital equipment—those we consider to be digitally excluded. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that as we deal with further clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Power in relation to the provision of planning data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Too often planning information is hard to use for all the purposes it should serve. The clause helps to address that problem.
The large amount of information received by planning authorities often comes to them requiring manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. That is bureaucracy at its worst, actively detracting from the ability of planning authorities to perform their core role, taking time and resources away from the decisions that matter to communities.
The clause works to achieve three effects. First, it works with clause 75 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 75 to inconvenience authorities’ decision making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.
The clause also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Planning authorities will be required to publish a notice on their website or through specific communications to inform participants about what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. If the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.
I will touch briefly on the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. Planning authorities are not obliged to refuse non-compliant information, although for the reasons that I have outlined we expect them to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that information cannot be refused where the provider has a reasonable excuse. That is to protect those who, for whatever reason, cannot use the means of submission stipulated by a planning authority or cannot comply with the data standards in the submission. In that way, planning authorities will be under a duty to accept and fully consider such information. Those with a reasonable excuse will not therefore be disadvantaged.
Where authorities refuse information, the clause provides them with discretion to accept a complaint resubmission, although again there is no general expectation that they should do so. The result of the clause will therefore be that, by default, the information received will be usable for all purposes to which planning authorities need it to be put. That will make their work faster and easier and will allow them to focus on planning rather than data entry.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Power to require certain planning data to be made publicly available
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement explaining the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the regulations do not exacerbate digital exclusion.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining how the provisions in this Chapter do not exacerbate digital exclusion.
As we discussed in relation to development plans, Labour believes that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences. One of the most adverse consequences that could arise from digitising the present system—we have already touched on it—is of course the exacerbation of digital exclusion, which several of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee highlighted as a concern. Digital exclusion is already a serious problem and one that does not simply affect a minority of the population. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.8% of UK adults have either never used the internet or last used it more than three months ago—that is 4.2 million people. The amendment seeks to address the digital divide in the context of the planning system.
When we discuss digital exclusion in the context of the Bill, it warrants saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central did, that a democratic planning system that takes seriously the right of communities to be heard and to participate effectively in every aspect of development plan formulation can never be entirely digital. As Dr Hugh Ellis told the Committee:
“We can have as much digital information as we like, but we also need access to the arenas where decisions are made”.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 126, Q157.]
I make that point simply to stress that meaningful engagement with the planning process requires in-person access to key decision-making forums, and the Bill erodes that right in important respects. That is why we will seek to amend clauses 82 to 84 and schedule 7 in due course.
When it comes to planning data, it is evidently not the case that everyone will be able to access information digitally even once it has become more accessible, as the Bill intends. For some people, that might be because they are digitally literate but do not have the proper means to engage with online data, and that concern was raised by Jonathan Owen, the chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, in his evidence to the Committee, who suggested the potential need for capital investment to enable remote communities such as his own to engage with online material. Otherwise, it might simply be because a small but significant proportion of the population would not be able to engage with online data even if they had the means of accessing it.
In short, digital exclusion is not merely about whether people can access the internet but about their ability to use it, and a small but significant proportion of the population struggle to do so. The most recent UK consumer digital index published by Lloyds bank estimates that 21% of adults—11 million people—do not have the essential digital skills needed for day-to-day life.
Matthew Pennycook
I very much agree that, potentially, some of the proposed reforms could exclude those on whom we rely most in our communities to engage with the planning process. My hon. Friend also touches on the wider point that digital exclusion is inextricably linked to wider inequalities in our society. It is more likely to be faced by those on low incomes, disabled people and, as she said, people over the age of 65. Indeed, so close is the link between digital exclusion and other facets of poverty that it has been argued that it should be considered a key index of deprivation.
Evidence collected by the Local Government Association found that when the pandemic struck, only 51% of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 a year had access to the internet, compared with 99% of households with an income of over £40,000. Even when poorer households had access to equipment and the internet, they were less likely to have the skills to utilise it. Clearly, to the extent that the pandemic drove many aspects of life online in ways that appear to have stuck, albeit in many instances in a hybrid form, the problem of digital exclusion has correspondingly become more acute.
I fully appreciate that the challenge posed by digital exclusion extends far beyond the issue of access to and engagement with the planning system in England. I am also fully aware that there are a range of policy initiatives beyond the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that have been put in place to address the problem—for example, funding for adults to gain a first qualification in essential digital skills. Although, as you might expect, Sir Mark, we would urge the Government to do far more to reduce the prevalence of digital exclusion. However, in the context of the Bill, the fact that digitisation of the planning system is a key feature of it, and the rationale for that is in part boosting engagement and participation, we believe that the Government need to address digital exclusion explicitly. We believe that they should do so in two ways.
First, there should be an explicit recognition that digitisation should enhance more traditional ways of communicating with the public about local planning matters, rather than replacing them entirely. Even if digitisation of the planning system proceeds apace, many people will still want and need practical help and support with understanding and engaging with the system. Simply being furnished with the opportunity to access vast quantities of data online is unlikely on its own to encourage more people to get involved in local planning. Given the chronic lack of capacity within local planning authorities, peer-to-peer, face-to-face support is extremely challenging. But established formats for communication, such as site notices, which were referenced earlier, have a role to play. We believe that they should not necessarily be removed as requirements from the system.
Secondly, there needs to be a focus on ensuring that digitisation is as inclusive as possible. In the context of clause 77 and the other related clauses, that means a focus on ensuring that planning services, data and tools are accessible to all, including those without the confidence or skills to use digital. Amendment 66 is designed to force the Government to engage more directly with those issues, and it does so simply by specifying that on the day any regulations under the section are laid before Parliament requiring certain planning data to be made publicly available, the Secretary of State also publishes a statement on how the provisions do not exacerbate digital exclusion.
I appreciate that this is not the most elegantly crafted amendment, but the issue it seeks to tackle is a real one, and the need to do so is pressing if the Government are serious about making the planning system accessible to as many members of society as possible. As such, I hope that it will elicit from the Minister a clear response, and that the digitisation that the Bill will facilitate will not exacerbate digital exclusion. I hope that by implementing new data standards reporting requirements and transparency measures in the Bill, Ministers will be actively working to adhere to digital best practice and ensure that digital planning tools are built and designed to be easy to use for all, regardless of age or accessibility needs.
Mr Jones
I entirely agree with the spirit of the amendment. As we discussed previously, digital exclusion is an important consideration for the design of public services. The statement proposed by the hon. Gentleman would, however, be unnecessary. Currently, as we know, published planning information is often difficult to access. It is inconsistently presented and hard to use for everyone in the planning system. Too few of our constituents engage with planning. We want as many people as possible, and as diverse a range of people as possible, to participate in our planning system, and our digital reforms are central to this endeavour. We can all agree that in a world in which an increasing emphasis is placed on using digital services and tools by default, those who have to use alternative methods can be at risk of exclusion.
Tim Farron
This is a good and wise amendment that looks at the additional responsibilities placed on planning departments and how important it is that the Government ensure adequate resourcing for these new functions so that the digitisation of the planning system is performed adequately. It really opens a window on the wider issue that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly highlighted into the staffing, resourcing and competence of planning departments across the country.
The Bill introduces many measures—perhaps many more than some of us would like. How frustrating will it be to developers, proposers, local residents, members of councils and local communities—everyone—if it turns out that the new powers and functions that might come about simply cannot be enacted? We see around the country a reduction in the quality of planning decisions, not because planners are not good people but because there are too few of them.
There is not the capacity for planners to go and spend a semi-formal hour with a potential developer or householder to scope out what may or may not be possible. That would save people putting in an application that was always doomed to fail, or ensure that an application is more likely to be in line with planning policy and the wishes of the local community. We get bad decisions that end up being appealed, which is more expensive for everybody and sucks all the energy out of that planning department when it should be focused on trying to preserve and promote the community’s priorities.
We will have many debates—we have had some already—about what planning provisions should be in the Bill and what powers local communities should have. It will all be pretty meaningless if there is no way whatsoever of ensuring that the new provisions are enforceable.
Mr Jones
In considering the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the Government recognise the need to ensure that planning authorities are well equipped and supported to successfully deliver these reforms. The Department has already adopted a joint approach with local authorities to modernise the planning system. Examples include the work to reduce invalid planning applications, the back-office planning system software projects and our local plans pathfinders.
We will continue to fund and run pathfinders and pilot projects to test and develop the standards, tools, guidance and templates needed by planning authorities. Central to that, we will work with planning authorities to ensure that the reforms and the legislative requirements we are placing on them work as we all want and intend. We therefore agree on the need to support planning authorities. That work is already under way and will continue. I am unconvinced that putting a vague requirement of doubtful enforceability into law would meaningfully add to that commitment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am glad the Minister understands the concerns that the amendment seeks to highlight. I welcome his recognition that local planning authorities need to be well equipped and supported to make the changes. In all honesty, I was not reassured by his answer, which I found to be quite vague. We know that, as has already been said, local planning authorities face real challenges in resourcing new capacity. That is a pre-existing problem. They are being given a set of new responsibilities and there has been no reassurance that we will get any additional financing for those new burdens. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but we will come back to the issue of adequate financial resourcing for some of the changes that the Bill seeks to enact many times during its passage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The planning information that is currently published is often difficult to access, inconsistently presented and hard to use, limiting its wider usefulness. Clause 77, in combination with clause 75, changes that by requiring standardised information to be openly available to anyone for free. The Secretary of State will set the licence under which the information is to be published and regulations will specify the information to which the requirements apply. There is a limitation on the information that may be made available to ensure that sensitive data, such as where the planning authority has an obligation of confidence or where data protection legislation applies, cannot be subject to the regulations.
We believe opening planning data will drive greater productivity and efficiency levels across the housing, planning and land sectors, which will deliver significant benefits to a wider range of groups. Benefits include time savings, the development of new tools, and increasing accessibility to the information required for decision making.
Without accessible planning information, both local and central Government cannot make faster, better-informed decisions to meet the needs of local communities and understand national demands and challenges. Likewise, the development of innovative digital tools and services that better engage communities and allow planners to work more productively is hampered.
Open, consistent and comparable planning information will unlock a more transparent planning system where communities can better understand, contribute to and, as a result, have greater confidence in planning for their areas. I therefore commend the clause to the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Power to require use of approved planning data software in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 78, page 87, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out—
(a) the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State,
(b) the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the decision not to approve the planning data software in question does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining why the provisions in this section were used to restrict or prevent the use of planning data software and setting out the steps taken to avoid the creation of a Government-granted monopoly in planning data software.
Clause 78 permits the use of regulations to restrict or prohibit relevant planning authorities from using software not approved by the Secretary of State. We have just considered one possible adverse outcome of the use of these powers, namely that local planning authorities who have purchased software and tools may find that in the future they are not approved for use and that their investment has been made redundant as a result. However, we are concerned that another adverse consequence might potentially flow from the use of the powers and that is the limitation of fair and open competition among software providers.
Amendment 68 would add to clause 78 a requirement that on the day any regulations under the clause are laid, the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out, first, the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use and, secondly, the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the decision not to approve does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.
The effect of the amendment would not be to prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers in clause 78 but simply to ensure that the holder of that office properly justifies their use and has due regard to the need to maintain healthy market competition. The reasoning behind the amendment is that as benign as the provisions in clause 78 might appear to be, in the sense that taken at face value they are merely a means of rolling out new data standards and enforcing standardisation, they could, deliberately or inadvertently, create a Government-granted oligopoly or monopoly in planning data software. We believe the Government should be clear that the intention of the powers is not to foster an oligopolistic or even, dare I say, a monopolistic market in planning data software.
I appreciate fully that the Government are bound by public procurement rules, albeit ones that they intend to overhaul by means of the Procurement Bill that is progressing through the other place, and that within the general procurement framework there is a specific set of rules and handbooks for technology procurement. However, the powers in clause 78 strike us as so expansive, enabling Ministers by regulation to restrict or prevent the use or creation of software used by planning authorities to process planning data, that a further check to their use is required.
Assuming the Government do not wish to fetter rigorous competition in the planning data software market, amendment 68 should be an easy one for the Minister to accept and I hope to hear that he will do so.
Mr Jones
We wholeheartedly support the principle embodied by the amendment, although I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about the mechanics of clause 78. Clause 78 aims to ensure planning authorities are supported by modern software that complies with the requirements created by our digital reforms. We will set out clear criteria that the Secretary of State must then apply in deciding whether to approve any given software to which the regulations apply.
The expectations of the Secretary of State will therefore be public and clear before any software is submitted. Likewise, the reasoning of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant or withhold approval will necessarily be the compliance with those criteria. In that context, a statement on individual software decisions would be superfluous and could risk inappropriately disclosing commercially sensitive information. That could, for example, deter submission for approval, undermining the intention of the provision.
That brings me to the second aspect of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich’s amendment—the statement about the effect on competition in the software market. Regulations could not lawfully be made, nor could decisions lawfully be taken, under that power with the aim of conferring a monopoly. The Secretary of State cannot use the powers other than impartially between software suppliers to foster the innovative market our reforms are designed to achieve. The criteria for approval will be informed and refined by continuing—and continual—work with planning authorities and software suppliers on trial planning software. We have, for example, already funded planning authorities for the creation of new software and supported programmes for local authorities to improve their existing development management software.
We have started to engage with the technology sector through local authority-led pilots and pathfinders. We will continue to engage meaningfully with them and others to establish a realistic adoption timetable for any planning data software that the Secretary of State may wish to approve for use by planning authorities. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to allow him to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I note that he only said that the clause would prevent the advent of a monopoly and not an oligopoly. I still worry, reading the text of the Bill, that we could inadvertently find that the Government restrict what software can be used by local authorities. That said, I welcome the clarification and reassurances that the Minister has provided. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
We have already discussed some aspects of the clause in relation to amendment 68. Many planning authorities are reliant on outdated and expensive software and systems that do not work with one another, forcing manual re-entry of information while locking that information away in formats that are not reusable. Clause 78 allows the Secretary of State to change that entrenched status quo. Without the right software to support processing standardised data, the benefits from the chapter across the planning system will be thwarted.
Clause 78 relies upon, and will therefore follow from, the introduction of data standards set under clause 75. Those data standards will take time to develop. The aim of our reforms is to create a virtuous circle whereby better software enables better information to be published, which in turn allows better tools to be developed for planning authorities. As such, it is not our intention to require approval for all planning data software. We will work with planning authorities and the technology sector to determine where and when the use of that power will most benefit the planning system. The clause enables the creation of the effective, high-quality system that the public rightly expect of Government at all levels. I commend clause 78 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Disclosure of planning data does not infringe copyright in certain cases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Government want to encourage innovation in the property technology sector. That is one of the key benefits expected from opening planning information to the public. The clause provides a narrow expansion of the existing protections against copyright infringement by planning authorities for the purposes of their statutory role in planning functions. It is primarily intended to put the position beyond doubt that any use of planning information by planning authorities and software developers in developing or maintaining software to comply with approval requirements under clause 78 does not infringe copyright. The clause is grounded in and maintains the existing scheme for the protection of copyright that allows the use of copyright works for statutory purposes. It does not prejudice the rights and protections afforded to copyrighted works, and supports the innovation for planning authorities that we all want to see. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I have a few questions for the Minister about the three clauses. Clause 79 provides that a local planning authority that makes planning data available to a person does not, in doing so, infringe copyright if making the data available is necessary for certain purposes such as the development of planning data software. Will the Minister explain the rationale for restricting the circumstances where planning data will not be in breach of copyright solely to those purposes set out in subsections (1)(a) and (b)? Will he also comment on whether he foresees any other circumstances where it may be desirable for copyright to be limited, for example in relation to academic research?
Clause 80 stipulates that the Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations that contain provision within devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly after consultation. I presume—the Minister can correct me—that legislative consent is not required for the provisions, but perhaps he could clarify what engagement his Department has had with the devolved Administrations about the planning data aspects of the Bill.
Finally, clause 81 provides definitions of key terms. Will the Minister confirm that the definition of relevant planning authority to include any public body with functions relating to
“planning or development in England”,
as laid out in paragraph (n)(i), covers community and parish councils, and neighbourhood planning forums? If so, what support, if any, will they be provided with to ensure that any plans or priority statements they produce conform with the regulations, given they are generally voluntary organisations?
Mr Jones
On the point about devolving planning to neighbourhood planning level, I expect that support will be provided by local planning authorities in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the type of copyright material that is in scope of infringement protection. Any information with the purpose of approving and maintaining or upgrading the planning software that falls under the definition of the planning data defined within the Bill, in which copyright subsists, is in scope of the power. One such example is architectural drawings, where the planning authorities are required to consult on new proposed developments.
The hon. Gentleman raised one other point. I am not able to confirm at the moment but will certainly write to him about the discussions that my predecessor has had with the devolved Administrations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 80 and 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Development plans: content
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 82, page 91, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) A local planning authority must review and update the development plan no less regularly than once every five years.’”.
This amendment would require local authorities to review and update the development plan at least every five years.
This is a probing amendment and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. York has not had a local plan for 76 years—that is another issue that will no doubt come across the Minister’s desk—and I am trying to work through why that has been the case. There has often been a complex and rapidly changing political context in the city.
We seem to talk about local plans, development plans, minerals and waste plans, transport plans and so on as events, rather than in the context of a place’s evolution. Therefore, if there is a 10-year period—or even longer in the case of York—between plans being updated, the task is so great that it can be very challenging indeed. Thinking about how we can get some sequencing and timelines for how data is produced and how development and supplementary plans are put in place could improve the process.
I have some observations about why it has not worked in York and about the task ahead. For our city, the situation has presented many challenges because developers have taken advantage. It has caused a lot of difficulty over the years, but it has also dominated the political environment and destabilised our city, rather than stabilised the way forward.
I want to touch on the supplementary plans, which feed into the data, and to think about the pace at which things are moving forward. The local transport plan, which feeds into our development plan, dates back to 2011, and the data was gathered two years earlier, so it is already 13 years out of date. That is informing the local plan, which is being discussed with the inspectors is this week. Thirteen years ago, we did not have micromobility, e-scooters and e-bikes. Electric vehicles were not really a thing and bus services were very different. Even our major roads have changed over that time, and we have seen deepening congestion of late.
We now know that climate pressures are bearing heavily on our environment, whether in respect of housing, economic development or transport infrastructure. Anybody who was at the briefing yesterday with Sir Patrick Vallance will understand how pressing it is that we address the climate issue at this moment. Leaving plans for too long could mean that they are not responsive to the call of our time, particularly on climate issues. They will also not recognise the changing environment we are in. I have to hand it to the Government: some of the things they are putting forward on national infrastructure and housing are ambitious. Whether they can deliver is another question altogether, but they are certainly putting out a rapid change, and we need to reflect that in our planning system.
A supplementary plan that is 13 years out of date is not responsive to the logjams that we see in York today—the increase in the volume of traffic and the consequences of that on our air quality—and developments that have happened. We have an outline plan for the York Central site, with 6,500 jobs and 2,500 dwellings. We are talking about placing this new city within York in the middle of our old medieval city, as well as the infrastructure routes feeding into it, but with transport planning that is 13 years out of date, we will rapidly see that bringing all those cars into the city centre will just create a car park. Therefore, it is not responsive enough to the reality of what we are doing. At rush hour, York will come to a complete standstill, yet these supplementary plans are meant to inform what is happening.
I could talk about environmental plans and what is happening on flooding. Fortunately, we have been putting in mitigation to address the flooding challenges in our city, but the Environment Agency tells me that we have 17 years until we are challenged again, unless upstream infrastructure is put in place and we take water out of the rivers, improve soil quality and so on. We really need to think about the rapid changes and pressing issues that we face.
Therefore, we need some time. I put five years as a suggested time period for us to start thinking about how we move on to the next stage of our planning. That is why it is a probing amendment. I am trying to build a culture in our planning system of a thinking process, as opposed to having rigid timetables.
Our major routes around York will have an impact on the way traffic flows in our city, whether it is the dualling of the ring road or the widening of some of the A roads—not in my constituency but on the outside of York. At the same time, we have a city centre that has been declared car-free. That will have a massive impact too, with blue badge holders being locked out of their city. We have changes of routes through various parts of the city, building pressure and volume on some of the core routes through York.
It is important to recognise the pace of the change that is occurring and to think about how we can best address that in the planning system. We can do that through a timetable, and that is why I have said it is a probing amendment. We have to start addressing what is happening on the planet around us in the context of planning. In particular, I am thinking about scheduling and the evolution approach, as opposed to this being an event. It certainly will be an event in York if we do get that local plan over the line. [Laughter.] I am sure the Minister will want to come and celebrate with us all at that moment.
A conversation is needed about planning and about how we bring together our supplementary plans—our minerals and waste plan, and our local transport plan—in sequence for a local plan process. More thinking needs to be done. I thought it was necessary to table an amendment to make that point today and to see how the Minister responds, because this may be something we want to explore at later stages of the Bill.
Mr Jones
It is extremely important that local planning authorities ensure that policies in their plans remain up to date, so that they can effectively address the needs of local communities. We have certainly heard one example where the policy is not just out of date; it sounds like it has not been in date for some decades. That causes significant challenges, as has been outlined by the hon. Members for York Central and for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
In the current system, local planning authorities are required to review their plans once every five years from their adoption, as is set out in regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We have made it clear in the Bill’s policy paper that we intend to require, through regulations, authorities to update their local plans at least every five years. Although I fully understand the spirit of the amendment, these are procedural matters that have traditionally been addressed via regulations, and we intend to retain that principle. I therefore ask the hon. Member for York Central not to press her amendment to a vote.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful for the debate and for the Minister’s response. We all recognise the importance of development plans and supplementary plans in shaping our communities. Ultimately, we want the best for our communities and to make sure that providers that have profit in mind do not come and take advantage of an area, which is why such plans are really important. We must ensure that they are timely and kept up to date, and that they are of great use in shaping the future. Therefore, having a process whereby we start to think more about the evolution of our communities, as opposed to five-year or 10-year events that we have to race around to prepare for, is really important.
To get a different culture in planning, we need sufficiency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, we need to ensure that the resourcing is there for local authorities to do a proper job at planning, because if they can build a robust local plan and some of the supplementary plans, it protects them. It also protects their community and enables them to drive change—something I think we all want to see.
As I said, however, I tabled amendment 117 as a probing amendment. I am grateful for the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Government want the planning system to be truly plan-led, to give communities more certainty that the right homes will be built in the right places. To achieve that, plans will be given more weight in decision making. They will be faster to produce and easier to navigate and understand. Currently, communities and applicants can face an alphabet soup of planning documents, leaving all but the most seasoned planning professionals pretty baffled.
The clause provides an important change to the definition of the development plan set out in section 38(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It outlines the elements that, collectively, will comprise the development plan for any given area of land. It replaces the terminology used to describe constituent documents to align with that used in schedule 7 to the Bill, as introduced by clause 87. It paves the way for a system without local development documents, local development frameworks, area action plans, and local plan part 1s and part 2s. Instead, we will have a simpler approach, with specific references to neighbourhood plans, local plans, spatial development strategies, supplementary plans, and minerals and waste plans, as defined in schedule 7.
That change will leave communities and applicants in no doubt about which are the key planning documents for an area, and will lay the foundation for the later reforms of the planning system through this Bill. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Role of development plan and national policy in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 83, page 91, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
“(5C) But the development plan has precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two.”
This amendment gives precedence to local development plans over national policies, reversing the current proposal in inserted subsection (5C).
Mr Jones
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the amendments. It has been a somewhat lively debate. I will miss the conversations that I have had week on week with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, but I am sure that those calls from me to him will now turn into calls from him to me as he pursues me, probably weekly if not on a more frequent basis.
The amendments, which aim to make the same change to clause 83—namely, to ensure that development plan policies always take precedence over national development management policies—come from the collective commitment of the hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Greenwich and Woolwich to support local democracy in planning. However, it is the Government’s view that it would be counterproductive to amend the Bill as proposed. Clause 83 reforms decision making, strengthens the role of the development plan, including local plans and neighbourhood plans, in practice. It states that the relevant decisions, for example, on planning applications will only be able to depart from the development plan where
“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.
It would no longer be enough for those other considerations merely to “indicate otherwise”, something that can be exploited to override local decisions. This will be the biggest change to the basis of planning decision making since the early 1990s, and will ensure local and neighbourhood plans have greater primacy.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I am curious as to whether the Minister can give us an example of what will be designated a national development management policy?
Mr Jones
I am not in the position to give the hon. Lady that example today. As she knows, such policies are often developed through the process of making primary legislation, and then are developed beyond the process we have before us today. I take her comment.
As part of the reform, we are also introducing statutory national development management policies. Those policies would sit alongside those in local plans when relevant planning decisions are made, with clear statutory weight. National development management policies will be primarily those nationally important policies used for making decisions. The hon. Member for South Shields should note that a current example is green belt protection.
There are several reasons why we think national development management policies are an important and positive reform. First, they will make it easier for local authorities to produce their local plans. By dealing with universal planning considerations nationally and giving them the same weight as the plan, local authorities will no longer need to repeat those matters to ensure they have sufficient force.
Secondly, introducing national development management policies means that local plans can focus on matters of genuine local importance to communities—saving time and money for authorities, and making plans more locally relevant and easier to use. Thirdly, it will be easier for applicants to align their proposals with national and local policy requirements—something which we expect to be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized builders.
Fourthly, it will provide greater assurance that important policy safeguards that apply nationally, or to significant parts of England, such as protections for areas at risk of flooding, policy on climate change, and policies to protect the green belt, will be upheld with statutory weight and applied quickly across the country, including when any changes are made.
That brings me to the heart of the issue outlined by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about the national development management policy taking precedence over local plans. It is extremely important to reiterate that where we have local plans that become very out of date, it is important that the protections set out in national policy continue to be reflected in the decisions.
Finally, this framework of basic national policies can guide relevant planning decisions if a local plan is significantly out of date and cannot be relied upon in certain respects. Introducing national development management policies and giving them statutory weight is, therefore, important to creating much greater clarity around the role of national policy in decisions. Increasing this clarity is crucial to reducing the number of planning appeals local authorities face, and therefore reducing the number of unanticipated developments communities face on their doorstep as a result. That point has been made a number of times this afternoon. That clarity also reduces the cost associated with those appeals, enabling local authorities to divert their resources to planning positively for their area. I think I can safely say that that is an outcome that we all want to deliver.
The amendment deals specifically with what to do in the event of a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. As I have indicated, I believe the current clause is a necessary safeguard in situations where plans are out of date and important national policies on the environment or other matters need to be reflected fully in decisions.
To explain that more fully, some local plans are woefully out of date. We heard one example in Committee this afternoon and there are a number of examples across the country where the plans, although not quite as out of date as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, have been out of date since the 1990s.
Matthew Pennycook
How does the Minister believe that this clause specifically will address the fact that there is not sufficient coverage of local plans across England? How will the provisions in the clause incentivise people to take up a local plan if they have not already done so?
Mr Jones
We have just discussed a clause that will compel local authorities to put in place an up-to-date local plan every five years. What we are discussing here is making sure that, where we get outliers and places with out-of-date local plans, green belt protection and other such things can be maintained through the national development management policies. This is a crucial point. We wish to use national policy to drive higher standards where those standards at the moment are not as they should be, especially on the environment and to tackle climate change. It is important that those policies can take precedence in the event of conflict with the out-of-date policies in plans.
I would nevertheless expect such conflicts to be limited in future, because we are making it easier to produce plans—we have discussed a number of situations today in which that would be the case—and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies.
As I said at the outset, I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. Last week, the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), published his response to the letter from the Chair of the levelling-up Select Committee in which clarification was requested on this question. I have spoken to the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who took office this week. His view is the same as that expressed in the letter. We will provide a copy of that letter to members of the Committee.
We are also committed to providing more information about how we expect national development management policies to work in the future, which is why we plan to publish shortly the prospectus I referred to earlier, if not as articulately as I could have, so that we can look at our approach to the preparation of that prospectus. We will welcome views from hon. Members. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Given how long the Minister has been in post, I do not blame him, but the arguments he makes in defence of clause 83(2), and proposed new subsection (5C) in particular, are the same ones we have heard over many months. Frankly, I do not think they stack up. I note with interest the points he made about the new Secretary of State taking the exact same view. I do not think his line that it would be counterproductive to amend this aspect of the Bill will hold.
I do not intend to press amendment 86 to a vote, because we will almost certainly come back to this issue on Report, but I just ask the Minister to go away and satisfy himself that the powers in subsection (2) are appropriate and justified. Will he think through, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, not only the implications for democratic control of planning, engagement and scrutiny of planning, and the impact on trust and confidence in the planning system, which we know is an issue, but the implications in terms of innovation, undermining devolution deals and the legal delays that I am certain will come if the Government try to use this power? They will have to think about this issue again, and we will certainly come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, at end insert—
“, subject to subsection (5D).
(5D) But any conflict must be resolved in favour of the development plan in an area if—
(a) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for the town and country planning function and the highways function and any functions exercisable under the Environment Act 2021 of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,
(b) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for at least one function of another public body that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,
(c) it has a joint spatial development strategy, or
(d) it is in Greater London.”
This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.
This is a probing amendment. Given that the Government have just declined to accept amendments 83 and 57, and reconfirmed their intention to have national development management policies override local development plans in the event of any conflict between them at the point of determination, amendment 98 is designed simply to try to elicit from the Government whether they will consider allowing any specific exemptions to that general principle.
The amendment would do so by specifying that any conflict between an NDMP and a local development plan at the point of determination must be resolved in favour of the latter in an area where a combined county authority has had key powers transferred to it under a devolution deal, where a joint spatial development strategy has been agreed, or in Greater London. The idea is that an exemption from the primacy of national policy in the form of NDMPs would be the reward, so to speak, for agreeing a devolution deal with the full panoply of powers available or for engaging in strategic planning by putting a spatial development strategy in place—or, it should be said, for taking part in a new joint spatial development strategy across authority boundaries.
Let me explain my reasoning further by using the example of an area where an SDS or a joint SDS might be taken forward. As the Minister will know, once a spatial development strategy is in place, it provides for a strategic framework for the development plan or plans, which should in theory supersede or take primacy over NDMPs that the Government might happen to bring forward.
While we remain of the view that no local development plan should be made subordinate to national planning policies in the form of NDMPs, if the Government are determined to ensure that they are—it sounded that way from the Minister’s comments in the previous debate—we believe that they should at least consider exempting from that centralising approach areas that have proactively taken on greater powers, including powers to plan strategically, so that they can use them to the full to reflect local priorities and innovate, having regard to national policy but not being unduly constrained by it.
On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give our amendment due consideration.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment 98, which relates to higher-tier authorities with planning powers. During the debate on amendments 86 and 57, I set out our case as to why it may be necessary for national development management policies to outweigh the development plan in the event of a conflict. Amendment 98 would prevent that from happening where there is a conflict in an area covered by a Mayor or a combined authority.
I understand that the argument behind the amendment is that it would support our efforts to promote devolution by exempting Mayors and combined authorities from any situation in which national development management policies might have precedence over their own. While I understand that argument, it is not one that we are able to agree with at this point. It makes complete sense for Mayors and combined authorities to use their strategic planning powers to make policies that support proper planning in their areas, but it does not follow that those should automatically outweigh national development management policies, given what those policies aim to do.
National development management policies will be nationally important policies, such as for the green belt or flood protection, as I have already mentioned. It remains important that those are not duplicated through strategic plans, which should restrict the chances of conflict occurring in the first place, especially where plans have been kept up to date. More details on what national development management policies could look like will be set out in the prospectus coming this summer, which will also indicate the scope for policies in plans to address matters that are locally important, or of strategic importance in the case of a Mayor or combined authority.
The other arguments made in relation to amendment 87 also apply here. There will be occasions when circumstances arise that mean the Government need to make an urgent change. That became apparent during the pandemic, when we had to act very quickly to protect temporarily closed theatres and live music venues from the threat of development. In those circumstances, it is right that national development management policy is able to override the development plan, even where there is a strategic plan-making body.
I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich understands those reasons and will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will appreciate that I am, naturally, disappointed that the Government will not countenance any exemption from the precedence that clause 83 affords to national development management policies, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The root of the problem is the powers in clause 83, rather than the specific issue raised by the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be extremely brief because a Division is due in the main Chamber, but also because schedule 6 is largely a tidying-up exercise, amending the Town and Country Planning Act to add requirements for local planning authorities to have regard to material considerations in NDMPs when modifying or removing permission, granting outline permission, and enforcement and appeals.
However, reading the schedule prompted two questions in my mind. First, paragraph 12(b) to schedule 6 amends paragraph 8(2) to schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to insert paragraph (da), requiring neighbourhood development orders, which implement neighbourhood plans, to be in general conformity with NDMPs. Given that the Government are explicitly legislating in the Bill to ensure that neighbourhood development orders are consistent with NDMPs, can the Minister give the Committee a sense of what kind of national policies covered by an NDMP would have direct relevance to extremely local, sub-district plans, such that conformity with them needs to be required by the Bill?
Secondly, paragraph 15 to schedule 6 amends section 337(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert new paragraph (ca), which adds NDMPs to the list of matters that may require modification of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy prior to its publication. Given that the supposed thrust of the Bill is to enable greater devolution to regional authorities and leaders, could the Minister explain the rationale for making the London spatial development strategy subservient to centrally mandated policy?
Mr Jones
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about neighbourhood plans, as I have mentioned a number of times, a prospectus will be brought forward in the summer to explain how national development management policies may work. I urge him to wait and see those documents. When he sees the prospectus, he will no doubt provide a response. [Interruption.]
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It’s another leadership video, isn’t it? [Laughter.]
Mr Jones
I reiterate the point that I made with respect to amendment 98. For the reasons I mentioned then, national development management policies will be nationally important policies, and like those for the green belt and flood protection, it remains important that they are not duplicated, so that we restrict the chances of conflict occurring in the first place, especially where the plans have not been kept up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham in particular mentioned a number of situations in which planning decisions had been made and overturned, and clearly policies conflicting can quite often be the reason why that happens. It is therefore extremely important that we try to restrict the chances of such conflicts. With that, I commend clause 83 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 14th July 2022
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance today, Mr Hollobone. This proposal from the Government feels rather tin-eared, and the amendment—or something like it, at the very least—seems appropriate. It is good that the official Opposition have put forward a route that the Government could choose to go down.
It seems odd that there is not a worked-out process for properly scrutinising and consulting on national policy statements that could have huge ramifications for every part of this country. This is a very diverse country: we have four nations, and communities that are rural, urban and suburban. National planning policy could have many different ramifications on different communities.
I think of my own community, with 67 parish councils and the need for them to be involved and to understand the issues. Further north in Cumbria, we have the very live issue of Britain’s first new coalmine in 30 years potentially being given permission later this summer—we will wait and see about that. It will be hugely significant for the community it could impact directly, but it will also have a national impact. For us not to have a level of scrutiny and consultation for national plans—something that a local authority would be slaughtered for not doing with its own local plans—seems to be very wrong and, as I say, somewhat tin-eared.
It goes back to a theme that I have tried to develop throughout debates on this Bill, which is about trying to understand the motivation. It could be that the Government are just being tin-eared and have not thought this through properly. That is entirely possible—Governments do that. The question is, who is this for? Is this devolution? Is this empowering local communities? That is what the Government claim it is. Or is it just for the convenience of central Government? If there are national plans and a national planning framework allowing Government to take forward their central agenda without proper consultation of local communities—be they rural or urban or in any part of this country—that will meet with huge opposition, including in the constituencies of Opposition Members.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure and an honour, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling this amendment. The national development management policies are an important change to the system, and I understand the desire to ensure that they are properly considered.
The amendment has three elements: consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and policy review. I will deal with each in turn. On consultation, the existing clause already imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that such consultation and participation as are considered appropriate take place. The previous Secretary of State was clear in his comments to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee that consultation on the national development management policies will indeed be carried out. The consultation specified by the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Moreover, we need to bear in mind the possibility that circumstances may occasionally arise in which the Government need to make urgent change. I heard what the hon. Member for York Central said earlier, and I would like to give her an example that became apparent during the pandemic of when we had to act quickly. Hon. Members will recall, during the first part of the pandemic, the significant issue with food supply. One of the decisions that was therefore made at a national level was to disapply planning conditions relating to the hours during which supermarkets could be served by delivery vehicles. Because of the way supply chains were at that point, it was extremely important to get food through to the stores. In those circumstances, it may not be feasible to do everything that the amendment seeks to do, for reasons that I hope she understands.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
In relation to consultation, the Minister just said that it depends on what the Secretary of State thinks is appropriate. Is there anywhere else in our legislation where things are left to the whim of a particular Secretary of State in that way? I cannot believe that the Minister thinks that is an acceptable way to conduct planning.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for her question. We need to look at what is being put forward today. Clearly, the passage of the Bill has some time to run, and we have to look at this issue in the context of the national planning policy prospectus that is being put out later this year so that hon. Members get a wider understanding, and I hope they will be able to respond to that.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Surely the prospectus should come first, before we consider implementing this legislation. It seems like things are being done in a completely back-to-front way, and I do not understand why. This is not a good way to make legislation.
Mr Jones
I understand what the hon. Member says, but clearly this process will take some time. There are other parts of the process that follow today’s proceedings and Committee stage. By the time we get to that point, I am sure hon. Members will have been able to see the national planning policy prospectus and understand it more fully.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful that the Minister was able to produce an example of where a national planning decision would override a local plan, but he talked about logistics, which does not come into the local planning process. That example was operational—it was not actually to do with planning. Can he drill down to say when a national development management policy would override a local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
Further to that point, is the Minister seriously saying that a logistical issue about the opening times of supermarkets is the type of policy that will be covered by an NDMP?
Mr Jones
What I am explaining is an example of where powers need to be taken, sometimes at short notice, in the national interest.
To move on, let me turn to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened to the debate with interest, and I appreciate the points that have been made. The existing provisions for scrutiny of national policy statements, on which I believe the amendment has been modelled, play a particular role, given the way that those statements provide a framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, which are decided by Ministers.
National development management policies will serve a broader purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as the starting points for considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. The sort of things that we envisage them covering are standard policies—for example, avoiding inappropriate development in a green belt and areas at significant risk of flooding or coastal erosion; protecting nationally important habitats and heritage, and assets such as listed buildings; and ensuring that access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities or reduced mobility is taken into account when assessing development proposals.
As I have said, we have committed to consulting on national development management policies, and this is the first step in the process. The prospectus, which we will publish shortly, will set out more of our initial thinking on the scope of the policies, and the principles for their production. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will read that document with interest when it comes out, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance on our commitment to transparency and full engagement as we develop the policies.
As the national development management policies will be public, parliamentarians and the public may still hold the Government to account, in the usual way, for the content of those policies. The nature of national development management policies differs from national policy statements, so we believe that the clause strikes the right balance.
We will continue to keep national policies under review by listening closely to colleagues, to the public and to the evidence presented to us, as Governments of all complexions do as a matter of course. It is not clear to me that the amendment would necessarily fit into that context. I have listened to the strength of feeling during the debate, and I hope that the national planning policy framework prospectus, when published, and my response to the three major issues that have been raised in discussing the amendment, will reassure Members. I will continue to reflect on the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to responses to the prospectus. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was right to use the phrase “tin-eared”. That is what the Minister’s response was, and I hope he will reconsider.
The amendment and the clause go to the heart of the problem with the Bill. Is it a vehicle to empower communities and their representatives, or to override them when the Government of the day think that is the appropriate thing to do? Where the Government fall on that question is clear from the Minister’s answer. Let me reiterate that the level of scrutiny that we are asking for is not excessive or inappropriate; it is a minimum public consultation requirement in the way that currently applies to local planning policies, and the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as for designated national policy statements.
The Minister’s response was very telling. He said: “Well, the Secretary of State”—the previous Secretary of State now—“has committed to consultation.” That is all well and good, and I hope the prospectus will come in the summer, but it is not about that or about what the previous Secretary of State said; it is about what the Bill says. The Bill says that a Secretary of State needs to consult on an NDMPs if he or she considers it “appropriate”. If a Secretary of State in a future Labour Government brings forward an NDMP, does not consult on it, and uses it to override a local development plan in a constituency of one of the Members now on the Government side of this Committee, those Members would be the first to cry foul the use of such powers. The clause guarantees only that a Secretary of State needs to consult if he considers it appropriate.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister said that NDMPs are different from national policy statements because they have a broader purpose. If they have a broader purpose, surely there is all the more need for basic parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, in the way that currently applies to such statements under the Planning Act 2008.
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response, as he can tell. I hope that he will go back and reconsider this issue and those that we raised in the debate on clause 83, because we will certainly discuss these matters again, if not on Report in this place, then in the other place. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I urge him to reconsider. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
Clause 84 provides the statutory basis for national development management policies in England. As they will play an important part in the planning process, the clause puts a necessary safeguard in place: they must be designated by the Secretary of State so that their status is clear, they must relate to the development or use of land and, most importantly, they must be subject to appropriate consultation before they can have effect.
The clause is necessarily broad in scope so that national policies can address the various planning considerations that apply across the country, from basic policies for protecting the green belt to those for avoiding areas of high flood risk. That will free up local plans to focus on matters of local importance.
We intend to consult fully on the scope and content of these policies before they are first introduced to ensure we have heard a wide range of views before deciding what is best set out at a national level, and before deciding what the policies themselves will say. Alongside clauses 83 and 84, they will be instrumental in making it easier to prepare local plans that reflect communities’ priorities for their areas while providing a sound basis to address the general planning considerations that apply across the country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Contents of the spatial development strategy
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 85, page 92, leave out lines 26 and 27.
This amendment would remove an additional legal test within London’s Spatial Development Strategy that could preclude the insertion of policies which contribute to the effective strategic planning of Greater London but would also apply to other urban areas or are not specific to Greater London.
Tim Farron
I am very concerned about this part of the Bill. If we ask people in England which part of our country has the most autonomy and sovereignty and is listened to the most, most of them will say London—and they would be broadly right. It is really concerning to any person in this country who cares about genuine devolution and the empowerment of local communities that the part of England with the most powers devolved to it is having many of those powers curtailed, qualified and restricted by the clause, and the amendments are important because they put a spotlight on that issue.
Some of the language around levelling up may in fact be divisive, because it is about setting ourselves against one another. Rural communities are the poorest and most needy in England, but there is much that binds us all together. We need to consider ourselves as a United Kingdom and to make common endeavour, but we can do that only if we trust one another, give communities genuine sovereignty and power, and trust them.
Again, there is a theme with the Bill: it is about levelling up and devolution in name, but in reality it is about a lack of trust in the local electorate, local communities and local leaders—in this case, the Mayor of London. Anybody in this country—in England at least—who is concerned about their autonomy, their sovereignty and the devolution they want for their community should be deeply concerned about this proposal and should stand in solidarity with communities in London, who seem to be having theirs curtailed in the Bill. That is the opposite of levelling up and the opposite of devolution, and it increasingly sounds not like devolution but like delegation.
Mr Jones
Clause 85 reaffirms the vital role of the London plan in setting strategic policy for the capital. However, the London plan is intended, and was originally designed, to deal only with matters of strategic importance in London. Those are limits to which the London plan has not always strictly adhered, and it now often touches on matters that no one would consider as strategic in nature, but rather as instances of applying the strategy.
Let me give an example of where the Mayor of London has overstepped that strategic objective. Policy H16 in the London plan refers to laundry, bedding and linen services, which do not seem overly strategic. The inclusion of non-strategic matters means that the London plan is far lengthier and more detailed than it needs to be—the current London plan is over 500 pages long. Not only does that increase the time taken to produce it, but it makes it more complicated for the people of London to work out what policies apply in their area and how those interact.
One of our most important objectives in reforming the planning system is to give a distinct and clearly defined role to each part of the development plan. By clearly specifying that the London plan must cover matters of strategic importance to London, we are making the plan’s role and its relationship to individual local plans easier to understand.
The text that amendment 93 proposes to remove also underlines that policies should relate to the particular characteristics or circumstances of London. During the preparation of the London plan, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the Mayor of London from considering matters that affect London but relate to areas outside Greater London. However, I hope we can agree that the policies themselves should relate to the area for which the Mayor has jurisdiction. Likewise, on amendment 94, it seems entirely reasonable that any policy included at the level of the London plan should have more than a local impact. Otherwise, it would be properly a matter for the appropriate local planning authority’s local or supplementary plans.
On that subject, under the provisions in the Bill, the Mayor of London may prepare a supplementary plan relating to design matters for the whole of Greater London, and amendments 91 and 92 concern that new power. I agree entirely with the intention behind amendment 92, but the amendment is needed to achieve that aim, because the Mayor’s supplementary plans will be part of the development plan, and schedule 7 inserts proposed new sections 15CA(5)(g) and 15CC(8), which provide that, in preparing local and supplementary plans, London boroughs—as local planning authorities—must have regard to the development plan.
Turning to amendment 91, supplementary plans provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to bring forward policies for specific sites, or groups of sites, quickly—for example, in response to a new opportunity that had not been identified in the local plan, or to set design standards too detailed for the local plan itself. They are not intended to supplant the primacy of the local plan or to circumvent the fuller process to which local plans will be subject. Supplementary plans are therefore primarily intended as a tool for local planning authorities to set more granular policies. Allowing the Mayor to set such policies would be contrary to the strategic—rather than locally specific—role of the Mayor. The Mayor’s role should be in setting design standards on a London-wide basis.
That is what the Mayor’s supplementary plan power provides for, while not precluding the Mayor from producing guidance on particular planning matters—a tool that I understand he has made good use of. However, the Mayor of London does not allocate sites in the London plan. Therefore, the ability to produce site-specific supplementary plans is not necessary. In the same way, in the current system, the Mayor does not produce supplementary planning documents.
That leads on to the effect of amendment 97. The London plan has never been able to allocate specific sites. It will retain its ability to identify broad locations for development, which will inform site allocations in individual local plans produced by London boroughs. Local plan making is the correct level at which to allocate individual sites for development, as boroughs work closely with their communities to identify the most suitable sites.
The Mayor should therefore not be able to allocate sites for development through either a supplementary plan or the London plan itself. That preserves the defined roles for strategic planning relative to the local plan. For that reason, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor alone, as suggested by amendment 95, to determine what should constitute “strategic” across more than one borough. That is not to say that the Mayor’s opinion on what constitutes a strategic matter is not essential. However, it is legitimate for other organisations and people, including the boroughs and those examining the London plan, to take a view on the issue.
In addition—although I do not think we need to repeat our earlier debate on this point—we have included the requirement not to be inconsistent with, or to repeat, any national development management policy, to ensure that the whole planning system, from national to local level, is consistent. That allows those matters that are best dealt with at the national level to have status, without requiring repetition in the development plan, potentially at both the strategic and local plan level.
Finally, on amendment 96, we want to remove unnecessary obligations from plan makers. Removing the requirement for the Mayor to include statements on general spatial development aspects of their other strategies and policies does not bar the Mayor from so doing. It merely allows the Mayor to judge how far it would be helpful to do so. I hope we can agree that that is a more sensible position.
I am aware that I have spoken at some length on these points, but I hope that has been helpful for the Committee. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Jones
The Localism Act 2011 abolished regional spatial strategies, which acted as strategic plans for the regions of England. The exception was London, where the Mayor has retained the power to produce a spatial development strategy, better known as the London plan.
The London plan acts as the strategic plan for the capital, and local plans produced by London boroughs must be in general conformity with it. It sets out the planning framework for the capital, which includes the setting of a London-wide housing target broken down into individual housing targets for boroughs. It cannot allocate sites, but it can identify broad locations for development, the details of which are established in subsequent local plans. Local plans require closer consultation between plan makers and the people they represent, making them better placed to identify specific sites for development.
Since 2011, the power to produce an SDS has been extended through devolution deals to three mayoral combined authorities—Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region and West of England—with the intention to give the equivalent power to West Yorkshire in the future. The Bill will expand the power to produce an SDS to all local planning authorities in England outside of Greater London and the mayoral combined authorities I have mentioned. Groups of authorities will be able to use the powers on a voluntary basis when they feel that they would benefit from such a plan.
Spatial development strategies are prepared by an elected Mayor or a combined authority to provide the strategic policies for the development and use of land in the area they cover. The Government wants the development plan system to be clear and efficient. By setting out clearly what a spatial development strategy can and cannot do, clause 85 will be instrumental in achieving a system that is easier to engage with.
Spatial development strategies enable a co-ordinated approach to planning across multiple local authorities and are an effective mechanism for resolving cross-boundary issues. The London plan has broadly been seen as a useful plan at that spatial scale, with each newly elected Mayor choosing to commence work on a new London plan shortly after entering office. It provides a clear and accountable mechanism for setting planning policy across London boroughs and for redistributing housing need across the city.
The London plan is intended to deal only with matters of strategic importance to London. However, that intention has not been strictly adhered to, as I mentioned earlier, and increasingly the London plan has included detailed development management policies on a range of issues that are not usually considered to be of a strategic nature. That increases the length and detail of the plan and the amount of time taken to produce it. It also means that the London plan encroaches on aspects of policy that should be dealt with at either local plan level or national level, which creates overlap between several types of plans and makes plans longer than they need to be.
The amendments made by clause 85 will ensure that the distinction between spatial development strategies and local plans remains clear. The clause will amend the provisions of section 334 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to update the permissible content of a spatial development strategy and will ensure that the purpose and scope of this type of development plan is clear.
In particular, at proposed new subsection (9), it is clear that a spatial development strategy must not be site specific, and nor can it be inconsistent with or repeat national policy. Proposed new subsection (9) also prohibits spatial development strategies from identifying particular sites, preserving that level of detail for the local plan, where such specificity is more appropriate. Unfortunately, only one member of this Committee is from London, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich would accept that his particular local authority knows local people on a more granular level than the Mayor does, because the Mayor works at a strategic level. Therefore it is a far better principle for the local authority to identify sites and make decisions on them.
The amendments made by the clause will mark a change to the current scope of the London plan and mean that it needs to be consistent with national development management policies. Proposed new subsection (2D)(b) introduces a new and additional requirement for strategic matters to be of strategic importance to more than one London borough. The clause deliberately uses the same wording as proposed new section 15AA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by schedule 7 to the Bill, which applies to the content of a joint spatial development strategy. The strategy can be prepared by partnerships of other local planning authorities around the country outside of combined authority areas, meaning that a spatial development strategy will have the same effect whichever system it is produced under. Again, that will help to clarify and demystify the planning system.
London plan policies would, in future, need to avoid conflict with national development management policies, which the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to prepare, and to be of strategic importance to more than one borough. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will not affect how the Mayor consults on or gains approval for the London plan or the role of either the Mayor or the Secretary of State in relation to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Plan making
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The clause introduces schedule 7, which will replace the majority of part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely sections 15 to 37. Schedule 7 contains new provisions relating to different elements of the development plan—specifically joint spatial development strategies, local plans, minerals and waste plans, and supplementary plans. The details of those provisions will be debated throughout these sessions.
In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that plans are faster for local authorities to produce, easier for communities to navigate, engage with and understand, and more focused on things that matter locally. The reforms will support local planning authorities to produce local plans and keep them up to date—something that has proven challenging for many under the existing system. Local planning authorities and communities invest considerable time and effort in preparing local plans, but many plans take too long to produce. The average plan takes seven years, and plans are frequently out of date and can be difficult to understand.
Decisions on planning applications are meant to be plan-led, but in practice local plans cannot always be relied on for guiding decisions, especially when they are not up to date or do not set clear standards for development to follow. To make the system more responsive and flexible, local authorities will be given new powers to collaborate voluntarily with each other on joint spatial development strategies. They will also be able to introduce new policy at pace through supplementary plans.
There are two specific elements of the current plan-making system that the Government are not looking to retain. The first is the requirement for local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement. Such statements do little to drive meaningful dialogue with communities during plan production. Instead, the Secretary of State will produce guidance setting out much clearer expectations around how local planning authorities should engage people in the planning process.
Secondly, we do not propose to retain the duty to co-operate. The duty has been widely criticised as inflexible and burdensome, causing significant delays to the production of local plans. It will be replaced with a more flexible policy-based approach to addressing strategic issues that cut across authorities. That will be set out in a revised national planning policy framework in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to check that I understood the Minister correctly, is he saying that the new flexible alignment test, which is to follow in the Bill, will come in only at the point that the NPPF is finalised in 2025? Is he saying that that is when we should expect this new test to appear?
Mr Jones
Clearly we will need to ensure that the new test is workable. We will have to consider that very carefully, and we will no doubt consult on it. I will need to come back to the hon. Gentleman about the timeframe in order to provide him with that information. However, given the important changes that this clause enables us to introduce, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Plan making
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 7, page 224, line 14, after “authorities” insert “or county councils”.
This amendment and amendment 113 would enable county councils to prepare joint spatial development plans.
Tim Farron
This is an important part of the Bill. I am comfortable with much of the direction that the Government seek to go in, but if we are to offer the power to develop joint spatial development strategies, it should be to everybody. I will make particular reference to national parks in England and the duty to consult with them.
It is worth bearing in mind that national parks are quasi-local authorities. In many ways, they have the functions of a local authority, particularly when it comes to planning and some other associated issues. They do not have council tax-raising powers and they are not directly elected in any shape or form in England or Wales. In Scotland, there is an element of direct election to the national parks.
I will make two suggestions. First, the needs of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are significant. They are parts of the country that we have collectively decided are so important that they need to be protected for environmental reasons, to provide education and enlightenment about our heritage and our culture, and to protect the communities within them. I am especially concerned about that latter point.
In national parks, decisions are made about housing, planning and development that have a huge impact on the lives of the people who live within them. The Lake District national park has between 40,000 and 50,000 full-time residents, a not inconsiderable number of people whose lives are affected by an unelected authority. By the way, the national parks do a great job—I have a lot of time and praise for what the Lake District national park and the Yorkshire Dales national park in my constituency do—but it is not true to say that they make their decisions entirely democratically.
When we are consulting and imposing a duty to consult, we must have a duty to consult the national parks. They must not be considered things to be overlooked, and communities must not be overlooked. We need to remember that decisions made about affordable housing and allowing farmers to do something on their farms that might enable them to diversify and to provide a home for agricultural workers, or a home for a farmer to retire into so that a young farmer can come and take their place, are often decided by people who do not live in the national park and who are not elected by the local community.
It would be interesting if the Minister could reflect on the extent to which the Government might consider learning from the Scottish example, whereby a number of members of national park authorities are directly elected. When we place a duty to consult, which means that we bring in the national parks, we should consult people who are there representatively, who are democratically elected and who are there to speak on behalf of the community. If we do not do that, the national parks will continue to be considered simply places for people to visit, not places for people to live. It is essential that we consider the living, vibrant communities of our national parks, as well as the fact that they are huge assets for the nation as a whole.
Mr Jones
Although I understand the reasons for the amendments, our intention is for the reformed planning system to be district-led. As we have discussed previously, we do not want to see planning or any other powers being drawn upwards as a result of our reforms. As such, joint spatial development strategies need to be driven by the authorities closest to their communities.
We agree that county councils should play an important role in the plan-making process. They will have significant influence over the development of a joint spatial development strategy, and we envisage that they will be closely involved with its day-to-day production. To make sure that happens, we are giving them the formal status of statutory consultee so that they can bring their experience and expertise in a range of issues, particularly highways, transport, flood mitigation, education and the rules on waste, to the creation of a joint spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining the joint spatial development strategy will want to see evidence of work on those key issues and to make sure that any views expressed by the county council have been properly taken into consideration.
The approach that we are proposing strikes a balance between ensuring that joint spatial development strategies are developed at the right level and ensuring that the views and expertise of county councils are part of the process. Likewise, in areas with an elected Mayor, we believe it is vital that the Mayor is formally involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, in order to provide clear and accountable leadership for it. That is why combined authorities should not be eligible to produce a joint spatial development strategy. In such cases, the Mayor, with the support of all the member authorities, can approach the Government to ask for spatial development strategy powers to be conferred on them as part of their devolution deal.
I hope that was the response that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was looking for. His amendments seem to view spatial development strategies as a co-ordinating layer in the planning system. Amendment 102 seeks to resuscitate the duty to co-operate, which is widely agreed—most Conservative Members would agree, at least—to have been an ineffective mechanism, criticised as inflexible, bureaucratic and slow. That is why the Bill abolishes it. We can all agree that it is vital for local planning authorities to work together to make sure that cross-boundary issues are properly addressed. We expect them to plan for, and deliver, the housing and infrastructure our communities need. The planning system provides a number of mechanisms to assist them in doing so to which we are adding.
We intend to replace the duty with more flexible policy within the revised national planning policy framework, upon which we will consult. This will enable local planning authorities to address any issues of alignment during the preparation of a plan. At present, if an authority fails the duty its local plan must be withdrawn. The Bill also introduces a new requirement to assist with plan making, which we will consider more fully in due course. That will ensure the involvement of those who are vital to production of plans, including the delivery and planning of infrastructure. As such, joint spatial development strategies should not be seen as a co-ordinating function, replacing the duty to co-operate. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree to not to press the amendments to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of mayoral combined authorities and combined authorities, I cannot say that I am entirely convinced. However, I note the detailed response he gave me to the amendment, and I will give it further consideration. On the issue of county councils, the Minister says that they will be closely involved. I remain concerned that not giving them equality of status will be harmful. I am aware that the Department is concerned that if we do not get county councils to bring resources to the table for the new joint spatial development strategies, it may have effects that the Government do not want.
On the issue of the duty to co-operate and the voluntary nature of those new powers, I remain concerned about what happens and how that impacts on the Government’s wider policy objectives in areas where authorities do not make use of the power when we have removed the only statutory arrangement to enable them to co-operate. I urge the Minister to go away and give that some thought. If the Minister is not comfortable reintroducing the duty for those who have not taken up those powers, will he at least think again about whether the incentive structure might be tweaked to ensure that the majority of areas make use of the powers? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 14th July 2022
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 July 2022 - (14 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 19th July 2022
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 July 2022 - (19 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I want to add my support to these amendments. The issue seems to be that holiday destinations in particular have been hit by the Airbnb market. I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will be hearing from many of his colleagues about the implications it has, whether they are from Cornwall or Devon, and it is now spreading across the country.
York has been hit, in particular over the pandemic. We have seen a 45% increase in Airbnbs over that period, and it is hitting our communities hard. According to today’s figures, there are 2,068 Airbnbs in my community. We are seeing an extraction economy, where money is being taken out of our local economy predominantly by people from London and the south-east, who can afford to buy these additional properties. They are clearly trying to make a profit, but it comes at the expense of our communities.
We have heard about the impact on public services and the local economy. Hospitality venues are now not able to open full-time for the guest economy, because they cannot recruit the necessary skills. It is skewing the whole economy and our public services, in particular care work, and that is now orientating into our NHS. It is jacking up the house prices in the area, and we are getting this heated housing market because demand is so great. We hear about people coming and buying six, seven or eight of these properties at one go.
The result of this increased demand is that local people are impacted. They are faithfully saving for their mortgage, but when they go to put an offer on a house, someone undercuts them by tens of thousands of pounds, because they know that they will get the return. Renting a property in York costs, on average, £945 a month. An Airbnb stay over a weekend costs £700. That is why we are seeing this massive reorientation. Section 21 notices are being issued to people in the private rented sector to move them on to make way for Airbnbs.
The undercutting of prices is also impacting on the regulated B&B and guesthouse market, and because Airbnb and second homes are not regulated, the health and safety is not there, and there are so many other checks that are not in place. A registration scheme, which I know the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on, is completely insufficient for addressing the challenge. It is a new challenge, and the Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to right the wrongs of what is happening and at the scale it is happening.
Creating these new classes would bring opportunity, but revenue can also be drawn from them. Many of the properties in question are classified under small business rates, so their owners do not pay council tax, but because they reach the threshold for small business rate relief, local authorities such as York are missing out on millions of pounds in revenue that they could get from such properties. It is therefore really important to categorise the properties and then look at how we use the categories.
I mentioned that in York we have 2,068 properties listed as Airbnbs; two weeks ago there were 1,999, so the number of properties that are going out to this new market is going up week by week. That is having a significant impact on York and York’s communities, so I trust that the Minister will not only support the amendment but engage in a wider discussion about what is happening to our communities, particularly in holiday destinations, so that we can ensure that, through this legislation, there is a suite of policies to ameliorate that market.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The amendment and new clauses raise an issue on which the Committee touched when we discussed our proposal for a second homes council tax premium. As was said in that debate, we recognise the impact that a large and growing concentration of second homes and short-term holiday lets can have on communities.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is charmingly persistent on this matter, not just for his own constituency, and I have some sympathy with his case. We know that in areas such as the Lake district, Cornwall, Devon and the Isle of Wight there are concerns about the impact of second homes and short-term holiday letting on the availability and affordability of homes for local people. I also know that the proliferation of short-term lets has affected our cities—we have heard the hon. Member for York Central talk about that, and I am aware that it is also an issue in Bath and London—which is why we are listening to local communities about the measures that they think will help to address the issues in their area.
Neighbourhood planning is an important tool in this context and, as I am sure we will discuss further, the Government wish to strengthen it. However, neighbourhood plans can already set policies concerning the sale and use of new properties in their area, including by limiting the sale of new homes for second homes and holiday lets. An example of this is in St Ives, where the neighbourhood plan, approved by local people, introduced a principal residence policy to prohibit the sale of new homes as second homes. Although the policy was challenged in the High Court, the court found in favour of St Ives and its policy. As such, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will agree that the changes he seeks to make with amendment 119 are already built into the neighbourhood planning system.
Rachael Maskell
I want to highlight the fact that the issue is not just with new properties; it is predominantly existing properties that are brought forward. To put such a policy into the planning process, as the Minister proposes, will address only part of the problem— the future problem—and certainly will not stop the market because it will orientate completely to the existing housing stock.
Mr Jones
I completely understand where the hon. Member is coming from. Clearly, this is about not just new builds but the wider property market. I will address that point later, but let me say now that we are aware of the issue and are doing a significant amount of work to understand the problem further and to work through the possible solutions with communities.
It is important that proposed solutions help to address the issues while avoiding unintended consequences. In that regard, I have some concerns about new clauses 38 and 39, which were also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. First, they risk increasing the burdens faced by local planning authorities throughout England by creating extra planning applications that they will need to decide. The issue affects different areas in different ways, so our view is that any solutions should provide tools that can adjust to local circumstances.
In addition, I am unsure why the proposal is that a change of ownership, rather than changing a property to a second home or a holiday rental, should trigger the requirement. That means that cases where the existing owner changes the property to a second home or a holiday rental would not be covered until the subsequent owner sought to continue that use. That adds a new test for local planning authorities to apply and monitor and adds complexity to the proposed use classes, in a way that could prove unhelpful.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister mentions a consultation that will end on 21 September. If it recommends putting what is being asked for into the Bill, will he come back and do that?
Mr Jones
For a number of days now, issues have been raised in Committee that it is right for us to reflect on. Clearly, 21 September coincides with the last day of this Committee’s considerations but, as the hon. Member knows, that is not the end of the process. I am not in a position to confirm what she asks for, but it is important that matters drawn to the Government’s attention in Committee are considered carefully. We will see what amendments are tabled on Report, by the Government and by Opposition parties. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will withdraw his amendment.
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 88, page 94, line 27, at end insert—
“(aa) policies (however expressed) limiting new housing development in a National Park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to affordable housing;”.
This amendment would enable neighbourhood development plans to restrict new housing development in National Parks and AONBs to affordable housing.
Mr Jones
Although I entirely understand the desire of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for more affordable housing, particularly in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, I fear that the approach he advocates would be counterproductive.
Clause 88 sets out what communities can address in their neighbourhood development plans. It already allows communities to include policies on the provision of affordable housing in their area, taking into account local circumstances. We recognise that delivering affordable housing in national parks and AONBs can be a challenge. To help address that paragraph 78 of the national planning policy framework includes a specific rural exemptions sites policy. It allows affordable housing to be delivered on sites that would not otherwise be developed to meet specific local housing need, and the majority of that housing will be required to remain permanently available to those with a local connection. In addition, in 2021 we published planning practice guidance to help bring forward more of those sites in the future.
Hon. Members will be aware that authorities in designated rural areas can set policies that contain a lower development threshold, above which affordable housing can be sought. That threshold can be between one and five units, compared to a threshold of 10 units in other areas. We will be consulting on how the small sites threshold should work in rural areas under the infrastructure levy.
New clause 40 would enable planning authorities for national parks and AONBs to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction is affordable and to define “affordable” for that purpose. Authorities are already empowered to set policies in their local plans that require developers to deliver a defined amount of affordable housing on market housing sites, unless exemptions apply. These policies are able to take into account local circumstances in setting the appropriate minimum amount of affordable housing to be delivered, which will vary across the country.
Under the infrastructure levy, we will introduce a new “right to require” through regulations, by which authorities can require a certain proportion of the levy to be delivered as on-site affordable housing. That will be in addition to the rural exemptions sites, which I have already outlined. The revenue from market housing is vital for delivering affordable housing and other vital infrastructure, with over 24,000 affordable homes being delivered through developer contributions in 2020-21. As we will discuss, the new infrastructure levy has been designed to deliver as much on-site affordable housing as at present, if not more. Requiring only affordable housing could therefore reduce the amount of affordable housing obtained in these areas by making market development unable to proceed at all. Ultimately, that would make the affordability challenges in those areas worse rather than better. As such, although the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale are valid and the Government are taking them seriously in our design for the infrastructure levy, I hope he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Tim Farron
Just to be clear, the wording of the amendment means that it would enable national parks to do these things, and they can choose not to if they wish. If we are about respecting local communities, then what we do is about giving people power, not telling them what they must or must not do. For the Government to not support what I am proposing is effectively removing that choice from them.
I hear what people say about the impact on neighbouring communities. It is worth bearing in mind that national parks are—rightly or wrongly—made up of people from a whole range of different backgrounds. The people who are placed on national parks include those appointed by a Secretary of State, people from parish councils within the national park, and the principal authorities that make up that national park, which also cover areas that are not in the national park. At the moment, most of the area that Cumbria County Council covers is not a national park. It includes larger towns and, indeed, one city within Cumbria, which are not in the national park. Likewise, the district councils also have representatives, and not one of those district councils is majority national park in terms of population, so there is that understanding of the impact beyond the boundaries of a national park.
I understand what the Minister says about the importance of the revenue raised by market housing, but the evidence we see with our own eyes in communities like mine is that when communities can bank on new developments being affordable, we suddenly see a huge reduction in build costs, because landowners will give up land for significantly less than they would have done otherwise. Build costs reduce, and the whole community tries to find ways to achieve things. It is very similar to what has happened in my area with rural broadband—communities can deliver broadband much more cheaply than BT because, as it turns out, landowners are quite happy to allow a bunch of people to dig trenches as part of a community effort. People will do that for nothing, whereas they would not do that for a commercial enterprise. So that does not undermine the case at all.
The evidence I have brought before the Committee—the Rural Services Network stating and showing evidence that, on the Government’s own metrics, rural England is more in need of levelling up than any of the geographical regions of England, even the poorest of them—tells us that we have to do something to tackle the need. This amendment is one way in which that could be done. I understand, however, and was interested in, some of the things that the Minister said, so I will not press it to a vote at the moment. I would love to see further action from the Government to address the issue in the coming weeks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I will be brief, Mr Paisley. We have just been talking about affordability, and I am sure that the Minister is listening carefully to our considerations and the different challenges we face across our communities. It is so important to be able to develop good, sustainable communities in the future. The amendment simply seeks to take that to the next level and enable neighbourhood planning processes to ensure that 100% affordability is built in to include social development, which is so important to building sustainable communities. We clearly do not see that at the moment. My amendment therefore speaks for itself.
New clause 41 would get there by a different route, so I am supportive of it, because I am trying to find a solution to the issue of affordability, which so many of our constituencies struggle with at the moment. I will say no more on that, but I trust that the Minister has heard and will respond appropriately.
Mr Jones
I understand that the hon. Member wants to see more affordable housing delivered, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to achieve that objective. The Government remain committed to neighbourhood planning, and the reforms in the Bill will ensure that neighbourhood plans continue to play an important role in the reformed planning system.
The clause sets out what communities can address in their neighbourhood development plans. It already allows communities to include policies on the provision of affordable housing in their area, taking into account local circumstances. New clause 41 seeks to enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction is affordable, and to define “affordable” for that purpose. I entirely understand the desire for more affordable housing, but the approach that is advocated through the new clause would be somewhat counter-productive.
Local authorities are already empowered to set policies in their local plans that require developers to deliver a defined amount of affordable housing on market housing sites, unless exceptions apply. Such policies are able to take into account local circumstances in setting the appropriate minimum amount of affordable housing to be delivered, which will vary across the country. Under the infrastructure levy, we will introduce a new right to require in regulations, through which local authorities can require a certain proportion of the levy to be delivered as on-site affordable housing.
The revenue from market housing is, as I said, vital to delivering affordable housing, and we have already provided 24,000 affordable homes through developer contributions during 2021. In addition, the new infrastructure levy will help to deliver more on-site affordable housing than at present. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I listened intently to what the Minister said. It does not fully satisfy me or answer the inquiry that I am making in the amendment, because he simplifies the ability to achieve the objective, which we know is not happening at the moment with the provisions that are in place.
I will withdraw my amendment today. However, I trust that we can perhaps look at this matter at a later stage of the Bill, in order to achieve the objective I am seeking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 88, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“(e) in areas of historical, cultural or environmental sensitivity, requirements intended to ensure that development is in keeping with the proximal environment.”
This amendment would enable neighbourhood plans to require that development in areas of historical, cultural or environmental sensitivity is in keeping with the surrounding environment.
I will again be brief, because my amendment is self-explanatory. In an area such as York, the development of part of the city can impact on the whole city. As I have previously mentioned, we are in an application at the moment for the tentative list of world heritage sites. Therefore, we want to ensure that the space in our city is built sensitively to best reflect our environment. That does not mean that it has to be identikit, just that we need to look at how we can build something that respects the historical, cultural and environmental sensitivities of an area such as York. We have a lot of development happening in York and many plans coming forward simply do not fulfil those criteria. I have spoken to Historic England and to archaeologists in the city, and they have deep concerns about the effect that new build could have, including detracting from our city’s incredible assets.
The amendment would also apply to the natural environment, ensuring that blend is built in with that. It does not mean that something new and vibrant cannot be developed, but it means that the sensitivities are considered. As a city, we are certainly interested, as I am sure many other places are, in how we can ensure that developers build according not just to their own desire, but to address the local sensitivities of an area.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for tabling the amendment. I understand that she wants to ensure that communities can protect their cherished local environments from harmful development. However, I do not agree that the amendment is necessary.
Under clause 88, communities will already be able to include policies that place requirements on new development to prevent it from harming sensitive areas. Furthermore, throughout the Bill we are already introducing measures to strengthen protections for our historic and natural environments, such as extending the protections for certain designated heritage sites, including a power to issue temporary stop notices, and moving to an outcomes-based approach in environmental assessment. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
I fully understand why flooding is a matter of particular importance to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and for York Central, as well as other hon. Members, given the flood risk in many constituencies and the devastation caused by flooding. It should concern us all across the House. Although they are linked by that concern, it makes sense to deal with each of the amendments in turn rather than all together.
I take amendments 2 and 133 first: since 2009, climate change adaptation and mitigation has been a key part of the planning system. The management and mitigation of flood and drought risks is a central component of that. We are already strengthening that through the Bill. Clause 88 amends existing legislation to put beyond doubt that neighbourhood planning groups should consider climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Furthermore, to support communities, in 2020 the Centre for Sustainable Energy published a guide to policy writing and community engagement for low-carbon neighbourhood plans, which covers flood and drought risk policy as well as mitigation techniques and infra-structure that they might wish to consider in their plans. Specific reference to flooding and drought in that provision would not strengthen the commitment but might unintentionally undermine focus on other aspects of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Our view, therefore, remains that the duty is most effective when it takes all the causes and effects of climate change together.
On new clause 2, managing flood risk is a Government priority. We are investing £5.2 billion to better protect 336,000 properties, alongside a range of actions to increase resilience to flood risk. Statutory guidance on the building regulations already promotes the use of flood resilient and resistant construction in flood prone areas. However, the building regulations system does not deal with the whole interconnected system of responsibility for managing flood risk. Drainage systems for new developments are already required to be built to a standard that minimises flooding. Those duties sit outside the building regulations system.
Furthermore, the national planning policy framework already makes it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Where necessary, there is an expectation that a development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. In combination, I hope hon. Members will agree that the effect of the new clause is already provided for in wider systems in place for flood mitigation and protection.
Similarly, on new clause 3, we agree that communities should have access to the information they need to manage and prepare for their level of flood risk. That is why the Environment Agency publishes flood risk data and maps for England. Lead local flood authorities are also already required to have a strategy for managing flood risks in their area, which must include an assessment of local flood risk. All that information is already openly available to both insurers and householders. As such, I hope that hon. Members will agree that new clause 3 would not add to the existing provision of data.
Again, I hope the Committee will not be surprised that we agree with the intention behind new clauses 4 and 5. That is why, in July 2021, we committed to publishing a property flood resilience road map by the end of 2022 to ensure that all relevant bodies are playing their part, and that consumers have assurance about the quality of products and their installation.
The road map will set a national, strategic policy framework for property flood resilience and set out our—and the industry’s—approach to addressing the barriers to property flood resilience uptake. That includes exploring the best approach to ensure that property flood resilience professionals undertake work that meets industry standards, and establishing mechanisms to collect the evidence insurers need to recognise property flood resilience and factor it into their premiums.
As I have already said, we are clear that inappropriate new development in floodplains should be avoided, and must be made safe and resilient where they have to occur, without increasing flooding risks elsewhere. That is why Flood Re does not extend to homes built after 2009. Similarly, Flood Re was designed to provide available and affordable insurance for households. It does not cover businesses.
Business insurance operates differently to household insurance; it is often more bespoke, based on the individual nature of the business. In addition, Flood Re is funded via a levy on household insurers. Expanding its scope to cover businesses would require a new levy on businesses, which could result in businesses and therefore customers across the country subsidising profit-making organisations located near rivers or the coast, often to their advantage. That is one of the delicate issues that must be considered. Although it is undoubtedly an issue for some, there is no evidence of a systematic problem in accessing insurance for businesses with high flood risks. For businesses that experience problems, a number of innovative products are being offered to businesses by insurers.
Finally, on new clause 7, we have made important changes to the Flood Re scheme, helping to drive the uptake of property flood resilience. Regulations came into force in April that allow Flood Re to pay claims from insurers who pass flood risk on to the scheme. That includes an amount of “resilient repair”, up to a value of £10,000 over and above the cost of like-for-like repairs, to enable homeowners to return to their homes more quickly following a flood and to reduce the cost of future claims.
Build back better has deliberately been introduced on a voluntary basis. We aim to drive a cultural shift across the insurance market, raising awareness and demand for property flood resilience and helping to capture evidence on the benefits of property flood resilience to support future changes. Hon. Members may also be aware that customers of insurers covering more than 50% of the market are already able to benefit from Build Back Better. We continue to encourage more household insurers to participate in the scheme. In light of those assurances and explanations, I hope that hon. Members will be willing to withdraw the amendments.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for highlighting the importance of the upper catchment management work, which is so necessary for mapping what will happen across other communities, and the Environment Agency’s commitment and the work it is doing in that arena.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hit the nail on the head when he talked about the importance of cross-governmental working, which is clearly not at an optimum at the moment when addressing issues around flooding. While the Minister has talked through a number of steps the Government are taking, I refer him back to the 2016 national flood resilience strategy, which highlighted the importance of co-ordination across Government and of ensuring that resilience was built into the system. That is not happening at the moment. As much as policy may aspire to that, it has further to go. The amendments are therefore still relevant as the Bill does not meet the requirements of the communities that currently flood, and those that will flood in the future as we see weather patterns change and risk increase.
I am not planning to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope the Government will reflect on it, and on my amendment about drought, because this is a significant and serious issue. Right now we recognise that as we move forward we need to build in how we have sufficient water supply. That will be increasingly important. I reserve the right to bring the issue back up on Report, and to give the opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle to table her amendments too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
I understand that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is keen to ensure that existing neighbourhood plans continue to be recognised in the reformed system, but I have to disappoint him by saying that I do not consider the amendments to be necessary. Clause 195 gives the Secretary of State the power to set out transitional and saving provision in regulations. The Government’s intention is to use those powers to limit disruption for communities preparing a neighbourhood plan under the current rules, and to ensure that they continue to have a role in decision making in the new system. We have listened to what Members have said about potential transitional arrangements, and we will in due course set out details of how we intend to transition to the new system of neighbourhood plans.
I fully agree with the hon. Member that more can be done to increase the uptake of neighbourhood planning in urban and deprived areas, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary to achieve that goal. The Government are already taking action to increase uptake in such areas. New section 15K of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, inserted by schedule 7, introduces neighbourhood priority statements, which will provide communities with a simpler and more accessible way to participate in neighbourhood planning. The new neighbourhood planning tool will be particularly beneficial for communities in urban and more deprived areas that often do not have the capacity to prepare a full neighbourhood plan. In addition, we are running a pilot whereby we are able to provide additional funding to a select number of local authorities in under-represented areas to enable them to provide more help to neighbourhood planning groups in getting a neighbourhood plan in place.
I hope that with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel comfortable withdrawing his amendments.
Mr Jones
As you have probably gathered during Committee sittings, Mr Paisley, I am not necessarily one for surprises, especially on such a hot and sunny day.
The Government support giving local authorities the full range of powers necessary to prepare robust plans. I can offer reassurance that that is our intention. The power as drafted will apply to those private sector bodies that authorities are likely to need to involve in plan making. Clause 90(6) sets parameters for which bodies can be prescribed. It requires them to have functions “of a public nature.” That might, for example, include utilities companies, which are privately owned but serve an important public function and should be proactively involved in the plan-making process. The clause does not exclude relevant private bodies where they are involved in public provision, but the amendments potentially extend the requirement to private landlords, voluntary groups and unrelated businesses, which would be disproportionate where those bodies do not have public functions that are likely to be relevant to plan making.
On alignment policy, the policy will require local planning authorities to engage with neighbouring authorities and bodies involved in their area. That will be covered in the future national planning policy framework. The power places the obligation on the bodies involved. I hope that with those reassurances the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
To surprise the Minister—it is the other way round—I am entirely reassured by his response. The language in the clause is about allowing for private infrastructure companies to be involved in the plan-making process in terms of the provision of information. That is what I took from what he said. I appreciate what the Minister said about the potential disproportionate impact from drawing in other types of bodies; that was not the intention. On that basis, I am content and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 90, page 96, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Where regulations under this section make requirements of a local authority that is failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, the plan-making authority must consult the local community on the contents of the relevant plan.”.
This amendment would require, in the event of a local authority failing to deliver a local plan in a timely way, those taking over the process to consult with the community.
I will not labour the point because we have already had extensive discussions about the need to break the deadlock in the planning system. York is a very live example of that need: the local plan is going through a very painful process and we are absolutely determined to see the plan amended rather than being imposed. To break the deadlock and to be able to move forward, it is right that communities get a greater say. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote today, but I trust that the Minister is hearing the importance of being able to engage with communities in order to get the right outcomes in the planning system, particularly where there is deadlock and we are on the naughty step, or at the special measures stage of the process.
Mr Jones
The amendment would modify clause 90 to support the more effective gathering of information required for authorities producing plans. However, its substance relates more to the plan intervention powers in proposed new section 15HA of the PCPA 2004, as inserted by schedule 7, and the importance of community engagement in plan making.
It is vital that communities are given every opportunity to have their say on draft local plans and supplementary plans. The English planning system already gives communities a key role so that they can take an active part in shaping their areas, and in doing so build local pride and belonging. We do not seek to challenge that; in fact, we are strengthening it through the Bill, and I have set out elsewhere how this will be achieved. Intervention powers have been used only sparingly in the past, and that is expected to remain the case under the plan-making system. However, they act as an important safety net and ensure that all areas can benefit from having an up-to-date local plan in place.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 90, page 97, line 8, after “activities” insert—
“undertaken not more than 5 years from completion of the plan”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that material used in plans would not be older than 5 years old to still have relevance to the planning process.
In previous discussions, I have stressed the importance of ensuring that we have relevant and up-to-date information, made available in a timely way, to display the realities of situations as they stand, and we have suggested a timeframe for work around that. Circumstances change in the planning system, and I can think of a number of things that have changed in my own community—whether it is around transport planning in the area, population demographic changes or, indeed, situations like the one we are dealing with at the moment, where we are seeing a real change in the number of displaced people.
We think about the Afghans we cannot house: 12,000 of them have been in hotels for a year now. We were discussing the climate crisis earlier, and we know that 100 million people are displaced across our planet. Some of them will come to the UK and need housing. Things such as the Afghanistan crisis suddenly shift the dial, yet we do not have housing for these people. That is why it is so important to ensure that we are not relying on old information but have relevant and up-to-date information in our planning system, so we can break the deadlocks that can occur by being dependent on old data. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the planning system is more reflective of the now, as opposed to the past—a point that I have made a number of times. Unfortunately, that impacts on the outcome of the planning process.
Mr Jones
Clause 90 is about helping planning authorities to gather the information they need to plan effectively. It does that by requiring those organisations responsible for vital local services to assist in creating plans. We want to ensure that planning authorities can receive that assistance across a range of scenarios and issues.
I understand that the amendment is motivated by a desire to ensure that local plan evidence is up to date. Unfortunately, its effect would be to limit planning authorities use of this power to create effective plans. The amendment applies a blanket five-year time limit on the use of the power in clause 90 in advance of plan adoption, which makes it insensitive to the circumstances or type of information involved. There are many cases where it would be vital to include information gathered more than five years before a plan was adopted. For example, the character study of a conservation area might well be relevant for more than five years, as we have discussed in relation to the hon. Member’s constituency. The same goes for a utilities assessment based on information from energy networks, which work on different, longer term business planning cycles. If, for instance, the preparation of a local plan was delayed for any reason, the arbitrary time limit would prevent more information being taken into account, as the power needed to gather it could not be used.
The Government agree, however, that local plans should be backed by relevant and up-to-date evidence, which is why the evidence supporting plans will continue to be tested at the public examination. That is the place where any issues with the relevance of evidence can be addressed. I hope that with these reassurances, the hon. Member will seek to withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I hear what the Minister is saying, but he raises an important point about the different business planning cycles that involve different factors. There is certainly a need for greater co-ordination to ensure that the relevant data is available in a timely way so that it is more synced with the planning process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 19th July 2022
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 July 2022 - (19 Jul 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 6th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 September 2022 - (6 Sep 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
You are all very welcome. I am glad that our Galleries are swelling with even more Members; that is excellent. Welcome back after the recess, Committee. I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch off your electronic devices or at least put them on silent. No food or drink is permitted, except of course for the water on the tables. If you wish to remove your jacket, please feel free to do so, as it is very warm today. Please provide your speaking notes to Hansard colleagues; you know the email address. And we will get right down to business.
Clause 99
Development commencement notices
The Minister for Housing (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 99, page 116, line 27, leave out from beginning to “for” in line 28 and insert
“planning permission has been granted under section 70 or 73”.
This amendment corrects a cross-reference.
Mr Jones
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I hope that colleagues had a good summer and, in many ways, are suitably refreshed and raring to go with our consideration of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in Committee.
These three amendments are aimed at ensuring that proposed new section 93G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is created by clause 99, works as intended. The amendments propose two changes. First, new section 93G does not refer to the correct section of the 1990 Act as the basis for the grant of planning permission. Therefore, the two technical corrections set out in Government amendments 74 and 75 are considered necessary to make clause 99 legally accurate. Secondly, to ensure that references in new section 93G concerning when new development has begun have the same meaning as those elements set out in existing section 56(2) of the 1990 Act, a consequential amendment is required. This is set out in Government amendment 76.
Overall, the amendments will ensure that clause 99 works as intended, without ambiguity. For those reasons, I hope that members of the Committee support them.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments made: 75, in clause 99, page 117, line 25, leave out “58(1)(b)” and insert “70”.
This amendment corrects a cross-reference.
Amendment 76, in clause 99, page 117, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) In section 56 (time when development begins), in subsection (3), after ‘92,’ insert ‘93G,’.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment adds a consequential amendment to section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (which determines the time when development begins).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to reconvene after the summer recess under you in the Chair, Mr Paisley.
Clause 99 will insert proposed new section 93G into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as the Minister said. The new section will require those carrying out certain development types to serve a commencement notice to the relevant local planning authority before any development takes place. Such development notices will be required to outline the expected start date of construction, the details of the planning permission, the proposed delivery rate for the scheme, and other relevant information. The example in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill suggests that this provision will most likely apply to large-scale residential schemes as a means, albeit a limited one, of preventing land banking and slow build-out by larger developers.
We welcome this sensible new duty. However, I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarification as to what kinds of developments are likely to fall within the “prescribed description” bracket in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section and therefore be required to submit one of the new commencement notices.
Mr Jones
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the description of the particular type of development he refers to will be dealt with in regulations and we will bring forward further details in due course. We will do so in consultation with both local authorities and industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Completion notices
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 170, in clause 100, page 118, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) But notwithstanding subsection (3) the completion notice deadline may be less than 12 months after the completion notice was served if the local planning authority are of the opinion that—
(a) development has not taken place on the site for prolonged period,
(b) there is no reasonable prospect of development being completed within a reasonable period, and
(c) it is in the public interest to issue an urgent completion notice.
(3B) A completion notice may include requirements concerning the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any use of land so authorised, at the end of the completion period, and the carrying out of any works required for the reinstatement of land at the end of that period.”
This amendment would enable the issuance of completion notices withdrawing planning permission with a deadline of less than 12 months when certain conditions are met, and enable completion notices to require that building works be removed from a site or a site be reinstated to its previous condition.
Thank you, Sir Ian—Mr Paisley.
Matthew Pennycook
Very briefly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on this excellent amendment, which we support. She made clear that the problem she has highlighted of private plots lying derelict for extended periods of time with no real prospect of development being completed has a real impact on local communities. Allowing the 12-month completion notice deadline to be circumvented in the circumstances set out in the amendment, with the proportionate requirement set out in proposed new subsection 3B, is sensible and we urge the Government to consider it seriously.
Mr Jones
I listened closely and carefully to what the hon. Member for South Shields said. I am sure she knows that because of the role of Ministers in the planning system, I cannot discuss that particular situation in detail, but I can say that I am aware of such situations, even in my own constituency. I am sure there are similar situations across the country.
Amendment 170 relates to the proposed updated legislative framework for completion notices in clause 100. Those notices are an existing tool available to local planning authorities that can be served on developments that, in the opinion of the local planning authority, will not be completed in a reasonable period. We want to equip local planning authorities with the tools necessary to deal with sites that have experienced long periods of inactivity or slow delivery. That is why, through clause 100, we propose to modernise the procedure for serving completion notices to make them simpler and faster to use, giving more control and certainty to local planning authorities in the process. To achieve that, clause 100 will remove the need for a completion notice to be confirmed by the Secretary of State before it can take effect and allow for a completion notice to be served on unfinished developments sooner, providing the planning permission has been implemented.
Amendment 170 proposes two fundamental changes to clause 100. First, there would be a shorter completion notice deadline below the current 12-month minimum in certain circumstances. Those are where a local planning authority is of the opinion that development has not taken place on a site for a prolonged period; that there is no reasonable prospect that the development would be completed in a reasonable period; and that it is in the public interest to serve a notice.
While I support the intention, I remind the Committee that completion notices, when served by a local planning authority or the Secretary of State, must provide the recipient with an opportunity to complete the development. To put it another way, a completion notice requires a person to use or lose their planning permission. Therefore, that person must be afforded the chance to use the planning permission and complete the development before the granting of that permission is removed. Providing the opportunity to complete is a critical aspect of the procedure governing the use of completion notices and reflects the longstanding position that planning permission is a development right and that revoking that right should be subject to compensation.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister. How long do developers have to complete if they are served a notice by the local authority?
Mr Jones
In the case we are talking about, the current minimum once a notice is served to use or lose planning consent is 12 months. Clearly, we think that that is proportionate in giving the chance for a development right to be used by the developer. The penalty for failing to complete the authorised development within a specified time period is the removal of planning permission for the unfinished parts of the development. The person served with a completion notice must have a reasonable period in which to finish development and avoid that outcome. As I have said, a period of 12 months is proportionate and gives developers a fair opportunity to deliver on their permission in full.
Mr Jones
I will in one moment. Half-completed developments can be complicated to complete. That minimum 12-month period is also consistent with other elements of the planning system and the approach to compensation. In particular, 12 months is the period given under section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, where compensation is payable for the revoking of a planning consent granted under a development order.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for giving way again. What does he envisage would happen if somebody kept renewing their planning application? How is the Minister proposing to stop situations such as the one that I outlined in proposing this amendment?
Mr Jones
As I am setting out, there are a number of ways in which we will ensure that development gets built out as quickly as possible. That is important because, clearly, it is the expectation of communities for a planning consent to be followed through once it has been granted. I will continue to explain how that will happen, because the second change sought by the amendment relates to removing finished parts of a development, where a site could not be completed before planning permission was withdrawn, and restoring the land to its previous state.
I recognise the importance of being able to remove unfinished developments, and appreciate that the local planning authority should have the power to provide for that as a last resort. I remind the hon. Member for South Shields that powers are already available to planning authorities to seek the removal of unfinished developments. Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables local planning authorities to make a discontinuance order, which can, among other things, require discontinued use of land, alterations, or removal of buildings or works. Therefore, I believe the proposed change is unnecessary due to the powers that are available through existing legislation.
On that basis I hope that my comments have reassured the hon. Member and I hope, as she mentioned at the start of her comments, that she will not seek to divide the Committee.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I do not seek to divide the Committee at this stage on this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Mr Jones
As part of the measures in the Bill to provide greater transparency around the delivery of new development and to bring about the timely build-out of planning permissions, through clause 100 we will be speeding up, simplifying and modernising the framework for serving completion notices. The power to serve completion notices is available to local planning authorities in sections 94 and 95 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State can serve notices under section 96 of the 1990 Act.
A completion notice may be served on a development that, in the opinion of the local planning authority, will not be completed in a reasonable period. The notice will set a deadline after which the planning permission will become invalid and, if development is not completed by that deadline, planning permission will be removed for any unfinished elements of the development. In effect, a completion notice requires a developer to use it or lose it.
At present, however, completion notices are rarely used, with only 13 notices served since 2011 and just three since 2014. This partly reflects the fact that they are, and should remain, a tool of last resort. However, local planning authorities should not be discouraged from using them where appropriate and where the existing process for serving notices is long, slow and unnecessarily complex. Completion notices, for example, cannot take effect unless until they have been confirmed by the Secretary of State. In practice, this requirement has added an average of three months to the process for the nine notices confirmed since 2011, the longest of which being over six and a half months.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 100 would amend the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to completion notices. It does so by removing two requirements: that the Secretary of State must approve a completion notice and that the notice must be served only after the deadline for commencement of the planning permission has passed. We welcome these sensible revisions to the 1990 Act. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister, but I am more than happy for him to get back to me in writing if needed.
First, given that the changes sought by clause 100 are intended to work in conjunction with the new duty provided for by clause 99 on commencement notices, will the Minister explain why such notices are restricted to certain types of as yet undefined development, while the changes made to completion notice provision will continue to apply to all types of development? Secondly, subsection (2) of proposed new section 93H makes it clear that a local planning authority can serve a completion notice if it is of the opinion that the development will not be completed “within a reasonable period”—a power that in theory would allow the cases my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields just raised to be addressed in a timelier manner. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “within a reasonable period”? If he cannot, can he tell us who will determine what it will mean in due course and whether there will be any limits whatsoever, given how ambiguous the phrasing is?
Mr Jones
On the first question, I will take up the hon. Member’s offer to write to him. To his second point, that reasonable period of time will be set out in guidance. The local planning authority will be the one to deal with the matter directly, rather than getting the Secretary of State involved. The authority will be able to determine how to deal with a particular situation by taking into account the factors relating to each development involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 101
Time limits for enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Government are clear that effective enforcement action is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system. This chapter introduces a number of measures long called for by colleagues in this place to strengthen the enforcement powers of local authorities and to close loopholes. Local planning authorities presently have a wide range of enforcement powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance, to tackle such situations. While we believe that the current enforcement framework generally works well, we acknowledge that we could make improvements in a number of areas. We want to strengthen planning enforcement powers and sanctions, reinforcing the principle that unauthorised development should never be viewed as preferential to proper, up-front planning engagement.
Within the planning enforcement framework, there are statutory time limits for the commencement of enforcement action. It is necessary to have a statutory time limit to provide certainty when the passage of time means that enforcement action is no longer feasible. However, there are currently two time limits for commencing enforcement action, depending on the nature of the breach. For a breach of planning control consisting of building operations or the change of use to a single dwelling, the time limit for commencing enforcement action is four years. For any other breach of planning control, the time limit for commencing enforcement action is 10 years from the date of the breach.
Stakeholders have raised concerns that the four-year timeframe can be too short, and in some cases can result in opportunities to commence planning enforcement action being inadvertently missed. For example, a person may not initially raise concerns with their local planning authority, assuming that a neighbouring development has the correct permissions or will not cause disturbance. Should the development prove disruptive, they may then try to come to an agreement with the person responsible for the development. By the time they raise their concerns with the local planning authority, some time may well have passed. The local planning authority may not initially be aware of that, prioritising other investigations. When an investigation begins, it may then become clear that the time limits for commencing enforcement action have inadvertently passed.
The four-year time limit can cause frustration for communities, whose initial pragmatism may result in unauthorised, harmful development becoming inadvertently immune from enforcement action. The clause will bring the time limit to commence enforcement action in England to 10 years in all cases, either from the date of substantial completion or the date of the breach, depending on the specific nature of the breach. That will provide greater confidence to local planning authorities that they will have the time to take enforcement action, and indicate to the public that planning breaches are taken seriously and should never be viewed as a preferential approach to proper engagement with the planning system. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103
Enforcement warning notices
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 103, page 122, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in this section.”
This amendment, along with New Clause 36, would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by Chapter 5 of Part 3.
Mr Jones
Clause 103 provides local planning authorities in England with a new power to issue enforcement warning notices. The notice invites a retrospective planning application for a development that does not have permission, but that may be acceptable in planning terms, or may be made acceptable by the imposition of planning conditions. It does this by stating the matters that appear to be a breach of planning control and stating that further enforcement may be taken if a planning application is not received within a specified period. This formalises a process that the majority of local planning authorities already carry out informally. Formalising the process brings certainty, such as by setting out the specified period for an application to be submitted, and it constitutes taking enforcement action, ensuring that the time limits for commencing enforcement action cannot inadvertently expire.
However, the use of enforcement warning notices by local planning authorities will be discretionary. It will not create significant additional resourcing burdens for local planning authorities. We recognise many local authorities have capacity and capability challenges. We will publish guidance to assist local planning authorities in using enforcement warning notices. Although we are not changing fees through the Bill, we intend to consult on proposals to increase planning fees to ensure that local planning authorities are properly resourced to improve their services.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is talking about local planning authorities being properly resourced. In York, we no longer have a chief planner. There are serious deficits in funding in our local authority. As hon. Friends have said, planning is often the first thing to be cut. How will the Minister ensure that they are properly resourced to take on these additional responsibilities?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for that important point. I have acknowledged that there are capacity and capability challenges. I have also acknowledged that the Government want to go further by allowing local authorities to bring in more income. We have discussed and put the principle out there of doubling fees for retrospective planning applications, which often put often unnecessary additional pressure on local authorities, if people would have put forward their planning applications in the first instance in the proper and usual way.
On new clause 36, effective enforcement action is important to maintain public confidence and trust in the planning system. The package of enforcement measures in the Bill will strengthen the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities. Generally, the provisions make the existing framework easy to use by enforcement officers and, as such, they will not create significant additional burdens or resource pressures for local planning authorities. The use of new tools, such as enforcement warning notices, is discretionary. We are also working with partners to deliver a capacity and capability strategy to support the implementation of our planning reforms so that local planning authorities have the right skills and capabilities to make creative decisions and drive forward ambitious proposals, and we are committed to new burdens principles.
For those reasons, we cannot accept amendment 116 and new clause 36. I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I regret to inform the Minister that I am not sufficiently reassured. I note what he said about fees and about the strategy the Department intends to bring forward. Yet, what I hear time and again in responses to amendments that seek to press the Government on local authority resourcing is a seeming unawareness of how acute the problem is. The Minister referred to it in very diplomatic terms as capacity and capability challenges, but it goes way beyond that. Local planning authorities are under acute pressure, which has a direct impact on planning services in those local authorities and, because it is a discretionary service, on the enforcement part of those planning services.
I am concerned to hear the Minister say that he does not think the provisions in this chapter constitute additional work pressures. It seems to me that they do. When looked at in the round, the measures introduced in the Bill certainly constitute additional work pressures on departments. I am not going to press these proposals to a Division, but we will come back time and again to the issue of local authority resourcing, because planning is under acute pressure in terms of capability and skills, and the Government have to provide stronger commitments as to what they will do to address that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 73, Clause 104, page 123, line 19, after “authority” insert “or the Secretary of State”
This amendment extends new section 174(2AA)(b) to cases where the Secretary of State declined to determine an application for planning permission.
Clause 104 closes a loophole that currently allows those who have breached planning control two opportunities to obtain planning permission retrospectively, once by appealing an enforcement notice and once by appealing the refusal or non-determination of a retrospective planning application.
The amendment corrects a drafting error. The new provisions in clause 104 apply to cases where either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State is the decision maker. Subsection (2AA)(b) erroneously refers only to the local planning authority. The amendment corrects that error, bringing applications that are declined to be determined by the Secretary of State within scope of the subsection.
Amendment 73 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The retrospective planning application process is a necessary part of the planning system. It allows those who have made a genuine mistake to remedy the situation. However, we are aware that it is also used by people who have intentionally undertaken development without permission, who then attempt to delay enforcement action.
Prior to the Localism Act 2011, an appeal could be made both against the refusal of a retrospective application and against enforcement action, on the ground that permission ought to be granted. Through the 2011 reforms, we reduced the circumstances in which an appeal could be made, preventing an appeal on the grounds that permission ought to be granted if an enforcement notice was issued before the end of the statutory determination period. However, the reforms inadvertently created a loophole, which has allowed appellants to continue to appeal twice in certain circumstances, against the refusal or non-determination of a retrospective planning application and against an enforcement notice, on the ground that permission ought to be granted. Both appeals, in effect, assess the planning merits of the case.
The loophole exists because, in some circumstances, a local planning authority might not issue an enforcement notice before the end of the determination period for a related retrospective application. That could be because the local planning authority might have invited the retrospective application in the first place, and does not want to be seen to prejudge the outcome, for example. In such cases, if the development were subsequently found to be unacceptable and retrospective planning permission was refused, an enforcement notice would be issued after the end of the determination period.
There would remain two opportunities to obtain permission retrospectively: first, by appealing the refusal of the retrospective application, and secondly, by appealing the enforcement notice on the ground that permission ought to be granted. A similar situation would occur if the determination of the retrospective application were delayed and the appellant appealed the retrospective application on the ground of non-determination.
Therefore, the clause will extend the period during which an enforcement notice can be issued and during which an appeal on the ground that permission ought to be granted can still be prevented to two years. The applicant will not then be able to appeal an enforcement notice on the ground that permission ought to be granted during that extended period. Instead, they will have only one route to obtain planning permission retrospectively—through a successful appeal of the refusal or the non-determination of the retrospective planning application. Appealing an enforcement notice on other grounds will still be permitted.
The clause will reinforce the message that people should seek planning permission before they start a development. Where they do not do so, they should have only one opportunity to obtain planning permission after the unauthorised development has taken place so that the matter can be rectified as soon as possible. That will speed up enforcement action and prevent resources from being wasted assessing the planning merits of the same case twice. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I would like to make some further remarks on clauses 105 and 106. Clause 105 will give the Secretary of State a new power that allows them to dismiss an appeal in relation to an enforcement notice or an application for a lawful development certificate in England should it appear to them that the appellant is causing undue delays to the appeals process. This is another point of clarification, but I simply wish to get a sense from the Minister of what causing undue delays as per proposed new section 176(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be taken to mean in practice.
Clause 106 will amend sections 187A and 216 of the 1990 Act in relation to England to increase the maximum fine for failing to comply with either a breach of condition notice or a section 215 notice. We do not oppose those changes, but I would like reassurance from the Minister that the Government have properly considered the possibility that increasing the maximum fine in such a way might have the unintended consequence of discouraging from seeking retrospective permission those who have, for whatever reason, made genuine mistakes on their planning applications.
Mr Marcus Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On clause 105, let me give him an example of an undue delay. Such a delay could constitute not allowing a planning inspector to access land for a site visit. That is one circumstance in which the process would be frustrated.
On clause 106, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that, while I understand his concerns, many members of the public, particularly those who have been affected by unauthorised developments, would be keen for us to be tougher on such developments. Therefore, I think this is more about ensuring that we put in place a regime that deters people from embarking on unauthorised development. I therefore believe that increasing the fines that will be payable is the right thing to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 105 and 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Power to provide relief from enforcement of planning conditions
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 107, page 125, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) But regulations under this section may not provide for relief from a planning condition relating to the development of a type or volume of affordable housing in a development.”
This amendment would exclude planning conditions relating to the delivery of agreed on-site affordable housing in developments from the power to provide relief from the enforcement of planning conditions.
Where affordable and social housing is identified in plans, the obligation to provide that tenure in the planning process must never be overridden. We have a national crisis with regard to the availability of affordable homes for our constituents. I certainly see that in York, where it is skewing the economy and having a severe impact on the way my community works. We have been overrun by so many second homes and holiday lets that it is even impinging on our ability to deliver statutory services in my community.
Far too often, developers start to build out their plans, starting with the high-value housing, only then to return with the plea that the site is no longer viable to provide social or affordable housing. That housing is therefore not built, and the funding is banked but never spent, because the argument is played out time and again on future sites. High-end, high-value housing is therefore taking precedence over the development of affordable housing. We simply cannot allow that to happen at any point in the development process. My brief amendment would recognise that in statute to ensure that there can never be an excuse for not delivering vital affordable housing on the basis of viability.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for her amendment. It seeks to ensure that relief from enforcement action under clause 107 cannot be granted with respect to planning conditions relating to affordable housing delivery. The aim of clause 107 is to enable the Secretary of State, by regulations, to limit enforcement action against non-compliance with prescribed planning conditions or limitations for a specified period of relief. Members of the Committee will recall that the covid pandemic demonstrated that the planning system needs to be sufficiently flexible to support businesses to respond to and recover from periods of disruption quickly and confidently.
During recent years we have taken steps, through written ministerial statements, to encourage local planning authorities to take a considered approach to enforcement action against non-compliance with certain planning conditions that have placed unintentional burdens on businesses. That includes conditions that govern the operative uses of development, such as construction working hours, delivery times and opening hours. Clause 107 will place on a statutory footing similar provisions to those that we introduced through policy, and it is intended that the measure will be used in relation to those types of operative use conditions as periods of disruption arise in the future.
The hon. Member’s amendment concerns those conditions that relate to affordable housing specifically. Affordable housing provision is principally secured through a section 106 agreement rather than planning conditions, so the practical benefit of the proposed exemption would be limited and this is not the sort of operative condition that the clause is aimed at. Furthermore, we are proposing to change the way affordable housing for a development is determined, as part of our plans for the new infrastructure levy, which the Committee will debate shortly. Through regulations for the levy, we intend to introduce a new “right to require”, to remove the role of negotiating in determining levels of onsite affordable housing, and we propose to consult on the approach shortly. Therefore, I consider the amendment not to be necessary and I ask the hon. Member for York Central to withdraw it.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for his response. I will certainly be following the debate on schedule 11 very closely, to ensure that it does fulfil all the commitments that the Minister has alluded to in his speech, but I will withdraw the amendment at this point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
On the basis that I have explained how clause 107 works during our discussion of amendment 137, I do not propose to make any further comments on it. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108
Consultation before applying for planning permission
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Jones
The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for meaningful and early community involvement in planning decisions. Throughout the Bill, we are introducing measures that do just that. Communities should be given a say on developments that affect them, and should have those views taken into account when decisions are made. We are also keen to ensure that issues are dealt with early on, so that decisions are not unduly delayed. That is why we are introducing this minor but important change.
Clause 108 will make permanent the powers in sections 61W to 61Y of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that enable the Secretary of State to mandate the types of applications for which applicants will be required to carry out consultations with those in the vicinity of the development, and with any other specified people—for example, statutory bodies—before submitting a planning application to the local planning authority. The powers also require applicants to have regard to any responses received in the pre-application consultation, including views expressed by local communities.
The powers have been used only to require pre-application consultation on onshore wind turbines where two or more turbines are being installed, or where the hub height is over 15 metres. We want to explore additional opportunities to use the powers where pre-application engagement will be most beneficial, and we will engage on that before bringing forward the necessary changes through secondary legislation. Making the powers permanent will allow the Government to further strengthen community engagement with the system. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 108 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 109 to 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113
Infrastructure Levy: England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 113, page 131, line 38, leave out “a charge” and insert “an optional charge”.
This amendment would ensure that application of the Infrastructure Levy would be optional rather than mandatory.
Tim Farron
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has just provided almost infinitely more detail than there is in the Bill. My understanding is that the whole point of a Bill Committee is that we get to grips with the detail, and yet the Government are providing us with very little.
This really matters. I will set out a particular case of my community experiencing the real sharp end of the crisis, but every community in the country is experiencing a crisis of housing quality, availability and genuine affordability. This just tickles it, if we are lucky. We have a lack of detail. The idea itself is vague, and what we do know about the infrastructure levy is that it is likely to be complex, and the more complex it is, the more we favour the developer. In a situation where the nervous planning authority errs on the side of caution and, therefore, lack of ambition when seeking planning gain, the more the developer manages to gain advantage for itself. Given that there is no guarantee that any value from the levy will accrue to the community where the development will take place, the likelihood of communities opposing developments will increase, therefore making them less likely to go through.
On top of all of that, as has already been mentioned, a fundamental flaw of using GDV as the measure for what the levy should be in practice is that we are basically putting all the risk on the community and not the developer. That is obvious. It is probably why developers have been relatively silent over this—because they see that it is potentially in their favour. It is also why housing associations and others, including housing charities, have been very concerned—because they worry that is a slow, downward slope towards reduced delivery of affordable housing.
It may well be that, when the detail is forthcoming—and if not now, why not now?—we may be pleasantly surprised and, incrementally, we might find that the infrastructure levy, in detail, after pilots, does add value. However, the concern that many of us have is that this is untested and replacing a scheme which, while imperfect, does deliver some affordable housing.
The problem with section 106 and the infrastructure levy is that it is an entirely incremental, weak and fairly tepid approach to a massive problem. Our way of developing affordable housing is just to get the odd scattering of homes per development, if we are lucky and can find a system that will make a planning gain and gain something of the land value uplift that a developer has from the project. The reality, however, is that communities such as mine—I will speak specifically to the issues in Cumbria—have high house prices, an evaporated, almost non-existent long-term private rented market, and vast numbers of second homes, meaning properties not lived in all year around.
Cumbria is a nice part of the world—absolutely beautiful. Eden and the south lakes is a very beautiful place. If someone builds a five-bedroom house there, it will fly off the shelf within hours. There is no problem with building homes for demand. The Minister and the Government must understand—and I hope the new Prime Minister understands—that what is desperately required when it comes to housing policy is that, for a period at least, we stop building for demand and start building for need. The reality is that, as things stand, the infrastructure levy and section 106 only skim the top of the problem. That demonstrates a complete lack of ambition behind the concept of levelling up. We are not levelling up; we are getting some crumbs from the table. It is just a different way of getting some crumbs from the table, not actually producing any real bread.
Mr Jones
Clause 113 introduces the new infrastructure levy. It is well known that new development creates demand for public services and infrastructure. Local authorities should secure contributions from developers to share in the land value uplift that comes from granting planning permission and use that value to deliver infrastructure and affordable housing for communities.
One of the main criticisms of new developments in local communities, however, is that they are not accompanied by the infrastructure that communities often need. The current system of developer contributions is uncertain and fragmented. Local planning authorities can negotiate section 106 agreements to secure affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure, and can choose to charge the community infrastructure levy to collect money from developers for infrastructure that is not affordable housing.
The protracted negotiation of a section 106 agreement delays the granting of planning permissions. Agreements can be renegotiated as the development progresses—a point that has been raised by several Opposition Members. Both negotiation and renegotiation generate uncertainty for local communities over how much affordable housing will be available and what infrastructure will be delivered by a development. On the other hand, the community infrastructure levy is a non-negotiable charge, and it is optional as to whether local planning authorities charge it. Only half of local planning authorities currently charge the CIL. Of those that do not, more than a third believe that introducing it will increase their ability to capture land value. Common reasons for not implementing CIL include concerns that the extra charge will reduce the amount of affordable housing delivered because, unlike the levy, CIL cannot be used for affordable housing.
Also, CIL and section 106 do not capture all of the increases in value that occur as a result of increases in house prices. Average house prices in England have increased by nearly 22% over the past two years. CIL rates do not increase to capture more of that uplift, as they are based on the value when planning permission was granted. Although some section 106 agreements may capture an element of the uplift, many will not. As a result, local authorities are not capturing as much value for key services as they could.
Clause 113 provides for the introduction of a single charge that will largely replace the existing system of developer contributions. The infrastructure levy is an opportunity to deliver better outcomes for communities and to address shortcomings in the system that incremental change is unlikely to deliver. The levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current developer contribution regime by charging rates based on the final value of developments. I hear what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has said about that, and the concerns he has raised. To clarify that point, the gross development value can be captured because we know what the sale price of that property is when it is sold, just as we do when stamp duty land tax is charged.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 6th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 September 2022 - (6 Sep 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. Having debated this morning in broad terms the deficiencies of the proposed infrastructure levy as we see them, and the corresponding case for discretion in terms of its adoption and core elements of its design, I turn now to a far more specific concern.
Part 1 of schedule 11 makes changes to the Planning Act 2008 by inserting new part 10A, providing for the introduction of the new levy. The new power replicates section 205 in part 11 of the 2008 Act, albeit with an important change that makes clear that the purpose of the levy now includes anything specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) of proposed new section 204N, in schedule 11 on page 294. The proposed new subsection makes clear that regulations may allow for circumstances in which a specified amount of the infrastructure levy is applied to purposes other than funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, defined so as to include transport, schools, medical facilities, open spaces, flood defences, affordable housing and a number of other items.
That gives rise to two obvious questions. First, what purposes other than the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, defined as broadly as it is in proposed new section 204N(3), on page 294, would IL ever need to be spent on? Perhaps the Minister can give us an example of what kind of non-infrastructure the Government believe those powers should fund. Secondly, why should developer contributions secured in relation to a particular area be used to support the provision of non-infrastructure items that may be unconnected to it? Our concern is that allowing the purpose of IL to include anything specified by the Secretary of State may give rise to a situation—as, I might add, the 2020 White Paper explicitly suggested—in which proceeds from the infrastructure levy are used to fund things such as service provision or the reduction of council tax.
There may be a far less problematic reason for the inclusion of the relevant language in proposed new section 204A(2) specifying that IL can be used to achieve any purpose under proposed new section 204N(5). For example, it may simply be the means of facilitating the continuation of the neighbourhood share under the new system. However, if that is the case, why not make that clear in the Bill? Given how widely drawn the language in proposed new section 204N(5) is, we remain concerned that it could lead to much-needed IL funds being directed to purposes other than supporting the development of an area by funding its infrastructure. That is the concern that amendments 148 and 149 are designed to address, by deleting the relevant language from proposed new section 204A(2) on page 282.
In our previous debate, I outlined in detail our concern that the levy as proposed will fail to secure as much—let alone more—public gain from developers than the present system. Allowing specified amounts of IL to be used to fund non-infrastructure items that might be unconnected to a given area would exacerbate that problem by further depleting the funding available for infrastructure, including affordable housing, in that area. The amendments would simply ensure that any funds generated by the levy would have to be spent on infrastructure that supports the development of the area in question. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Housing (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. The Bill seeks to give local communities control over what is built, where it is built and what it looks like. It creates an incentive for communities to benefit from development. The delivery of infrastructure is a key pillar in our approach, and the levy is our key tool to support that.
We think that the local authority is best placed to decide which infrastructure projects it should spend the proceeds of the levy on. The Bill will require local authorities to prepare infrastructure delivery strategies. These will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure through spending levy proceeds. There is scope to allow even more flexibility on spending, to further incentivise communities to benefit from development. The Bill enables the funding purposes of the infrastructure levy to be extended to such purposes as may be specified by the Secretary of State under proposed new section 204N(5) if certain circumstances apply.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Could the Minister give some examples of what those extensive directions could include, because that is not made clear in the Bill?
Mr Jones
If the hon. Member bears with me for a moment, I will give her an example.
The measure will enable regulations to set out the circumstances where charging authorities could spend a specified amount of the levy on items that are not infrastructure. This means that in some areas, once local authorities are able to meet their affordable housing and infrastructure needs, they could have scope to increase their flexibility on what they spend levy receipts on, such as improving local services. This would remain a matter for the local authority to decide on, subject to any limitations set out in regulation or guidance, ensuring that infrastructure and affordable housing remain priorities. Furthermore, it is right that even if such extended funding of the levy is permitted and taken up by the local authority, it should be subject to the overall test in proposed new section 204A that such costs must not make the development an area economically unviable. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is necessary, so I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw it.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that was a useful answer from the Minister, for the following reasons. He clearly stated that the reason for the flexibility is to allow local planning authorities to spend levy receipts on non-infrastructure items not covered in proposed new section 204N(3). That is very useful, because he has responded to our concern by saying on the record that the infrastructure levy could be spent on things such as the funding of services.
The Minister made an important qualification, which I will address. He made clear that local authorities would be allowed to spend only once they had met their affordable housing targets and infrastructure needs. I applaud his optimism that the levy will cover not only all affordable housing provision and core infrastructure, but other things such as services. I welcome that clarification.
The Minister will do two things, I think. When we come to them in due course, I think he will accept our amendments to strengthen the Bill’s requirements on meeting affordable housing supply. However, I still think the Bill needs to be tightened to specify what kind of non-infrastructure the levy could be spent on in the circumstances he outlines. At the moment, it is incredibly broad—it relates to any purposes specified by the Secretary of State—and that remains a point of concern. Although I will not push this amendment to a vote, we may return to this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 196.
Proposed new section 204A in schedule 11 sets out the overall purpose of the levy, which is to ensure that the costs incurred in supporting the development of an area can be funded wholly or partly by the owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of an area economically unviable. The overall purpose also applies to the costs incurred in achieving the other specified purposes that are allowed under the levy regime.
Proposed new section 204A currently cross-references to purposes that may be specified under proposed new section 204N(5). That means that the levy regulations may allow levy receipts to be spent on matters other than infrastructure, such as improvements to local services and delivery of local programmes that are valued by local communities. Although the infrastructure levy will primarily be spent on infrastructure and affordable housing, that will give us the scope to allow local authorities more flexibility over how they spend the levy if those priorities have been met.
The amendment will correct an omission and ensure that proposed new section 204A also correctly cross-refers to the powers in proposed new sections 204O and 204P, which will also allow levy receipts to be spent on other specified purposes, such as non-infrastructure matters. Where that is allowed, it must be subject to the overall purpose set out in proposed new section 204A. To ensure that proposed new section 204A correctly interacts with proposed new sections 204O and 204P, we are introducing a minor technical amendment to ensure the cross-reference is properly made. I therefore respectfully ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak briefly to this Government amendment, notwithstanding our debate on the previous group of amendments. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local authorities meet a sufficient level of housing need—we will come to that—or of infrastructure need. Even taking into account the Minister’s reassurances on how the levy can be spent, I remain concerned. If anything, Government amendment 196 augments the concerns I have just spoken about. By specifying that the aim of the levy can include any purpose specified under proposed sections 204N(5), 204O(3) and 204P(3) of the Planning Act, the amendment allows proceeds of the levy to be spent not only on non-infrastructure items that might be unconnected to a given area in a way already made clear in the Bill, but on a wider set of, one presumes, non-infrastructure items. In a sense, the amendment’s intention is to widen the scope of the non-infrastructure items to which specified amounts of IL can be directed.
As I have made clear, we strongly believe that funds generated by the levy should be spent on infrastructure that supports the development of the area in question, and we oppose this Government amendment for the same reasons I set out in relation to amendments 148 and 149. I will not press the matter to a vote, but I want to put that on the record. We feel very strongly, as I think local communities will, that the proceeds of an infrastructure levy should be spent on infrastructure in their area. If anything, rather than having surplus amounts to spend on other items specified by the amendment or the Bill, I believe that the levy will not cover all those infrastructure costs.
Mr Jones
Let me respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Clearly, the firm intention of the policy set out in schedule 11 is that the requirement for relevant infrastructure and affordable housing in a particular area is satisfied. However, there may be circumstances where a local authority, while satisfying those criteria, uses this mechanism. As I have said before, we expect to capture more value from developments because we will be capturing the value of the uplift of the finished product, not just the value at the point at which planning permission is achieved. Therefore, the expectation is that there could be greater value and it could enable local areas to do additional things, alongside the relevant and necessary affordable housing and infrastructure. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman about the Government’s intention.
Amendment 196 agreed to.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 150, in schedule 11, page 282, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) The intention of IL is to enable local authorities to raise money from developments to fund infrastructure to support the development of their areas while allowing planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to continue to be used to provide affordable housing and ensure that development is acceptable in planning terms.”
Mr Jones
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is correct to raise the importance of affordable housing delivery for local communities. Amendments 150 to 152 would prevent the infrastructure levy from being used to fund affordable housing, and I understand why he has tabled them. The provision of affordable housing is critical, and section 106 planning obligations currently deliver around half of all affordable housing in England. The Government do not want the new infrastructure levy to reduce the number of affordable homes that are secured when new development comes forward. In fact, the opposite is true: we are committed to the delivery of at least as much, if not more, on-site affordable housing through the infrastructure levy as is delivered through the current system of developer contributions.
Section 106 is an imperfect mechanism for securing affordable housing and can result in prolonged and costly negotiations that often generate outcomes that favour developers. Developers can often use their greater resources to negotiate policy-compliant levels of affordable housing downward on viability grounds. Local planning authorities tell us that the ability to secure developer contributions through negotiations is dependent on the individuals involved in the process. The amount that local authorities secure from developers will vary depending on which officers lead the negotiations, and their experience, strategy and confidence. This unpredictable element in the negotiation of section 106 obligations means that some authorities can secure more affordable housing than others, and that value that could be secured by local government instead goes to developers and landowners.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister is making the case that section 106 should be amended so that more power is given to local authorities. Why is he not taking that step to ensure that developers do not have the upper hand in negotiations?
Mr Jones
We are advocating delivering the same amount or more affordable homes through the infrastructure levy than are currently provided through section 106. That is based on the ability to capture more value from new development than is already the case, and the fact that there will be a more consistent approach that will not allow the current situation, wherein certain authorities that have the experience and ability at officer level to negotiate better section 106 agreements than others benefit significantly from being able to do so, compared with some authorities that do not appear to be in that position.
Rachael Maskell
I do not understand why the Minister does not just change the framework around the negotiations so that all authorities have the powers they need to get the outcomes they require, rather than introducing a system that will weaken the ability to determine what is actually good for a site and the infrastructure that communities need—let alone the affordable housing they desperately need.
Mr Jones
We are all concerned with making sure that we get as much affordable housing as we can from housing developments. Clearly, what I am arguing for is a wider package of measures that we believe will deliver at least as much affordable housing as under the current system, if not more, together with the infrastructure that communities need.
It is not fair that communities lose out just because their local authorities have effectively been strong-armed during the negotiation, and it is not fair that developers may face arbitrary variation in the demands for contributions in different places. If developers do not know how much they are going to have to pay, it is much harder for them to price contributions into land. There is currently an incentive to overpay for land and then try to negotiate contributions downwards.
To address the inequality of arms that the Committee has discussed, the new levy will introduce the right to require affordable housing through regulations. The right to require will enable local authorities to determine what proportion of the levy they want delivered in kind as affordable housing and what proportion they want delivered as cash. That will mean that local authorities, not developers, will get the final say on the proportion of affordable homes delivered as an in-kind levy contribution on a site. It is therefore important that affordable housing is considered as a kind of infrastructure that can fall within the levy regime.
It will be equally important that the levy delivers at least as much affordable housing as under the current system. That is why, when the levy rates are set, charging authorities must design them with regard to the desirability of ensuring that the rates can maintain or exceed the amount currently secured through developer contributions.
Let me address a couple of other points. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was concerned about less-viable sites and lower-value sites. I reassure him that local authorities will set a minimum threshold that reflects build costs and existing use values, as well as setting levy rates. The minimum threshold will help to ensure that lower-value sites continue to come forward.
The hon. Member for York Central mentioned concerns about risk and about delivering affordable homes and infrastructure while the changes take place. I reassure her that, as we discussed in the earlier debate on the infrastructure levy, we will be driven by a test-and-learn approach. The lessons from that work will be learned to make sure that we achieve our objectives, and the places that are not using that approach in working with the new infrastructure levy will continue to work on the same basis as they do now until the new system is rolled out. I reassure the hon. Lady again that the process could take some years to achieve to make sure we get it right.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will not press amendments 150 to 152 to a Division.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am afraid I am not reassured, for the following reasons. The Minister rightly said, and I accept, that section 106 is an imperfect mechanism for extracting public gain from developers, but, as we have already debated, it is one that can be improved on, and has been in recent years, and can be reformed further.
The question before us, which goes back to the wider debate we had earlier, is: will the levy system replace the current system with one that will extract sufficient public gain to at least allow the same levels of affordable housing? I have listened carefully to the Minister, and he has made repeated commitments that it will extract at least as much as that gain. However, as we will come on to with the next set of amendments, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees that the levy framework, even if it does extract the same amount of gain, will lead to a situation in which at least as much affordable housing is required. The language—I will come to this in the next debate—in proposed new section 204G is incredibly weak in that regard.
Nothing I have heard this morning reassures me that we are not implementing a system that will fail to extract the same amount of public gain when it comes to infrastructure and affordable housing as the present system. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that local authorities spend their levy proceeds on the levels of affordable housing required to meet the housing need in their area. Given all the risk and uncertainty of replacing the existing system with the proposed one, I feel strongly that the Government are making a fundamental mistake by including affordable housing within the scope of the levy. I will therefore press amendment 150 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 153, in schedule 11, page 283, leave out lines 22 and 23.
This amendment would amend the definition of “affordable housing” to ensure that the infrastructure levy could only be spent on social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Mr Jones
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to refer to the importance of the new levy in supporting the delivery of affordable housing for local communities and in contributing to meeting local need. As we have discussed, the Government are committed to getting at least as much, if not more, on-site affordable housing through the new levy as we do under the current system of developer contributions.
The definition of affordability, as challenged by amendment 153, is a complex and evolving picture that is better understood and monitored at local level. It is therefore appropriate to allow for infrastructure levy regulations to provide for any other description of affordable housing, beyond that defined as social housing in part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This will ensure that any new types of affordable housing tenure introduced in the future can be brought into the scope of the levy.
Matthew Pennycook
I am sorry to put the Minister on the spot, but it would be useful if we had an example of the type of housing tenures that the Government believe that that specific line in the Bill is required for, given the already very broad definition of social—affordable—housing in part 2 of the 2008 Act.
Mr Jones
As the hon. Member knows, when the 2008 Act was brought into effect by the last Labour Government, there was a reasonably wide definition of the different types of affordable housing. One of the evolutions in affordable housing recently has been the introduction of First Homes. I hear what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says about that, but we are working to make sure that we have 1,500 first homes by the end of March 2023; that will be significant progress. The vast majority of affordable housing currently provided does fall within the definition that we have discussed, which was put into legislation in 2008, and we envisage that that will continue to be the case under the levy. However, accepting amendment 153 would mean placing a lot of reliance on the definition of social housing in the 2008 Act. Clearly, social housing is an extremely important part of the mix of affordable housing, but amendment 153 would reduce the levy’s ability to respond to any changes in tenure types that arise in the future. That is not helpful or necessary. It is right that the levy regulations should provide future-proofing and regulatory flexibility.
Amendment 154 deals with exemptions for sites that are 100% affordable housing. Subsection (5)(h) of proposed new section 204D of the Planning Act 2008, in schedule 11 of this Bill, already contains a power for levy regulations to make provision about exemptions from or reductions in levy liability. The levy will be used to secure contributions towards affordable housing. We do not expect to charge the levy on exclusively affordable housing developments; we will explore that matter further in consultation. However, all development will be required to deliver the infrastructure that is integral to the functioning of the site, and we will retain the use of planning conditions and restricted use of section 106 agreements to secure that.
Amendment 155 would require infrastructure levy rates to be set at a level that enables an authority to meet the affordable housing need specified in a local development plan. The total value that can be captured by the levy, or indeed any system of developer contributions, will not necessarily match the costs of meeting the entire affordable housing need of an area as specified in the local development plan. Revenues will depend on the amount and types of development that come forward, and when they come forward, as much as on the levy rates and thresholds set. That said, the Bill recognises the importance of using the levy to deliver affordable housing. Proposed new section 204G of the Planning Act 2008, in schedule 11, provides that charging authorities must, when setting their rates, have regard to the desirability of ensuring that affordable housing funding from developer contributions equals or exceeds present levels. That will ensure that affordable housing need is accounted for when levy rates are set; to ensure that, those rates will be subject to public examination.
Importantly, the Bill makes provision for rates to be set with regard to increases in land value—for instance, as a result of planning permission. Targeted increases in rates will allow charging authorities to maximise the revenue that they can capture, and the amount of affordable housing that they can deliver.
We have designed the levy so that it can deliver at least as much affordable housing as the current system, if not more. As I have explained, the new right to require will require affordable housing to be provided. That will be introduced through regulations. That means that local authorities will get the final say on the proportion of levy contributions that go towards affordable homes. Should the levy generate more revenue than at present, local authorities could choose to direct those additional revenues towards meeting their additional affordable housing needs.
Rachael Maskell
How are local authorities making calculations about the loss of affordable housing? Clearly, if we just look at new developments, we could say, “There is this growth in affordable housing”, but if authorities are losing stock, the proportion of affordable housing in a community is decreasing. How will that be addressed? If the local plan is just about future developments, should there not be some adjustment for the loss in existing stock? I am talking about not just social stock, but ownership stock.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for that point. Like many other areas, York’s housing market is affected by the tourist industry that the city attracts. It is for local areas—I am glad that the hon. Member’s area is forming a local plan—to assess the housing need in their local plan; they should take matters such as the amount of affordable housing, and the need in an area, into account when making that plan.
Local authorities will need to balance the objective of providing affordable housing with the levy’s other aspirations. Local authorities will need to use the levy revenues to deliver other critical infrastructure, such as new roads and medical facilities. Local authorities, which know their local areas, are best placed to balance funding for affordable housing with funding for other infrastructure needs.
On amendment 156, proposed new section 204Q, introduced by schedule 11, introduces the requirement for levy charging authorities to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy, which will outline how a local authority will use the money the levy generates through a strategic spending plan. That will include an outline of how it will use levy revenues to secure affordable housing. It is important that that happens in each area. The charging authority will have regard to that when setting levy rates. The exact detail of the infrastructure delivery strategy and how it should be produced will be determined through regulations. We will consult on matters relating to the infrastructure delivery strategy, and forthcoming secondary legislation and guidance will clarify how to treat affordable housing. All of that will be informed by our commitment to deliver at least as much affordable housing as we do under the current system.
I hope that my explanation gives the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich clear assurances on how the new levy will support the delivery of affordable housing, and therefore I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I will take each part of it in turn. I note what he says about the powers provided for in proposed new section 204D(5)(h) to the Planning Act 2008, regarding 100% affordable sites, and I welcome his commitment that the Government do not expect those sites to have the levy applied to them. That should be written in the Bill, but I take that commitment at face value, and I hope to see it fleshed out via the regulations.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 157, in schedule 11, page 283, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) But a charging authority may not charge IL on development in its area comprising—
(a) over 150 residential units, or
(b) over 10,000 sq m of floorspace
and instead Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy) applies to such developments.”
This amendment would specify a threshold for large sites in relation to which the role of section 106 TCPA 1990 agreements would be retained, meaning that the community infrastructure levy would continue to be used to support such development.
I made clear at the outset of our consideration of part 4 that the levy differs from that set out in the 2020 White Paper in several important respects. One of those is that the Government now propose to retain a distinct role for the current system of section 106 planning obligations, rather than replacing it entirely, as per the White Paper. We are told that narrowly targeted section 106 agreements will still be used for securing infrastructure integral to the operation and physical design of a site. The examples in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill—internal play areas and flood risk mitigations—suggest that the use of such agreements in this way will be a frequent occurrence. More importantly, we are also told that the Government want a role for section 106 agreements in supporting the delivery of larger strategic sites. On such sites, infrastructure can be negotiated and provided in kind; the value of what is agreed must not be less than what would have been paid through the levy. This raises a host of questions, as does every aspect of the Government’s proposal.
Will developers have to pay the difference where the cost of delivering infrastructure on large sites is less than the required IL charge would be? Correspondingly, would charging authorities have to refund developers if it transpired that the cost of delivering infrastructure was higher than the given IL charge? Who defines what is on-site infrastructure, and what can act as credit against the nominal levy charge? Will it be set out in regulations—there is then a risk that it will be too inflexible—or will it be defined by each charging authority? There is then an associated risk of additional complexity. How do we avoid developers providing a range of unnecessary on-site facilities in order to reduce their liability vis-à-vis that levy charge?
Those and other important questions aside, in general terms we very much welcome the proposed retention of section 106 agreements, both for the infrastructure that is integral to the operation and physical design of sites and for larger strategic sites. Indeed, when it comes to the latter, the continued use of section 106 is essential to ensuring that they are developed, given the obvious pitfalls of attempting to do so solely via the levy, with all the inherent flaws that we discussed earlier today.
However, schedule 11 does not define what actually constitutes a larger site for the purposes of the ongoing role of section 106 agreements. Amendment 157 simply seeks to place that definition in the Bill, in proposed new section 204B of the Planning Act 2008, so that there is clarity at the outset of the process of introducing and implementing the levy as to the site size threshold above which IL would not be charged.
The amendment proposes that, for the purposes of permitting an ongoing role for section 106 agreements, a large site should be defined as an area comprising over 150 residential units, or over 10,000 square metres of floorspace. We have chosen those threshold values for a number of reasons, but primarily because schemes of over 150 units or 10,000 square metres of floorspace are typically more complex, take longer to deliver and are often phased, and are more likely to require site-specific mitigation, thus benefiting from the ability of section 106 agreements—this is one of their key strengths—to tailor obligations to the specific circumstances of a site.
On large sites thus defined, which would account by our estimates for around 5% of current approved residential projects nationally, affordable housing provision would be delivered via section 106, as under the present arrangement. To avoid the delay and complexity of securing contributions for core infrastructure on the sites by means of such agreements, amendment 157 makes it clear that the existing provisions of part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 would still apply, thereby enabling contributions relating to the sites to continue to be secured by means of the community infrastructure levy.
We believe that straightforward and uncontroversial amendment would provide certainty as to what does and does not constitute a large site where there will be an ongoing role for section 106 agreements at the outset of what will be, by the Minister’s own admission, a lengthy process of testing, implementing and rolling out the new levy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Mr Jones
The Government intend that the levy will replace CIL, except for the Mayor of London and in Wales, and largely replace the discretionary negotiated section 106 regime. However, following feedback through consultation and engagement with the industry, we recognise that, in some limited circumstances, a case exists for retaining a role for section 106 planning obligations in the delivery of infrastructure. Such circumstances include large and complex sites where infrastructure requirements are site-specific and require a more negotiated approach to ensure that infrastructure is provided at the right time. It is important to set the right definition for large and complex sites. We need to strike a balance between creating a more consistent levy system, while retaining flexibility for some negotiations on sites with complex infrastructure needs. On sites where section 106 agreements will continue to be used, we still expect developers to deliver at least as much overall value. It is just that some of it will be as in-kind infrastructure contributions rather than as a cash payment.
Setting the threshold in the Bill for when section 106 agreements should be used runs the risk of impacting on the effectiveness of the levy. If it is set too low, lots of development will continue to use section 106 agreements, and developers will continue to strong-arm local authorities over the value of their contributions. If we set it too high, it can impact infrastructure delivery on sites with complex and competing infrastructure needs. That is why we intend to consult on what the threshold should be, to allow us to consider stakeholder feedback and different options. The levy regulation, which will be laid before the Commons for approval, will specify the circumstances in which section 106 agreements will continue to be used. For the reasons I have explained, I request that amendment 157 be withdrawn, to allow us to consult further on when the use of section 106 agreements would continue to be more appropriate.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the Minister’s response and, taking on board what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Jones
Proposed new section 204F of the Planning Act 2008 makes provision requiring an exemption from paying the levy where the party liable to pay is a charity and where the building or structure will be used for a charitable purpose. “Charitable purpose” here has the meaning in section 2 of the Charities Act 2011. It is something that is “for the public benefit” and is for a specific purpose, such as the prevention or relief of poverty, the advancement of education, health, the arts or sport, or the provision of relief to those in need. That kind of development is entitled to exemption from the levy in its entirety.
Under the current system of section 106 planning obligations, an obligation can constitute a reason to grant planning permission only if it is directly related to the development. For that reason, affordable housing contributions tend to be sought on residential developments. Amendment 158 would substantially extend the range of development required to deliver contributions towards affordable housing, including non-residential charitable development. In general, we oppose the amendment because it is not appropriate for charities providing services for the public benefit to also be required to provide affordable housing. It would be unfortunate if all kinds of charitable development, from drug treatment facilities to village halls, became economically unviable because we required them to fund an element of affordable housing as well.
Rachael Maskell
It is becoming clear in the debate that there are charities and charities. Some charities are run by major businesses and make a profit. Say a private school was disposing of a playing field that would then be used for the development of unaffordable housing to provide significant funding. Should that private school be exempt because it has charitable status under the Charities Act? Would that be right, because surely it is acting like any other business?
Mr Jones
The hon. Member makes a very good point. A charity that builds something that is not for a charitable purpose would not be subject to an exemption from the levy under proposed new section 204F. For example, feeding into what she said, if a charity were delivering market housing, that would be unlikely to meet the definition of a charitable purpose. If there are specific scenarios where contributions should be sought, the Bill enables us to consider them as part of the development of the levy’s regulations. More broadly, we will consult on the types of exemptions that should apply to the levy prior to laying the regulations before the Commons for approval. For those reasons, amendment 158 is not necessary.
Rachael Maskell
I want to test another scenario. Say the same educational establishment develops a nursery on that site, but the nursery has a commercial interest. Under the debate that we had about the provision of services, that could be seen as one of the services that could come under the infrastructure levy. A nursery could be a profit-making opportunity for said institution, while also providing support for children under the Government’s funding for nurseries. Would that be included or excluded from the scheme that the Minister is outlining?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I will not get drawn into lots of different examples, but we are very clear that we are talking about charitable purposes under the definition in the 2011 Act.
Turning to amendments 159 and 160, there may be other instances where an institution is established for charitable purposes but does not meet the definition of a charity—for example, a charity established in Scotland, Northern Ireland or overseas. Amendments 159 and 160 would remove the express ability for regulations to set exemptions or reductions in the levy for these types of institutions. This would mean that only English and Welsh charities could be exempt from the levy when delivering development for charitable purposes. While we recognise that this will be less common, it would still be unfortunate if other types of charitable institutions could not deliver important facilities because of increased costs from the levy.
We are aware that different charitable institutions may operate differently from English and Welsh charities. That is why it is important to maintain a separate power to prescribe in regulations in detail the levy liabilities of such institutions. That enables provision to be made in the regulations, which will keep up with future changes that might be made to charities law. There will also be instances where a charitable institution carries out development that itself is not for charitable purposes but that it should none the less be able to claim an exemption or reduction for.
In the current CIL system, the CIL regulations make use of this power to provide for relief from CIL liability at the discretion of the local authority for developments carried out by charities for investment purposes. This approach works, which is why we do not agree with amendments 159 and 160, which would remove the express ability to set this kind of exemption or reduction through regulations in the future.
I hope that I have provided helpful clarification to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other members of the Committee. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am partly reassured by what the Minister said, not least because he clearly indicated that the Government are going to go away and give further consideration to designing regulations. However, I urge him—or his successor when he is promoted—to really look into this issue, because I think there is a chance here, as Members have commented on, for a loophole to be exploited in ways that would cut across the purposes of the Bill as per the Government’s thinking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 167, in schedule 11, page 287, line 28, at end insert—
“204FA Social enterprises and community interest companies
(1) IL regulations must provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL in respect of a development where—
(a) the person who would otherwise be liable to pay IL in respect of the development is a social enterprise or a community interest company, and
(b) the building or structure in respect of which IL liability would otherwise arise is to be used wholly or mainly for the purposes of social enterprise or the community interest.
(2) IL regulations may—
(a) provide for an exemption from liability to pay IL where the person who would otherwise be liable to pay IL in respect of the development is a social enterprise or a community interest company;
(b) require charging authorities to make arrangements for an exemption from, or reduction in, liability to pay IL where the person who would otherwise be liable to pay IL in respect of the development is a social enterprise or a community interest company.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may provide that an exemption or reduction does not apply if specified conditions are satisfied.”
This amendment makes equivalent provisions about the Infrastructure Levy for social enterprise or community interest companies as it does for charities under inserted section 204F.
The reason for the amendment is that there are different forms of businesses across communities. At this point, I should declare an interest as a Member of the Co-operative party. Social business is really important across our communities. Social businesses, enterprises and community interest companies have a different focus from the run-of-the-mill business. They are not there for profit. They are there to reinvest in their service users and facilities and to give back to their communities.
I think there is a real anomaly in the legislation. Today, the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector is referred to as one, recognising the charitable aims and social aims that these organisations bring. In moving the amendment, I am looking for parity, to recognise the fact that not-for-profit organisations—community interest companies and social enterprises—make an investment in their communities. They can make an investment by employing people from a place of disadvantage and by giving people opportunities in life. However, they are businesses as well, running cafés, for instance. Obviously they reinvest the proceeds they make into people in the community or they perhaps run a nursery or another form of business. We have seen the real benefit that that brings—it certainly addresses the levelling-up agenda. It enables people to move forward in their social mobility journey.
These organisations often start out with no assets whatever. They are very small. They build, reinvest and grow, which is good for the local economy. We need only to look at Preston as an example. It has invested—I look at the Chair, who is the MP for Preston—in the community. It has invested in the model of social business as well, and we know the importance of that. We want to see that rolled out across our communities. If these organisations grow and want to invest more and further benefit the community, but they then have to pay the infrastructure levy, that will curtail the opportunities that they can bring to our communities, and we do not want to see that. We want to see community interest companies, co-operatives and social businesses grow in a way that allows them to reinvest in our communities.
One thing that I have found most inspiring over the last few weeks is meeting organisations that are putting incubators for social enterprises in their communities—again, with no asset, but they provide an opportunity to bring forward a generation of new community interest companies and social enterprises. I have seen a little bit of that on the SPARK site in York, which really has put a spark into York. It is built out of old containers on a site and has brought a new energy into the city centre. It has been a fantastic opportunity, running and helping businesses to develop the ethos of community interest companies as they move forward.
I do not understand why in the legislation credible social businesses, social enterprises and community interest companies do not have exemptions when they give so much back to our communities and bring real transformation to our society. I want the amendment to be made. It is an omission; perhaps the Minister will explain why such an omission was made. Will he also reflect on the charities when it comes to the consultation and looking at further regulations? Will he include social enterprises and community interest companies in the substantive next phase of the legislation?
Mr Jones
As I said under amendment 158, proposed new section 204F of the Planning Act 2008 allows for certain charities carrying out development for charitable purposes to be exempt from the levy. Proposed new section 204D(5)(h) also provides powers to exempt or reduce levy liabilities through regulations. This would allow us to set national exemptions or reductions where it is appropriate for other types of development by other types of organisations. When considering the approach to exemptions and reductions, we will need to consider a wide range of development types, including those put forward by the amendment. There is an important balance to strike. Although we will explore national exemptions and reductions to the levy, we want local authorities to be able to make their own decisions about how they might want levy exemptions to apply.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. Obviously, if local authorities are going to make such determinations, they will have to look for the maximum opportunity. As the legislation is unamended, they will also seek to subsidise the affordability of housing as well. It is very unlikely that a local authority will then look for wider exemptions from the infrastructure levy, so I cannot see how that would work in practice to deliver the objective to which the Minister refers.
Mr Jones
I was just bringing it to the hon. Member’s attention that there is a balance to strike in these matters. Clearly national exemptions are an important part of this, but we want to give a certain amount of local flexibility. Our forthcoming consultation on the infrastructure levy will explore this question further. It will allow us to look at the case for exemptions in the round, and decide what types of developments should not be subject to the charge, or should be subject to a reduced charge. Following consultation we will set out in regulations where a charge to the levy will not apply. Those regulations will be subject to debate in Committee and approval in the House. On that basis, I do not consider the amendment necessary and kindly ask her to withdraw it.
Rachael Maskell
I rise to make a brief point. It is more about the scope of what we have discussed—the infrastructure levy being able to contribute to affordable housing and social housing within a development. One of my fears is that everything is left to the end; it is left to the end to calculate everything, and we end up with what has happened at St Peters Quarter, in York, with the high-value housing—beautiful, spacious housing—in one area and then the section 106 housing in the corner, where there is no proper infrastructure to support it because there is no money left. We therefore get real segregated communities.
I go back to the report that John Hills wrote in 2007. I was at a meeting with him, discussing the report, and he was talking about the importance of place making and mixed communities. We could be in danger of ending up with more divided communities if everything is paid at the end. Therefore scheduling payment is really important. Developers know that that money will have to be paid, and we should ensure that it can be paid in a timely way so that we do not end up with the scenario that we have articulated so much with either the section 106 provision coming never or the infrastructure levy money not delivering on the expectation at the start of the planning process. That could of course occur, but, even worse, we could end up with really divided and segregated communities when we know that the strength and resilience of communities comes where we see that housing jumbled up.
A good example would be Derwenthorpe, in York, where it is not possible to tell what is a social house, what is a privately owned home or where there is equity sharing or anything else, because the houses are all the same and people live in a very mixed and diverse community. That has built strong resilience in the community.
We need to think about more than just housing; we need to think of place making, which I know is Homes England’s real objective. Of course, by holding everything back to the very last minute, we are in danger of not having that. Properly scheduling payment of the infrastructure levy will ensure that we get the proper places that people want to live in and that we build resilience across all communities, as opposed to dividing communities and then developing areas that will create social challenges in the future.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his contribution to the debate on the levy today. Even though it is an inviting proposition, I do not think it would be wise for me to start to try to pre-empt the policy of the new Government, but what I will do is focus on amendments 58 and 161, which are before us.
Charging the levy on the basis of gross development value, which will be the sales value of the development that is sold, will enable the levy to capture more of the increases in development value that occur over time. That will result in better opportunity to capture more value from development to put towards infrastructure and services. Later payments will also reduce demands initially on developer cash flow, and the returns necessary to make a development worth while, because payments will not be required up front.
Payments may be made later, but we recognise the importance of the infrastructure levy supporting the timely provision of local infrastructure alongside new development, so that homes are supported by the right services. That is why it will be possible for local authorities to borrow against future levy liabilities, so they can forward-fund infrastructure.
We are also introducing infrastructure delivery strategies that will drive local authorities to plan more effectively for the best use of levy revenues. On the majority of sites, levy contributions towards infrastructure will be secured in cash, creating a simpler, streamlined system. Developers will, however, still need to deliver the infrastructure on site that is integral to the use of the site, including access roads and flood risk mitigations.
In addition, as we have debated, on larger, more complex sites, we intend to retain the use of section 106 planning obligations to secure in-kind delivery of infrastructure. Such contributions will be offset against the levy liability and the timing of their delivery can be negotiated.
Nevertheless, we recognise that there are circumstances in which early payment and payment by instalments may well be appropriate. That is why the Bill provides powers to allow for that under proposed new section 204R(2) of the Planning Act 2008, which is in schedule 11.
Matthew Pennycook
As we have discussed extensively, given that we would not know the end value until later on in the development and that it would be subject to multiple valuations that might be disputed, how do the Government envisage the operation of a system of payments up front? Will the payments be simply scored off against the projected, expected end value, which will be calculated at a later date? Will the Minister give us a sense of how that sort of arrangement might work in practice?
Mr Jones
As we have discussed a number of times during the debate, the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be set out in regulations. Clearly, that needs to be considered, because we need to ensure that there is a mechanism whereby payments are required to be made earlier in the development. That mechanism will be there and we can make that happen.
In due course, as I have said, we will consult on how the levy might be collected and paid. For example, we intend to explore whether a substantial proportion of the levy should be paid prior to the completion of the development or a phase of it. That plays into what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned. It would give charging authorities confidence that they will secure funds before the development is sold on. I hope that my reassurances that the Bill already provides powers to achieve the objectives laid out in the amendments in this group will mean that at this point my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is able to withdraw his amendment and that the hon. Gentleman feels able not to move amendment 161.
Greg Smith
As I indicated earlier, I am happy to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twentieth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 8th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made point. We had, as she will know, an extensive discussion on viability in the last sitting. The system is flawed in many respects, but there are ways in which it has been improved in recent years, and it could be improved further. The Mayor’s threshold approach in London is a good example of how that can be done; it draws in relevant expertise to ensure that contentious sites undergo a full viability assessment.
Our issue with the proposed system is that it is premised on removing the viability issue from the process entirely, but the point here is that the system certainly does not do that; at the rate-setting stage, viability is very much an issue. That needs to be addressed through the amendments. Amendment 162 would ensure that IL rate-setting testing and examination cannot be unfairly manipulated by developers seeking to drive down levy rates, because the amendment would clarify that charging authorities will not be expected to test every development site in their area. It would mitigate the risk that the infrastructure necessary to support development will not come forward, and that amounts of affordable housing will be reduced.
Amendments 163 and 164 are necessary to give full effect to the Government’s commitment that the new system will be, to quote the policy paper, a “locally determined Infrastructure Levy”, with Il rates set locally by charging authorities. The amendments do that by altering the provisions that give the Secretary of State the power to impose specific IL rates, nil rates or minimum thresholds that have not emerged as a result of an examination, or been justified with reference to local evidence. By preventing the Secretary of State from overriding a charging authority in those respects, the two amendments seek to avoid a scenario in which a charging authority is either prevented from developing its own IL rates or, after the lengthy and resource-intensive process of determining the IL rates and thresholds appropriate for its area, and after having them verified by an independent examiner, has them overridden by the Secretary of State.
There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that IL rates imposed by the Secretary of State in the way that the Bill allows would be based on local evidence or subject to independent assessment. There is therefore an obvious risk that the Secretary of State may, on occasion, be persuaded to bypass the IL rate-setting process on spurious grounds. We feel strongly that the process should be genuinely local, and that charging authorities should be confident, if they develop a rate or rates that are approved in examination, that they will be able to apply those without interference from the Department. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on each of these important amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to address the Committee and answer the questions raised. The hon. Gentleman talked about attrition rates, which are important for all of us as constituency MPs, and we all want to make sure that we get this right. I, too, thank the former Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for the work that he has done over the summer.
I begin by acknowledging the work of the Committee so far. The planning reforms will clearly be important in supporting our growth agenda, so I look forward to the next few days. I understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce the amendments. I will try to clarify some of the points, and to explain why we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I will start with amendment 162.
Local planning authorities will be responsible for setting infrastructure levy rates, and for charging and collecting the levy, and they can spend the levy revenues on local priorities. When setting rates, they must have regard to the economic viability of the development of the area. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that proposed new section 204A(2) of the Planning Act 2008 already ensures that that is the case. It states that the overall purpose of the levy,
“is to ensure that costs incurred in supporting the development of an area and in achieving any purpose specified under section 204N(5) can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.”
The overall purpose of the levy applies to all levy regulations, including those made under proposed new section 204G(4)(a), to which the hon. Gentleman has proposed additional text. This means that when charging authorities set rates or other criteria, they must have regard to matters specified in levy regulations relating to the economic viability of development. Although I understand his point, I hope that with that explanation, he will agree that amendment 162 is unnecessary.
Amendments 163 and 164 would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring, through regulations, that differential rates of the levy be set. They would also prevent the Secretary of State from specifying in regulations the basis on which a threshold for such rates may be determined. Again, I recognise that the aim of the amendments is to ensure that the rates are set solely by the charging authority, but I reassure the Committee that local rate-setting is indeed essential to the levy design. However, the levy must be charged in a coherent and consistent way, so that it meets its objectives of capturing more value and raising more revenue for local planning authorities, while maintaining the viability of developments across an area.
How the levy is charged should reflect the different amounts of additional value that might be generated across different kinds of development. In some circumstances, it might be necessary to require in the levy regulations that rates be set at higher or lower levels. For example, the additional value created by new floor space might be a lot greater than that created when existing floor space undergoes change of use. Similarly, the additional value generated by a residential development might be a lot higher than the amount generated by some types of commercial development, and it is right that the difference in value is reflected in levy rates.
There might be types of development on which it is simply not appropriate to charge the levy, or on which it would be appropriate to charge a reduced rate. Providing for that in the levy regulations will ensure the coherence of the regime that I talked about.
How much additional value is generated by a development depends in part on how much it cost to build, and on the value of the land before development takes place. The minimum threshold will broadly account for the costs of development in an area by charging the levy on the final gross development value. Above the minimum threshold, the levy is charged only on the additional value of a development. Without a minimum threshold, the levy would not be able to reliably capture more of the value uplift in different development types and land uses, while maintaining viability. The ability for levy regulations to require that thresholds for nil or reduced rates be determined in a specified way, including the ability to adjust them with reference to the cost of development in a charging authority’s area, is key to ensuring that this aspect of the levy function works in a coherent and consistent way.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that comprehensive answer from the Minister, but I am afraid to tell him that I am not reassured. I am not sure—I will happily go back and check the record—that he addressed my specific points. As I said, our concern is that the language in proposed new section 204G(4)(a), when it comes to specifying how viability is handled within the rate-setting process, refers simply to “development”. It is not consistent with the language in proposed new section 204A(2), which specifically refers to “development of an area”.
The Minister spoke in general terms about the local rate-setting process. I take no issue with that. It is absolutely right that the local charging authority looks at viability as part of that process, but the specific concern that we have, as I said, is that it may be forced to assess the viability of every site in the area that it oversees, rather than being able to undertake a general assessment of viability in that area and not have specific sites skew the results. This could potentially have very serious implications for the levy rates that are set and the ability of developers to try to drive down those rates as part of the process. We are not satisfied on that score.
On amendments 163 and 164, we do not take issue with the fact that there needs to be a minimum threshold or the need for specified ways of setting or adjusting the levy rates. Our issue is with the powers that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to intervene and overturn a locally determined rate that has gone through an examination process. The Minister has not convinced me that there is a good reason for those powers. On that basis, I am keen to make the point that we think this is one of the many weaknesses in the Government’s proposed infrastructure levy, so I am minded to press amendment 162 to a vote.
Paul Scully
Let me just answer a couple of points as the hon. Member considers whether to press the amendment to a vote. I assure him that charging the levies is very much for the local authorities. The intention is to not have a system that is different for every single development, because that becomes incredibly unwieldy—that is the point of introducing this system rather than the existing, technically complex system, where developers, who have deeper pockets than many local authorities, and more expertise, get round section 106 and CIL and so on. If they so choose, local authorities should be able to have different levies in different areas within their remit, but that should not be just from development to development. That is the intention of the measures here.
The powers of the Secretary of State reflect the current system. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State has powers under the existing system and we are reserving that same right, which is to be used only very sparingly.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that useful further clarification of the Government’s intention, but in many ways he made my point for me. No one is taking issue with the fact that the Bill specifies that local charging authorities set the rate. That is absolutely right. It is an advantage of the proposed system vis-à-vis that outlined in the 2020 “Planning for the Future” White Paper, which envisaged a nationally set rate or rates. The issue we have—the Minister spoke directly to this point—is the inequality of arms between developers and local planning authorities. Our concern is that the language in the Bill will allow developers, not in the way they do with the current section 106 system but under the new system, to use their extra resources, skills and expertise to drive down levy rates at the point at which they are set, due to the way that viability is dealt with in proposed new section 204G(4)(a). I am not satisfied by the Minister’s comments, and I will press amendment 162 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on amendment 168. She rightly speaks about the importance of green space in urban areas and about how we can increase the rate of it, if anything, when it comes to individual planning applications.
I will speak primarily to amendment 59, because I think it is worth putting the following on the record. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham is making, but my reading of the Bill is that the framework established in part 4 already allows charging authorities to set different IL rates according to existing and proposed uses, and those could include different rates for greenfield and brownfield sites. So the means to resolve the issue he is driving are already in the Bill, and Buckinghamshire Council will be able to set different rates on brownfield and greenfield sites if the Bill is given Royal Assent.
Our concern is that, by seeking to make mandatory a sliding scale of charges relating to land type or existing typologies by site, amendment 59 could result in reduced infrastructure contributions and lower levels of affordable housing in areas where development mainly or exclusively takes place on brownfield land, because it would prevent charging authorities from setting rates that are effective and suitable for their area and that consider local circumstances. For example, a mandatory sliding scale of charges, as proposed in the amendment, could result in the expectation that a charging authority whose development sites are entirely or mainly on brownfield land would set low IL rates to incentivise development in that area and disincentivise development in other areas with fewer brownfield sites.
Furthermore, brownfield development in higher-value areas will almost certainly generate sufficient values to support higher levels of contributions than would be possible on greenfield sites. As such, a mandatory sliding scale of charges would mean the loss of developer contributions that could viably have been delivered on brownfield sites, with no assurance that this would be offset by a higher level of contributions on greenfield land. Labour firmly believes in the principle of brownfield first, as do the Government, and that is absolutely right. However, we feel strongly that the setting of different IL rates for different land types should ultimately be determined by individual charging authorities taking account of local circumstances, rather than by the method proposed in amendment 59.
Paul Scully
The Government are already providing strong encouragement for the take-up of brownfield sites—we are all agreed on that—and are prioritising suitable brownfield land for development wherever possible. There is significant investment through the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £75 million brownfield land release fund to unlock brownfield land across different communities across the country. Our national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land in settlements for homes and other identified planning need.
We recognise the importance of delivery on brownfield sites, as has been raised by the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. However, we believe that that is better achieved through planning policy rather than through a fixed algorithm that automatically increases levy charges on the basis of the proportion of greenfield to brownfield. This further amendment would add a new element to the levy formula, which would still allow for greater greenfield development in certain circumstances, but would remain a formulaic approach rather than a policy-driven one.
The proportion of greenfield development within the local authority should continue to be policy driven at that local level, as we have heard. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that it should be the local authority—the charging authority—driving that, based on their local circumstances. In any case, proposed new section 204G(5) and (8) in schedule 11 already contains powers for the levy regulations to permit or require local planning authorities to set different levy rates for different kinds of development, and proposed new section 204G(4) makes it clear that the local authority must have regard to the increases in land value that result from planning permission. That provides a framework where, if increases in land values are higher, as we have heard is often the case with greenfield development, higher rates can be set. On that, we agree in terms of policy.
In answer to the hon. Member for York Central, I totally understand her drive when she talks about buildings going up to five storeys, and it is important that it is the local area that determines exactly these things. Whether it is the view of the Minister or the affordability of properties, that should not be determined centrally with an artificial algorithm. It very much needs to be locally driven, so that local families and communities benefit from housing themselves and from the economic value of bringing in new people and new investment. It is about getting that balance right, and that will change for different areas. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member’s tour de force—that tour of York, and I suspect I will get a bit more about green spaces later this morning.
Paul Scully
A lot more, the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
Clearly, we do need those green lungs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said. Those of us who have an urban, suburban or semi-urban area need to get that balance right, and I would much rather that that was done through a policy framework than by an algorithm, which can be game-played by developers. It is important to get this right at a local level, so it is important to get for local authorities to get the local plan in, so that they can shape their place. They have the determination to do so. For those reasons, amendments 168 and 59 are not necessary.
Paul Scully
It has been interesting moving around some of the areas where the infrastructure levy can be used, whether for cycles, footpaths or micro-transport. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned from a sedentary position that we are going to get the good experience of York. I did not realise that we were going to have the experience of Trieste in Italy as well. It is interesting to hear about that, although I understand that in Trieste they do not have mental health provision in hospitals either because they tend to keep to people suffering with their mental health in their homes. It is a different cultural situation, but the point was taken.
The hon. Member for York Central talked about allotments. I do not want to see the community levy contributing to a dulling of good developers who want to provide community facilities as part of their place-shaping. Allotments are comparatively low cost to design and implement, but have massive social and community value. I very much understand that point. Having been the Hospitality Minister for two years, and now the Minister for Faith, I find the hon. Lady’s proposal to combine those roles in the church/pub really interesting—we will see how that goes.
This is the problem with putting lists in Bills. The list is not supposed to be exhaustive and comprehensive—there are plenty of things that charging authorities can, should and will be looking at, such as those the hon. Lady has outlined. The Bill gives a starting point, but I do not think we need to go further at this stage, because the rest of the Bill gives the local authorities wide powers, allowing them to spend the levy on the infrastructure that their communities need, rather than it being imposed by us in the detail proposed by the amendment.
I reassure the hon. Lady that, should a local authority wish to spend the levy on items of infrastructure that are not expressly stated in the list in proposed new section 204N, as long as it is infrastructure in the common sense and natural meaning of the word, it will indeed be able to do that. The levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area, including funding the provision, improvement and replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, providing that it is in accordance with the original aim of the levy as set out in proposed new section 204A.
The Bill also allows for regulations to add, remove or vary the content of the list to support infrastructure delivery through the levy if it is necessary and if any clarification is needed.
Rachael Maskell
Energy should get particular mention in a redrafting of the Bill. Other countries are further advanced; we are behind. That is a specific point, and we should see that change. Does the Minister conclude that all the other issues in the amendment would be facilitated by proposed new section 204A, as set out in that broader definition of the Bill? If that is the case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Scully
I do not see the need to put energy generation in the list because, absolutely, that and the other areas she raises are included. I am happy to give her that reassurance. As long as the local authority thinks something is needed, and it fits within the definition of infrastructure—I think we can agree that all the points she raises fit within that definition of infrastructure—the answer is yes.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Just for clarity: if the authority were to bring forward a proposal for microgeneration of energy or an energy facility in order to support a local town, conurbation or whatever, that would be included, too. I made the point about energy having a separate mention in the Bill because it is such a big issue and much broader than some other areas, but would that also be covered?
Paul Scully
Yes. If the local authority thinks it is needed, then absolutely. The discourse around housing is often just about the supply of housing, but clearly energy, and energy generation of all sorts, needs to be brought into it. We need to bring in schools, hospitals and medical facilities of all types, and indeed allotments, as she said. Yes, I can give her that assurance, and ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I have heard what the Minister has said. I will take his words as authoritative—they will be in the Hansard record of today’s debate—and, as a result, I will withdraw my amendment. The point about energy is significant, not least if I look at the Derwenthorpe development by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust in York, which has put energy and a community centre at the heart of that social/private development. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 165, in schedule 11, page 306, leave out from line 38 to line 2 on page 307.
This amendment would limit the circumstances under which the Secretary of State could direct a charging authority to review its charging schedule.
This amendment, much like amendments 162, 163 and 164, which we debated earlier in relation to the IL rate-setting process, is concerned with ensuring that the new levy system is genuinely local and that charging authorities are fully in control of developing its discretionary elements at a local level. It would remove proposed new section 204Y(1)(b), which provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct a charging authority to alter its charging schedule in a range of circumstances, including
“in any other circumstances that IL regulations may specify”.
That is of particular concern.
Given that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to revise individual charging schedules at their sole discretion, with no need to justify that intervention by means of any objective evidence-based criteria, we are concerned that, as drafted, it could have significant implications. For example, it could allow a future Secretary of State to require a charging authority to amend its locally developed charging schedule as a result of lobbying by a developer, without having to provide any evidence that the levy as implemented in the area in question is impairing viability and frustrating development.
We believe that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot direct a charging authority to alter its charging schedule merely due to the passage of time or any other circumstances they see fit, given that the only justified rationale for an intervention from Ministers in relation to a charging schedule—namely, its impact on viability—is already covered by subsection (1). I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Paul Scully
Proposed new section 204Y(1)(b) enables the Government to require an authority to review—not necessarily alter—its levy charging schedule if a significant amount of time has passed since its last issuing, review, revision or replacement. Proposed new section 204Y(1)(c) enables the Government to require a review in any other circumstances as may be specified through regulations. It is important to have a power to direct a review to be undertaken after a significant period has elapsed since the schedule was put in place or revised. That is because there may be occasions when a schedule has been in place for many years without a proper review, and so is not up to date.
The levy will be a mandatory charge, and for many local authorities operating a levy on new developments it will be a novel means to capture land value. Monitoring and reviewing charging schedules will therefore be important, especially for authorities that are unaccustomed to charging a levy. That is why we want levy charging rates to be reviewed on a timely basis. We will issue guidance on what that might reasonably mean in terms of time and circumstances. I hope that provides reassurance, including for communities and developers, that the rates remain appropriate. We want to make sure the approach is balanced.
Historically, local planning authorities have not always reviewed and updated key documents, such as local plans, in a timely fashion, which is why it is appropriate to take this power to direct a charging authority to issue, review, revise or replace. Furthermore, it is entirely consistent for the Bill to secure timely reviews of charging schedules and to require that local authorities introduce a charging schedule in the first place. Levy charging schedules are underpinned by evidence on local economic circumstances and viability. Reviews either provide confidence that the charging schedule remains appropriate or starts a process of revision if they are considered not to be.
We also consider it important to have the power to regulate for any other circumstances in which the Government may want to direct that a review be undertaken, such as if a new local plan is issued soon after the publication of a charging schedule. Any further circumstances identified will be introduced through affirmative regulations, and so will be laid before this House and debated and approved here. With that clarification, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 166, in schedule 11, page 308, leave out line 25.
This amendment would prevent IL regulations making unspecified provision about how powers under section 106 of TCPA 1990 (planning obligations) are used.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that this is the last of our amendments on the infrastructure levy. It relates to the interaction of the infrastructure levy with other existing powers. As drafted, proposed new section 204Z1(1) in schedule 11 provides for future IL regulations to make unspecified provisions about how a range of existing powers, including CIL and section 106 planning obligations, are to be used or not used.
Our specific concern relates to the application of those broad powers to the use of section 106 agreements. While we appreciate fully that there are circumstances where the use of section 106 will have to be limited—for example, to avoid double charging a development for the same infrastructure item—we feel strongly, for reasons that I went into in exhaustive detail on Tuesday in relation to that part of the Bill in the round, that section 106 agreements have a crucial role to play in ensuring we secure sufficient levels of affordable housing. We are concerned that proposed new subsection (1) could be used to unduly restrict their use.
By deleting line 25 from page 208, amendment 166 simply seeks to ensure that future IL regulations cannot make unspecified provisions about how section 106 agreements are used once the levy system is operational. I hope the Minster will seriously consider accepting the amendment. If not, I feel that we need, at a minimum, far greater clarity about the precise circumstances in which the Government expect to have to restrict section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Paul Scully
Proposed new section 204Z1 in schedule 11 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe how certain powers are to be used or not. As we have heard, proposed new subsection (1)(c) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe how section 106 applications may or may not be used alongside the levy. That power has been used previously to make provision under the community infrastructure levy regulations to ensure that section 106 obligations are necessary in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fair and reasonably related to the scale and kind of development.
We need to be able to continue to ensure, under the new system, that section 106 obligations are used in ways that are appropriate, necessary and fair. We need to be able to delineate between matters that should be funded by the levy, and contributions to infrastructure or mitigation that should be secured by the more narrowly focused section 106 agreement. That means that developers will know that they will receive consistent treatment across different local authorities.
Removing section 106 from the list of powers will mean that the Secretary of State is unable to provide clear, coherent and consistent boundaries between what the levy should be used for, and what section 106 agreements can and cannot be used for. That would remove a key provision that will provide for coherence across the levy and the planning obligations regime. It is important to remember that the levy will take most of that. It will be more complicated, niche or bespoke schemes for which section 106 will remain. That coherence is why we want to keep that power and consistency. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a welcome additional clarification from the Minister, and I do not want to rehearse the previous debates that we have had. As I set out at length, we believe that the infrastructure levy should be discretionary and that, if it is not discretionary, affordable housing should not be within scope, so we remain concerned about the ability of this power to restrict how section 106 agreements are used. However, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114
Power to designate Homes and Communities Agency as a charging authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I have a question relating to clause stand part. The Homes and Communities Agency, which operates under the trading name of Homes England, can already be designated as a local planning authority under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The clause amends section 14 of the Act to provide that, if a designation order is made under section 13 to designate the HCA as a local planning authority for all or part of a designated area, the designation order may also make provision for the HCA to be the IL charging authority for all or part of the designated area.
The current situation with CIL is that the Homes and Communities Agency, urban development corporations and enterprise zone authorities can also be collecting authorities for development where they grant permission, but only if the relevant charging authority agrees. It would appear that the new provision in the clause allows Homes England to be a charging authority for the area where it acts as the planning authority, without the need for agreement from the local planning authority, as is currently the case with CIL.
Given the circumstances, I am more than happy for the Minister or his successor to respond to me in writing at a later date, but I would be grateful if he could explain the rationale behind the change of approach, what engagement and consultation Homes England will be required to carry out with other relevant local bodies in the absence of an explicit agreement to exercise the relevant powers, and what processes Homes England will use to decide how IL should be spent in that area.
Paul Scully
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details. As he rightly says, the clause is designed purely to act as a framework for having Homes England become a charging authority as well as a local planning authority. That power has not be exercised to date, but if it were, Homes England could become a charging authority. It is important to have the power in order to allow the Homes and Communities Agency to become the charging authority as well as the local planning authority, and to specify the purpose and kinds of development. Without the clause, the levy may not be able to function effectively in areas where the Homes and Communities Agency may be designated as the local planning authority. I commend the clause to the Committee, and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details, should he require them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 8th September 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 173, in clause 116, page 133, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert—
“(a) protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human activity;
(b) maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment, cultural heritage or the landscape;
(c) protection of people and their long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity on the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape;
(d) protection of the climate from the effects of human activity;
(e) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anything in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This amendment would broaden the definition of environmental protection to allow the Secretary of State to specify outcomes relating to climate change obligations and public health objectives.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Part 5 of the Bill concerns the Government’s proposed new approach to assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major projects —namely, environmental outcomes reports. The reports are intended to replace the partly European Union-derived systems of strategic environmental assessment, including sustainability appraisals, and environmental impact assessments.
The Government’s rationale for the change in approach—this is gleaned not only from reading the Bill and its accompanying documents, but from the 2020 White Paper—is that the SEA and EIA systems can lead to duplication of effort and overly long reports, which inhibit transparency and add unnecessary delays to the planning process, and that the EOR framework will provide for clearer, simpler and presumably shorter assessments, with designated environmental outcomes that are easier to understand and monitor, and therefore to mitigate, remedy and compensate for, and will ensure that strategic and project scale assessments are properly joined up.
The Government’s critique significantly overstates the weaknesses of the SEA and EIA systems. That is not to suggest that they are perfect; for example, they can rightly be criticised for too often producing assessments that are too complex and cumbersome to be used effectively. However, the Government already have the necessary powers to improve many aspects of the SEA and EIA systems, if they chose to exercise them. Overall, the existing systems have made an enormous difference to how the environmental impact of development is considered. They are well established and understood, and when used correctly, they provide for rigorous, evidence-based, comprehensive assessments of the direct and indirect effects of projects and their mitigation in a way that involves the public.
As things stand, we really have no idea whether the proposed system of environmental outcomes reports provided for by part 5 will ultimately improve the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major consents, because, as with so much of the Bill, the detail required to understand how EORs will operate in practice is simply not available. For example, we have no idea what range of factors the EORs can consider, or when EORs will be mandated. These and a wide range of other questions will be answered only when the regulations that set outcomes emerge in due course. Given the wide-ranging powers provided for in this part of the Bill, that is a cause of real concern.
When it comes to the basic EOR framework provided for by clauses 116 to 130, we take the view that an outcomes-based system could be an improvement on the present systems, given that they assess on the basis of the significance of effects on all relevant environmental receptors—although, again, it is impossible to arrive at a considered judgment on how much practical difference the EOR system will make when we have no idea how detailed or ambitious those outcomes will ultimately be, or what timeframe they will involve.
However, while we recognise the potential for an outcomes-based approach to establish an improved system of environmental protection, we are extremely concerned that part 5 is likely to lead to an approach that is too limited in scope, is insufficiently aligned with important obligations and requirements in environmental and climate legislation, and—for all the assurances to the contrary—provides an opportunity for environmental regression in the future.
It is essential that we have confidence that the new environmental outcomes report system will maintain the robustness and scope of the strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment frameworks, and will lead to tangible improvements in our natural environment, as well as helping to fight climate change. If we are to build that confidence and provide reassurance that the new system will deliver improved outcomes, the EOR framework provided for in clauses 116 to 130 needs strengthening in a number of important respects. Amendment 173, and others that will be debated later, are designed to achieve that aim.
Clause 116 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that set out specific environmental protection outcomes against which relevant plans and consents will be assessed, and sets out what the Secretary of State must have regard to when making those regulations. Subsection (2) sets out the definition of environmental protection for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee will note that it includes
“protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human activity”,
as well as protection of people from the effects of human activity on each of those, and their maintenance, restoration or enhancement.
We take no issue whatsoever with any of the definitions in subsection (2). Indeed, the Government’s decision to explicitly include references to cultural heritage and the landscape in what is meant by “environmental protection” is welcome; but we still believe that the definition is too limited. Specifically, protection of the climate, and protection of people’s long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity, should be explicitly included in the Bill’s definition of environmental protection. Amendment 173 provides for that broader definition, and would enable the Secretary of State, when making regulations under part 5 of the Bill, to specify environmental outcomes relating to both climate change obligations and public health objectives.
In short, the amendment would expand the range of possible environmental outcomes that Ministers could, if they chose, specify by regulation in the future, and therefore expand the range of things that assessments under the EOR regime could encompass. It would allow the Secretary of State to, for example, specify as a desired outcome the long-term flood-proofing of key infrastructure, so that it is climate resilient; or measures to promote walkability and urban cooling, so that development promotes key public health objectives. This is a sensible and proportionate amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider accepting it.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As we have heard, the amendment seeks to expand the definition of “environmental protection” in clause 116 to include explicit reference to public health and climate change. Before I turn to the detail of the clause and the introduction of the new environmental outcomes reports, I should say that the Government have been clear that the new system is intended to improve the assessment of projects’ environmental impacts, and to place environmental matters—including climate change and public health—at the centre of decision making.
In line with that ambition and the commitment to non-regression, the definitions in clause 116 reflect and build on the definitions in the Environment Act 2021. Many of the terms used in the EU system of strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment duplicate existing processes, or are poorly understood. Our broader approach to defining what outcomes may be covered will allow the Secretary of State greater flexibility to consider all relevant matters, including those that form part of the current assessment regime, such as human health and climate change.
As set out in subsection (2)(b) of the clause, the definition of environmental protection includes the protection of people, which would allow the Secretary of State to consider matters relating to health when setting outcomes. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) refer to protection from the effects of human activity, which would include protection from the impacts of climate change. Further, the definition of environmental protection is covered by the definition of the natural environment in subsection (3). This definition includes natural systems, cycles and processes, to ensure that matters such as climate change are properly built into consideration of outcomes under the new system.
While climate change and human health will undoubtedly be important considerations in setting outcomes, it is not necessary to make more explicit reference to them in primary legislation; doing so would risk limiting the range of outcomes that can be set, and risk our suggesting that climate change and health will be considered above other environmental topics that may, in individual cases, be equally important.
It is right that environmental outcomes reports focus on the full range of environmental issues. Developing the detail of what outcomes will be covered in secondary legislation will allow us to consult stakeholders, so that we can ensure that climate change and public health commitments, as well as other environmental matters, are captured. Outcomes will also draw on the extensive commitments made across Government, including the requirement in subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to have regard to the latest environmental improvement plan when setting outcomes. Setting out details around climate change and public health in secondary legislation will also enable us to minimise the risk of duplication and ensure alignment, as these are important considerations across other policy areas in the planning and consenting systems. In the light of these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is able to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response, but I do not think it addresses the concern raised by the amendment. I very much welcome what the Minister said about the Government’s intention to put public health and climate at the centre of decision making. The concern, though, is that although the clause gives a comprehensive list of what “environmental protection” means, it does not explicitly reference public health—human health—or climate, and I cannot for the life of me understand how inserting those things in the Bill explicitly would in any way limit the outcomes that could be set. We would merely be specifying and clarifying that outcomes relating to those two objectives were caught under the powers in the Bill.
I note what the Minister says about forthcoming secondary legislation capturing those objectives, but this issue speaks to our concern that there is a real gap in how the Bill addresses climate and public health. We feel that while opportunities to reinforce the Government’s commitments are woven through the fabric of the Bill, those issues are often neglected or left out.
I will not press the amendment, but we shall come back to the issue of public health and climate, because they need to have a much more central role in this legislation, and to be written into the Bill in many important respects, including in clause 116. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
It absolutely is. The amendment seeks to ensure that the obligations we have made, and the way that they are written into domestic legislation, is accounted for in the framework that part 5 provides for. After all, we are talking about how to assess the environmental impact of development. It stands to reason that requirements and obligations that flow from things such as the Climate Act 2008 should be written into the Bill explicitly. Leaving them out is problematic because it would lead to important EOR regulations being made without there being sufficient regard to significant relevant targets, duties, strategies and obligations, which, we should remember, the Government themselves legislated for.
Amendment 174 seeks to replace subsection (5) of clause 116 with a subsection containing a more comprehensive list of requirements that the Secretary of State should have regard to—it is only “should have regard to”—before making any EOR regulations that make provision about specified environmental outcomes. In addition to the environmental improvement plan, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to: biodiversity targets, including those under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021; the duty to conserve biodiversity, as is required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; local nature recovery strategies, as is required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021; and lowering the net UK carbon account, as is required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Putting that expanded list of requirements in the Bill would strengthen the EOR framework by making it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has to take into account those important legislative commitments when making EOR regulations.
In addition to expanding the list of requirements that the Secretary of State must have regard to before making any EOR regulations relating to specified environmental outcomes, we also believe there is a compelling case for greater parliamentary oversight of any such regulations that are proposed. The explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that set outcomes will be subject only to public consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I will not detain the Committee with a digression on the limitations of the affirmative procedure as a means of effective parliamentary scrutiny—we are all familiar with them, and have discussed them in the context of the Bill previously.
Clause 116 and the other clauses in part 5 provide the Secretary of State with expansive powers allowing them to pass, by regulation, as yet unspecified, and potentially far-reaching, measures affecting the environment and environmental law, so we strongly believe that any such regulations should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. New clause 52 would provide for use of that procedure for regulations made under part 5. I hope the Minister will give the new clause consideration, along with amendment 174.
Paul Scully
I understand the hon. Member’s concerns, but I hope to explain why the approach that we have taken in the Bill is sufficient. Amendment 174 would require environmental outcomes to be set in accordance with the environmental improvement plan, biodiversity targets, local nature recovery strategies and the Climate Change Act 2008. The environmental improvement plan, the current iteration of which is the 25-year environment plan, is where the Government set out how we aim to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. The Government have made it clear that an outcomes-based approach will be developed to support our environmental ambitions. For the purposes of this legislation, the environmental improvement plan is the most relevant document in informing the setting of outcomes. It is where the breadth of the ambitions are captured, and it is itself informed by a wide range of commitments and matters from other sources.
The Environment Act 2021 created a duty on the Government to prepare annual reports on the implementation of the environmental improvement plan, and to review and, if necessary, reissue the plan every five years. As such, it is a dynamic document that will evolve over time and reflect the most up-to-date position on the Government’s efforts to support the environment.
The environmental improvement plan also sets interim targets in respect of each of the key matters for which the Government have applied legally binding environmental targets, which will be reviewed regularly. That includes the biodiversity target mentioned in the amendment. Other more general duties and local strategies will also be informed by this overarching plan.
The amendment would also introduce a duty to act in accordance with a range of existing legislative provisions, and therefore risks creating potential conflict and unnecessary confusion. It is unclear how, for example, a national outcome could be set in accordance with a local nature recovery strategy, which is by definition spatial and site-specific.
Outcomes will cover a broad range of topics. The intention is not to create an exhaustive list of everything that will be considered when they are being set; rather, it is to recognise that the environmental improvement plan is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. Other duties will of course be reflected in outcomes at the moment they are set, but the duty to have regard to the current environmental improvement plan is the clearest way of ensuring that outcomes reflect the Government’s environmental ambitions.
With that in mind, it is important to note that the environmental improvement plan and commitments such as those under the Climate Change Act 2008 were not conceived as a way of informing outcomes for the EOR. As such, it would not be appropriate to set a hard requirement that EOR outcomes be set in accordance with those commitments.
The purpose of environmental outcome reporting, as is true of the existing system, will be to ensure that the right information is gathered to inform the right decisions, not to prioritise any one particular policy over another. Not everything in the environmental improvement plan will be relevant to development and environmental assessment, and there will be ambiguity as to how the plan should best be translated into outcomes for individual plans and developments. Equally, we will want to set outcomes in respect of landscape and cultural heritage, which are not in the scope of the plan.
When making EOR regulations that specify outcomes, we will have regard to the environmental improvement plan and other relevant considerations. Just as importantly, we will use the process of public consultation to ensure that we are capturing the outcomes that will best support the delivery of our environmental priorities. The amendment therefore risks both confusing and limiting the process by which outcomes are set. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will be able to withdraw the amendment.
New clause 52 seeks to make the EOR regulations subject to the super-affirmative procedure—something comparatively new to me. We have sought to take a proportionate approach to parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, placing the strongest requirements on the core elements of the new system. Clearly, we want to ensure that we have the best debates, consultations and discussion on such incredibly important issues. The use of powers in this particular part of the Bill, however, is tightly constrained with broad use of the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise regulations properly in detail.
In addition to requiring the affirmative procedure, clause 125 ensures that EOR regulations that cover the most significant aspects of the new regime—for example, those that specify outcomes—will also require public consultation or consultation with stakeholders. That will provide stakeholders and parliamentarians with the opportunity to consider the details of the proposed regulations in advance of their being laid. Regulations requiring public consultation will be followed up by an official Government response on how those views have been taken into account in setting the detailed policy.
Before engaging formally on the detailed regulations, after the Bill achieves Royal Assent we plan to launch a high-level consultation on the core elements of the new system—for example, on the outcomes-based approach to assessment and the use of the mitigation hierarchy in assessing reasonable alternatives. That will be combined with conceptual roundtables and expert policy forums to inform the design of the new regulations and wider implementation.
As such, the super-affirmative procedure would duplicate the consultation and the approval requirements, so we do not deem it necessary. It would only serve to slow down the process of bringing forward necessary reforms that we believe will help to improve the environment in the long run. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will agree not to press new clause 52.
Matthew Pennycook
I am somewhat reassured by that response from the Minister. However, I take issue with it in a number of respects. I appreciate fully that the 25-year environment plan is the current environmental improvement plan. It may be the most relevant document, but it is limited. I note the point about biodiversity targets, but the document does not contain all the other requirements in the legislation listed in the amendment. The environment plan may be informed by those other requirements, but it does not contain them and does not operate in the same way.
If I am honest, I struggle to understand the issue with the insertion of language relating to legislation the Government have passed, which one would hope has been aligned and made compliant with other bits of legislation that could create potential conflicts during the process of passing it. We remain concerned that the reference in subsection (5) is too limited and we would like to see a wider set of requirements written into the Bill, but I do not intend to press amendment 174 to a vote.
On new clause 52, I welcome the Minister’s comments on the processes that the Government intend to follow when it comes to designing EOR regulations. That measure of public involvement is welcome and will be an important part of the process, but we are still concerned that, overall, the safeguards are insufficient—I will come on to talk about the other safeguards provided in part 5. We do not believe that they tightly constrain the use of the powers; in fact, we think they do the opposite, and there are a number of loopholes that need to be closed.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a public consultation would duplicate the parliamentary oversight that would be afforded to this place by the super-affirmative procedure. I go back to the point I made on a previous amendment. These are broad, expansive powers, which are as yet unspecified. There is a need for greater parliamentary oversight, as well as other stronger safeguards. I am not going to press the new clause to a vote at this point, but we will come back to this and other matters on this part. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I have said already that we are committed to delivering a modern system of environmental assessment that properly reflects the nation’s environmental priorities. The Bill allows us to introduce a new framework to replace the EU’s systems, while recognising the important role that environmental assessment plays. The previous regime could be overly bureaucratic and disproportionate. Expanding case law has led to a situation where unnecessary elements are being assessed for fear of legal challenges. The costs for big projects run into hundreds of thousands of pounds on occasions; yet, despite the lengthy reports, they often prove ineffective at securing better environmental outcomes or encouraging development to support the country’s most important environmental priorities.
The 25-year environment plan acknowledges that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries of Europe. The 2019 “State of Nature” report led by conservation research organisations found that 41% of UK species are declining and one in 10 is threatened with extinction. Given the urgency with which we need to restore the environment to leave it in a better place for future generations, we desperately need a new approach.
The powers in the Bill will extend to all regimes currently covered by the EU system, to ensure the best approach for the interoperability between regimes, particularly for projects that are often in the scope of more than one regime, such as planning and marine. The new approach will be centred around the creation of environmental outcomes reports, which will directly set out how consents and plans should support the delivery of environmental priorities by assessing the extent to which they support the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That moves us away from the uncertainty of assessing likely significant effects to a more tangible framework that provides more clarity on what should be assessed and when.
Assessing consents and plans directly against those outcomes will ensure that reporting is focused on those matters that will make a real difference to environmental protection. In turn, that will support more effective decision making and make reports more accessible to the public.
The outcomes will be fairly high level and user-friendly, simply setting out environmental priorities. It will be the job of indicators underpinning those outcomes to measure the delivery towards the outcomes. Indicators will be created and outlined in guidance for the different types of plans and projects and for different spatial scales. For example, indicators could set out which air pollutants should be measured and against which limits to measure the contribution towards an air-quality outcome seeking to reduce emissions.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 175, clause 117, page 134, line 26, at end insert
“relative to the current status of the environment as assessed in a prepared baseline study”.
This amendment would ensure that the preparation of a baseline study which sets the context for assessing the environmental effects of a proposed project remains a core requirement of producing an EOR.
This amendment relates to a technical matter, but still an important one. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the preparation of an environmental outcomes report for relevant plans and relevant consents, the criteria for which will be set out in due course in regulation. It is this provision that establishes the outcomes-based approach to assessment, which the Minister has just described, wherein anticipated environmental effects are to be measured against the specified environmental outcomes, which clause 116 provides the power for the Secretary of State to specify.
Clause 117 ensures that where an EOR is required, it must be taken into account when considering whether to grant planning consent and the terms on which it is given, or to bring a plan into effect. The core requirements of what an EOR should contain are set out in subsection (4). It specifies that an EOR
“means a written report which assesses—
(a) the extent to which the proposed relevant consent or proposed relevant plan would, or is likely to, impact on the delivery of specified environmental outcomes”.
Paragraph (b) specifies any steps that may be proposed in terms of mitigation, remediation or compensation, and paragraph (c) discusses any proposals about how paragraphs (a) or (b) should be monitored or secured.
It would therefore appear that, when it comes to EORs, the Government have in mind, essentially, a simplified environmental assessment report—one, as the explanatory notes make clear, based on the mandatory information required in the reporting stages of the environmental impact assessment directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. However, in setting out the core requirements of what an EOR should contain, subsection (4) contains no reference to the need for an environmental baseline assessment to have been prepared. We believe that oversight needs to be addressed.
A baseline study is an essential part of preparing an EIA because it is necessary to assess the current status of any given environment prior to development taking place. It covers, for example, what habitats exist within the environment and how they are changing, or the type and number of species present, in order to accurately judge the expected impact of development on the outcomes previously specified. Indeed, because baseline studies are an integral part of the existing SEA and EIA systems, we believe their removal could well contravene the non-regression safeguard provided for by clause 120, which we will debate in due course.
When it comes to EORs, it is difficult to conceive of how they will operate in practice without some kind of baseline study taking place, because quantifying the impact of development on any given outcome requires that the precise characteristics of the locality in question are known.
By amending subsection (4)(a) of clause 117, amendment 175 simply seeks to ensure that the preparation of a baseline study, which would set the context for assessing the environmental effects of a proposed plan or consent, remains a core requirement of producing an EOR. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are content to accept the amendment or, if not, an explanation as to why the Government believe that baseline studies are no longer required when it comes to assessing the environmental impact of any given development.
Paul Scully
As we have discussed, amendment 175 would give an explicit requirement for the impact of a consent or plan to be set up relative to a baseline study on the current environmental state. Subsection (4)(a) of clause 117 explains that an environmental outcomes report must demonstrate how the plan or consent would affect the delivery of specified environmental outcomes. The environmental baseline is a reference point against which the assessment is carried out. It will remain part of the process of demonstrating how a plan or project supports the delivery of environmental outcomes.
While outcomes will reflect national priorities, it is important that they can be translated to the regional or local level, given that that is the level at which the plans and projects, which will require EORs, will normally take place. As such, outcomes will be underpinned by a set of specific indicators, which will measure the contribution of a plan or project towards outcomes. Those indicators will be relevant to the geography of an area and will change over time to reflect the latest scientific understanding. Indicators will outline how a plan or project shows whether they are contributing to outcomes, and will be tailored to the needs and characteristics of different outcomes.
The details of outcomes and indicators will be developed, as I have said, through consultation with relevant stakeholders, and we will work with experts to gain insights on how best to utilise baseline data to inform them and ensure that overall environmental protections are maintained. Following that, clear guidance will be provided setting out how a plan or project should use indicators to demonstrate that they are supporting outcomes.
I do not think that we are that far apart in this, and I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will accept my explanation that although the baseline data is clearly important in measuring those outcomes and using those indicators, we do not need the duplicative nature of having it in the Bill. I therefore hope the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response from the Minister. I think we would still like something to be written into the Bill regarding baseline studies. However, I very much welcome the clarification that he has just provided—that they will “remain part of the process” , and that they will be translated and tailored to the regional and the local level. I think that is very important and, on that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The outcomes-based approach to assessment will ensure that the Government’s environmental commitments and priorities are placed right at the centre of the consenting process, in a system that is streamlined, transparent, accessible and clear. As outlined in the previous clause, we would want to make reports user-friendly and concise, enabling communities to understand what forms part of the assessment and how impacts are measured via indicators. We also want to improve the accessibility of reports and the data that underpins them by improving their format and avoiding multiple PDFs of tens of thousands of pages, for example.
In order to introduce the new outcomes-based approach to environmental assessment, the Government need the power to require the production of an environmental outcomes report for relevant proposed contents and plans. In taking that power, the Government are able to ensure that, where a report is required for a relevant consent or plan, the report must be completed before consent is granted or a plan is adopted.
Furthermore, the clause ensures that where an environmental outcomes report is produced, it must be considered by the relevant decision maker, which means that decisions are informed by quality information that fully considers the environmental effect of the plan or consent. It also sets out what the content of the reports should be. They will primarily assess how the proposed consent or plan would impact on specified environmental outcomes, supporting our ambition to move towards an outcomes-based system.
In structuring the clause, we recognised the need to provide powers to support the reform of a wide range of environmental assessment regimes across Government, but we have sought to ensure that core requirements are brought to the fore. For example, reports must consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed consent or plan and assess any steps taken in line with the mitigation hierarchy. This is the first time that explicit consideration of the mitigation hierarchy has been included in environmental legislation. Importantly, that hierarchy recognises that prevention is better than cure. In every consideration, plans and projects should first seek to avoid the impact happening in the first place, before considering mitigation and finally compensation, which should be absolutely the last resort. That sequential approach will finally be enshrined in law.
Having the powers to set out specifics in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill will ensure that the new system is more dynamic, allowing for updates to our approach to be considered and consulted on as our understanding of the environment deepens. It will also allow the differences between regimes to be accommodated. The clause sets out crucial provisions required to implement environmental outcomes reports and ensures that reports have sufficient weight and status in the decision-making process. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Power to define “relevant consent” and “relevant plan” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 118 gives the Government a constrained power to set what plans and consents require an environmental outcomes report. The Government want to be clear about which consents and plans require assessment, and we will use subsequent regulations—bounded by the commitment to non-regression—to provide clarity on when an EOR is required. By clearly setting out the different categories for consent and the types of plan that require assessment, we will be able to address the key issue with the current system, where debate about whether assessment is required acts as a block to moving forward with meaningful assessment.
We want to avoid unnecessary screening work, so it is more likely that more plans and projects will automatically be subject to a proportionate report and only in borderline cases must a criteria approach be followed. Developers will know where they stand up front, and local planning authorities can save the time and resources that are usually taken on screening of opinions.
Let me reassure the Committee that the clause will be used to reduce uncertainty, not assessment. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all plans and projects assessed in the current system will continue to be assessed, while removing troublesome uncertainty. The Government will also consult on which projects and plans should be subject to EORs. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and approve the regulations that set that out. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Moving on to clause 119, the Government have made it clear that the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is a policy priority, and the measures designed to achieve that should be consistent and long term. The existing system does little to follow through on the commitments made during the assessment process—for example, whether the mitigation measures actually work or are implemented in the first place. Environmental statements are often created at great length, only for the follow-up monitoring and reporting of the impacts on the ground to be inconsistent at best.
Our proposed reforms to environmental assessment therefore provide a renewed and stronger emphasis on monitoring, to ensure that stated outcomes are delivered and that remedial action is taken where required throughout all stages of the development process. That means that achieving environmental outcomes does not stop once a consent is granted or a plan adopted. Importantly, clause 119 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring action to be taken when monitoring or assessment processes have highlighted that a given outcome is not being delivered.
Those actions align with the mitigation hierarchy and the principles of avoidance, mitigation and compensation being built into that process to ensure accountability and to address fully any unanticipated or cumulative adverse effects on the environment.
Rachael Maskell
I have been listening carefully to the Minister. My concern about what he has been saying is that the process does not have sufficient teeth in the event that the EOR is not delivered. Can he clarify whether planning permission would be granted if the EOR requirement is not adhered to? Should that not be a condition for planning?
Paul Scully
The point is that some of that is to be looked at now. At the moment, an environmental assessment is effectively prose that may or may not be adhered to, whereas an environmental outcome is far more data driven, so it can be measured and mitigated, as I have said. That will happen in the lead-up to planning, but a lot will clearly be about how it is followed up after planning permission is given. As we have just been discussing, that effectively sets a baseline, saying, “That is the report; that is what you said you are going to do. You must now adhere to that, and we can follow up afterwards.” This is clearly a framework, and the teeth that the hon. Lady describes will need to be set out through enforcement teams and so on, but the measures provide a far more evidence-based approach to be able to follow up afterwards.
That is the point, because we will then have a dynamic monitoring process, which will account for any changes in conditions and available data to inform mitigation strategies. That is a significant benefit of the new system: it ensures that we take an ongoing approach to environmental protection rather than having just a snapshot in time. Monitoring the impacts over a longer period will allow for the collection of more high-quality data that can be used to drive better decision making and improve environmental outcomes.
We do not want an EOR to be an extra burden; we see it more as a rebalancing of resource and effort. We want a streamlined pre-consent process that provides up-front requirements and guidance, allowing more time to be spent on post-consent monitoring, which will be of far more value to the system in terms of both securing positive outcomes and making better use of the data produced so that we can learn from it.
Capturing that data also links to the digital powers in the Bill, and will ensure that the rich source of environmental data is put to use to inform future interventions and give a deeper and far wider understanding of the environment. It will be easier to form best practice and avoid making the same mistake twice. The clause is integral to ensuring that the environmental assessment process considers potential long-term environmental impacts, ensuring accountability and the delivery of outcomes, and ensuring that mitigation is working as it should. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the detail provided by the Minister, but I will push him a little further on both clauses. Again, in the circumstances, I am more than happy for him to write to me to elaborate on his answers if he feels he needs to.
As the Minister said, clause 118(2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out those consents that should be considered category 2. Although category 1 consents will always require an EOR, category 2 consents will be required to produce one only where they meet criteria set through regulations made under the provision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the Committee an idea of the criteria likely to be set through regulations under this provision that will require a category 2 consent, and of the rationale behind those criteria.
Clause 118(4) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a requirement for a consent in relation to a project. The requirement will be used, as in the current environmental impact assessment agriculture regime, where no other consenting mechanism exists. The Bill simply states that
“EOR regulations may impose a requirement for a consent in relation to project, which is to be a category 1 consent or a category 2 consent”.
Can the Minister explain the rationale for not specifying that the Secretary of State may impose a requirement for a consent in relation to a project only where no other consenting mechanism exists?
Clause 119(1) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how the delivery of specified environmental outcomes should be assessed or monitored. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have a general sense of how outcomes will be assessed and monitored under this new framework and, if so, will he share it with the Committee?
Finally, clause 119(3) states that EOR regulations may make provision requiring action to be taken, if an assessment or monitoring under subsection (1) or (2) determines that is appropriate for the purposes of compensating for a specified environmental outcome not being delivered to any extent. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind the penalties and remedies available in the new EOR system when it comes to environmental outcomes not being delivered, and will he tell us whether the Department has undertaken any work to research the impact of introducing an outcomes-based approach on rates of delivery and non-delivery of environmental targets in development projects?
Paul Scully
Let me try to answer some of those points, and I will happily write with extra detail should I fail in my objective. We will clearly be consulting on which developments require an EOR when certain criteria are met, and we will publish those following Royal Assent. In line with our commitment to non-regression, we will ensure that any plan or project requiring assessment under the current regime because of its potential impact on the environment will continue to do so under the new framework. We want to avoid unnecessary screening work, so it is likely that more plans and projects will automatically be subject to a proportionate report, but only in borderline cases. As I said, we will work towards that through a consultation process on the criteria approach.
The regulations will determine the process for considering whether the plans or projects meet the criteria for a full environmental outcomes report, and clearly we will work with stakeholders to inform our approach to the criteria, and the processes for determining whether those criteria have been met. We want to ensure that the development management system continues to determine projects. We want the EOR to reform the process, but we do not want to replace it. The majority of consenting regimes base the consenting decision on a range of different factors. They will need to make a subsequent decision following assessment, but we want to ensure that the Secretary of State effectively has a light touch on this because, having done the consultation with stakeholders, this should be done at a local level as best we can.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about monitoring. The detail of monitoring regimes, including how long monitoring should be carried out for, will be set out in regulations to reflect the different approaches required for each assessment regime. It is not a one-size-fits-all system, because that is unlikely to be optimal, but the intention is that, with a more streamlined pre-consent process, more time and resource can be put into post-consent monitoring, which will likely be of far more value both in terms of securing positive outcomes and gathering useful environmental data to feed back into the system.
One thing that I am not sure I brought out enough in my speech is that the data that the exercise provides, being more data driven rather than the prose that I was talking about, will not only be useful for permissions and monitoring but have a far wider effect on our understanding of the environment in general, because some really interesting data will be brought out that cannot be captured in the analogue system that we have at the moment. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the research to date, so I will write to him on that, and other points that I have not covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120
Safeguards: non-regression, international obligations and public engagement
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 176, in clause 120, page 137, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may only make EOR regulations if doing so will result in no diminution of environmental protection as provided for by environmental law at the time this Act is passed.”
This amendment would ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way rather than merely maintaining overall existing levels of environmental protection.
Paul Scully
The new system that we have been discussing is all about improving environmental assessment, not weakening environmental protection. Moving to the outcomes-based approach that I have outlined will allow the Government to set ambitious outcomes, building on the Environment Act 2021 and other environmental commitments.
I understand the spirit and reasoning behind amendment 176, which proposes to amend the wording of the non-regression provision in clause 120 so that regulations must “result in no diminution of environmental protection”.
However, in drafting the Bill, we recognised the need to provide assurance that the new system will continue to support the protection of the environment, and the clause was drafted specifically to mirror the provisions of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. That ensures that these reforms live up to our commitment to non-regression with our partners in that area. If we are to meet the complex environmental challenges that we face, we need to take a holistic approach and focus on how well the system delivers for the environment overall. We will concentrate on the aspects of the system that deliver real, positive outcomes for the environment, rather than on bureaucracy.
Where needed, we will seek to streamline the system, for example in areas where there is duplication of other existing processes, thereby allowing resources to be better focused elsewhere. However, along with the commitment to non-regression, we have also included significant duties to consult with the public and relevant stakeholders. We are also giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise subsequent regulations through the affirmative procedure, which is entirely appropriate. In the light of those reassurances on our commitment to maintaining environmental protections, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw amendment 176.
Amendment 177 provides that EOR regulations must not be inconsistent with any international obligations, rather than specifying consistency with international obligations relating to environmental assessment. The inclusion of clause 120(2) demonstrates the Government’s commitment to legislating in a manner that is consistent with our international obligations. The clause seeks to provide explicit assurance of the importance of international obligations in respect of environmental assessments, and those commitments will be at the foundation of the new process of environmental outcomes reports, which builds on the core principles at the heart of the current practice.
Ultimately, the focus of EORs is the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents, which is why clause 120 refers to our international obligations relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents. That ensures that relevant international obligations, such as those under the Espoo and Aarhus conventions, are properly reflected. To make the provision broader would sacrifice clarity and risk introducing confusion as to which areas of international law are particularly relevant and pertinent in such cases. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will also consider withdrawing amendment 177.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s clarification. Particularly on amendment 176, it is extremely useful to hear that the wording was chosen specifically to mirror that in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. I do not want to digress into that agreement in any way—no one on the Committee would thank me for doing so—but it is a useful clarification.
I take what the Minister said about amendment 177; I do not intend to press it to a vote. However, we strongly feel that, international obligations aside, when it comes to safeguards the Bill still contains too many loopholes, many of which I mentioned when I was speaking to the amendment. In particular, what concerns us about the non-regression provision in clause 120 is the reference to only
“providing an overall level of environmental protection”.
We are extremely concerned that that might mean that environmental harm could take place at a local level because the Government could say, “Overall, we are satisfied that the level of protection has been maintained.” For that reason, and to make very clear how strongly we feel about the point, I am minded to push amendment 176 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
As I have said, we are committed to ensuring that the new system of environmental assessment will provide at least the same level of overall environmental protection as the existing system. The clause enshrines that commitment, building on the landmark Environment Act 2021, and is in line with our commitments in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
It is a vital commitment, and it will ensure that EORs support the Government’s objective to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. We want to make it clear that, in introducing these reports, we are not trying to lower standards or bypass important environmental protections, and so it is important that we enshrine in legislation this commitment to non-regression.
We have also ensured that the Secretary of State’s powers are tightly constrained when considering whether overall levels of protection have been maintained. We have provided significant commitments to consultation and secondary regulations, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure and will thereby enable parliamentary scrutiny on this issue.
This clause also sets out that regulations made may not be inconsistent with the implementation of the relevant international obligations of the UK. As in other parts of the planning system, public engagement is a crucial feature of environmental assessment, and the clause sets out our commitment to maintaining opportunities for public engagement to take place. This will ensure that the public can be involved in the process of preparing an environmental outcomes report, in line with the requirements of the Aarhus convention, which includes provision on public participation in decision making on environmental matters. The clause provides a strong commitment to non-regression and to maintaining opportunities for public engagement, as we move to that new system, and so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Requirements to consult devolved administrations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 121, page 138, line 3, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 179 and 180, would ensure that EOR regulations which contain provision within devolved competence can only be made with the consent of the relevant devolved administration.
Paul Scully
It is a delight to hear the one-man show. In bringing forward the EOR system, we are absolutely committed to respecting the devolution settlements. We are currently in active discussions with the devolved Administrations as to how the powers should operate across the UK, including whether there is any scope to extend them to provide a shared framework of powers across the UK.
The provisions in the Bill are focused on the environmental assessment regimes in areas reserved to the UK Government, but there are limited circumstances in which the UK Government have historically legislated in areas of devolved competence, such as between the inshore and offshore regimes for marine works. As such, to maintain the current position, the clauses as introduced include a limited power for the UK Government to legislate in areas of devolved competence where the relevant devolved Administration has been consulted. A failure to include that power risks introducing a legislative gap that could undermine the delivery of certain types of development, which is clearly not something we want to happen.
When the discussions with the devolved Administrations have concluded, the Government will bring forward any necessary amendments to implement what is agreed with them. Rather than doing that here and now in Westminster, we want to do it in full consultation with the devolved Administrations: we want them to be absolutely at the heart of those discussions. I hope that on the basis of that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I accept those assurances, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I will be brief, because I think my previous remarks addressed the point about transposition of the EU directive leading to the creation of a range of environmental assessment regimes that have different territorial extents and applications. As I have already explained, discussions are ongoing with the devolved Governments regarding how best to work together to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to environmental assessment across the UK. We are hopeful that we can work closely with devolved Governments to extend the powers in the Bill to place all the nations on an even footing. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exemptions for national defence and civil emergency etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
In some rare cases, particularly those relating to national defence or responding to a civil emergency, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to direct a project to progress without an environmental outcomes report when the production of one would usually be required. The provisions in clause 122 enable that. The clause does not aim to bypass environmental protections, which are important for all the reasons I have set out; it simply accounts for those rare instances in which there is an urgent need to progress with development. Clause 122 replicates a similar provision in the existing regulations, and would only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
In addition to the civil and defence needs, the clause also provides powers via regulations for the Secretary of State to be able to direct that no environmental outcomes report is required in other circumstances. Such directions will, of course, be presented in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and will be consulted on and constrained accordingly.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the Minister highlighting that there could be extenuating circumstances in which the measures could be suspended, but he has not set out what mitigations will be put in to address that, either in close proximity to that or elsewhere. Could he say a bit more about that?
Paul Scully
Good question! As well as the non-regression clause that I talked about earlier, we have a built-in power under these clauses that allows aspects of the regulation to apply even if a project can initially progress without an EOR. That is a good way to manage those high-risk needs with environmental protection and get that balance right. It allows a project to progress without a report, but still requires certain aspects of the regulations to be adhered to, such as monitoring and remediating effects once the plan or project is in operation. I again highlight the fact that that would only relate to the plans and projects in greatest need, relating to matters of national importance.
Paul Scully
Exactly. This is why you get paid the big bucks, Mr Hollobone. Thank you very much.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister touched on a number of the issues that I wanted to raise. This is a series of important clauses and therefore I have a couple of questions for him. I hope that I can draw out a little more detail, but as ever, he is more than welcome to write to me if he requires to do so.
Clause 122(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may direct that no environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared in relation to a proposed relevant consent which is solely for the purposes of national defence or preventing or responding to civil emergency.”
Subsection (2) of that clause further states:
“EOR regulations may provide for further circumstances in which the Secretary of State is to be able to direct that no environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared.”
Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of the “further circumstances” in which no environmental outcomes report may be required as per subsection (2), given that civil emergencies and national defence, as he said, are already covered by subsection (1)?
Clause 123 is a new provision that sets out the enforcement provisions that can be made in respect of EORs. The Minister touched on a few, I believe, but I would be grateful if he could provide any further detail as to how enforcement of EORs will operate and how they will operate compared with the current SEA and EIA systems.
Clause 125(2) specifies that the Secretary of State, as the Minister has also said, may consult only
“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
before making certain EOR regulations, or issuing, modifying or withdrawing certain guidance. Can the Minister give us some idea of which persons or bodies the Secretary of State would be likely to approach before making or modifying regulations and guidance? Specifically when it comes to statutory consultees, which he spoke about, is there any rationale for not specifying statutory consultees in the Bill?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. On the formal consultation, I cannot yet give him details as to whom specifically we will speak to, barring the fact that, as I said earlier, we will clearly seek to speak to all the key stakeholders that we work with really closely. Indeed, we have worked with a number of those in the lead-up to the Bill. We want to ensure that we get the expert advice of people not only who can contribute to our knowledge, but who will be using the system, so that we can get the benefit of that on-the-ground experience, because what we do not want to have is unintended consequences.
On enforcement, the Bill amends and strengthens the powers and sanctions available to decision makers. We want to ensure that the new system is effective at delivering on the outcomes, so it will be necessary for the regime to have enforcement mechanisms. The exact details of the new system are in the process of being developed. We will be working with the same stakeholders on the design of the new system, in terms of enforcement as well as exemptions, and we want to ensure that we have a full consultation.
In addition to consultation, there will be parliamentary debate. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that we are prepared to work collaboratively to ensure that this regime—the framework that we are talking about now—works well in practice, and that that coherent approach makes it easier to understand and enforce. Enforcement is no good if we just have a bit of prose that means nothing; we need to make sure we enforce that as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 123 to 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Interaction with existing environmental assessment legislation and the
Habitats Regulations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 181, in clause 127, page 141, line 32, leave out “in particular” and insert “not”.
This amendment would ensure that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment not substitute those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the Habitats Regulations.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 127 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on how the EOR framework provided for by part 5 interacts with existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state:
“This is necessary to ensure that where an Environmental Outcomes Report is prepared, where appropriate, this is capable of meeting the requirements of existing environmental assessment so as to avoid duplication.”
It would be recognised as meeting both.
Our serious concern is that by providing for requirements undertaken in relation to an EOR to satisfy the requirements under the habitats regulations, this clause could allow the Secretary of State to substitute the protections afforded by those regulations with weaker requirements that had undergone only limited parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. In our view, this is deeply problematic because the habitats regulations provide for an extremely high level of environmental protection for our most precious and vulnerable habitats and species, indeed for greater protection than the SEA and EIA systems, requiring as they do applications proposing a development that will affect a site to first prove that mitigation is in place to avoid significant harm, or that there is an overriding public interest reason to proceed and compensatory measures are necessary. In revising subsection (2) of the clause, amendment 181 would address that concern by ensuring that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment, not substitute, those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations.
An additional concern with this clause comes in the form of subsection (3), on page 142 of the Bill, which provides for EOR regulations under the clause to
“amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation”.
Even with the list of what constitutes “existing environmental assessment legislation” set out on the face of the Bill in clause 130(1), we believe this provision is unnecessarily broad. Amendment 182 therefore seeks to remove clause 127(3) to ensure that EOR regulations cannot be used to amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.
It is essential, as the Minister himself accepted during debate about an earlier clause, that we recover nature and that we do so quickly, or we risk irreparable damage to the natural world upon which life depends. To that end, proven, effective laws should be maintained and strengthened rather than undermined in any way. For that reason, I hope the Minister will appreciate the concerns we raise and give both of these amendments serious consideration.
Paul Scully
Given the scale of the underpinning legislation, as we transition from the current complex system of environmental assessment to the new framework of EORs, the Government require powers to manage the interaction between the old and new systems.
The interaction provisions in clause 127 are designed to ensure that when an EOR is prepared, it is capable of meeting the requirements of existing environmental assessment legislation where appropriate. That allows the Government to guard against duplication while the various assessment regime owners bring forward regulations to introduce environmental outcomes for their regimes. It also allows existing environmental assessment legislation to meet the requirements of an EOR, which is to avoid duplication and manage co-ordination across the different assessment regimes. We all know that it takes time to consolidate the complex legislation covering a number of Departments and agencies, and we want to make sure there are no gaps in the process.
Paul Scully
As we have already heard concerns about clause 127, let me use this opportunity to clarify its intention and to provide the reassurance that it is does not allow any amendments to the habitats regulations.
The clause serves two purposes. First, it enables us to make sure that assessments under the new EOR system will be interoperable with those required by existing environmental assessment and habitats legislation. Secondly, it gives the Government the power to repeal, revoke or amend the current SEA and EIA regulations in each of the relevant regimes once the new framework for an environmental outcomes report is in place.
The provision is about providing powers in relation to the interaction between the new system and existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. It does not remove the need to comply with the habitats regulations. It is an ancillary power. Any regulations must relate to the purpose of the clause, which is about interaction between processes. Regulations can set out how an EOR report can meet the requirements of existing environmental assessment legislation or the habitats regulations, but only in so far as the processes interact.
There has been some misinterpretation, or a difference in opinion, about subsection (3), which allows regulations to
“amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.”
The habitats regulations are specifically excluded from that power, meaning that it is not possible to make any changes to the habitats regulations under it. This is simply about streamlining within the constraints of the legislation. We want to avoid overlaps, such as, for example, repetitions in evidence, while optimising the synergies—for example, the effects identified in the habitats regulations assessment that could help to inform the contribution to outcomes in the EOR. This is about how the two are co-ordinated and how they work together. The clause must also accord with our commitments to non-regression under clause 120, so any interaction between assessments must maintain overall environmental protections.
In parallel, the Government have indicated our intention to improve the habitats regulations regime, while maintaining or enhancing the level of protection it provides. DEFRA has recently consulted on that via the consultation on the “Nature Recovery” Green Paper, which the Government will respond to in due course. There are real opportunities to improve processes across the piece, and the clause allows for that interaction between processes and for the benefits of efficiencies and streamlining. I hope the Committee is reassured on the purpose of the clause, which is heavily constrained and seeks no powers to make any changes to the habitats regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 128
Consequential repeal of power to make provision for environmental
assessment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 128 is a straightforward provision to remove what will become an obsolete regulation-making power, along with references to that power, after the powers contained in the Bill come into effect. It was a broad power, allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations for consideration to be given to environmental effects. It will no longer be required, as the new powers will cover the consideration of the environmental effects of development. The provision simply aims to clear it from the statute book.
Clause 129 gives power to make regulations on a variety of procedural and technical matters relating to environmental outcomes reports. Those include, for example, setting out who should prepare reports, to whom completed reports should be given and how information should be collected and provided. It also makes provision for regulations to state the level of assistance required from local authorities in the production of those reports, when reports that fail to meet various requirements can be declined, and how appeals and reviews of decisions should work. The clause also makes provision for the collection of fees. We intend to keep fees to a minimum, but we will seek views from stakeholders in future consultations.
While those matters are generally procedural or technical in nature, they are all important and necessary for the successful implementation of environmental outcomes reports. Setting those out in regulations allows for those matters to be decided following consultation, and allows for flexibility in the system. That means that the specific technical ways that the system works can be more easily updated in the future, and it will allow the difference between regimes to be accommodated.
Finally, clause 30(1) is a straightforward provision that simply lists all the current regulations that implement the EIA and SEA regimes. As such, those are the regulations that the powers in this part will allow the Secretary of State to replace with EOR regulations. They implement the assessment regime in a similar way across a broad range of sectors, from transport to energy production to town and country planning. It is our intention that this remains the case for the regulations implementing the new system.
Subsection (2) is primarily a reference list, bringing together the various definitions used in this part. It also introduces some straightforward definitions such as “public authority” and “relevant document”.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 128 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 129 and 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Second sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 13th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2022 - (13 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 53—Independent examination of locally-led urban development corporations—
“(1) A proposing authority must submit a proposal for designation of a locally-led urban development area in England under section 134A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
(2) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the proposal is in general conformity with national planning policy, the local development plan, and any other material considerations.
(4) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a proposal for designation of a locally-led urban development area must, if they so request, be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.”
This new clause would ensure that proposals to designate land as an urban development area and to establish a locally-led urban development corporation to oversee it would be subject to independent examination at which the public would have a right to be heard.
Welcome, Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
Thank you, Mrs Murray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, particularly for my first outing as a Minister. I would appreciate your going slightly easy on me on procedural matters—I will do my best.
As we know, the Government are committed to empowering local areas to drive forward growth and renewal without the need to establish a body accountable to central Government. Development corporations are powerful tools that can deliver large-scale development, and they have been successfully used to deliver more than 20 post-war new towns across England, such as Telford and Milton Keynes. They have also been instrumental in regenerating brownfield sites, such as Canary Wharf and the London Olympic site. However, the enabling legislation was designed for a different time and in response to very different circumstances, so there are now multiple types of development corporation, which have varying powers and remits that inhibit their use. Given the scale of the challenge to level up the country, provide the necessary infrastructure and deliver the growth and housing that current and future generations need, we want to ensure that development corporations are accessible right across England.
In October 2019, we consulted on the legislative framework for development corporations to ensure that they have the powers they need to deliver. The results of that consultation showed that there is a gap in the existing models. Outside of mayoral areas, there is no model available for local authorities to regenerate their areas, which is what the clause is intended to address. The clause introduces a new locally led urban development corporation model, which will be overseen by a local authority covering the area, rather than by central Government. It will also allow local authorities, rather than central Government, to put forward proposals to the Secretary of State to designate and create a locally led urban development corporation.
Subsection (4) sets out what authorities will need to do before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation. That includes what a proposal must contain, who is able to put forward a proposal and who can become an oversight authority. Local authorities will not be able to unilaterally decide to ask the Secretary of State to designate a locally led urban development corporation. Instead, the clause includes a statutory requirement for the proposing authorities to consult local residents, businesses, MPs and other local authorities before making a proposal to the Secretary of State. When the proposal is received by the Secretary of State, they will look carefully at the robustness of the plans, including community involvement and the views expressed, before making a decision. That is why new clause 53 is an unnecessary addition to the consultation requirements and would slow down the designation of development corporation areas.
The purpose of designating an area is to determine the area in which the locally led development corporation will operate and deliver a programme of urban regeneration, and there will be other opportunities for the local community to have their say on the planning proposals for the area through the planning system. Respondents to the consultation noted the considerable amount of up-front resource required to make the case for a locally led development corporation, expressing apprehension about the level of evidence that may be required.
The clause introduces a different test for locally led urban development corporations. Before they are established, the Secretary of State must assess whether it is expedient in the local interest, rather than in the national interest, to designate the development area, which means that local authorities will no longer need to prove that their proposal is in the national interest. A similar provision is introduced for locally led new town development corporations under clause 132. We will provide further guidance to ensure that the evidence required to meet the test is proportionate and provides the certainty that local authorities desire.
We also want to ensure that the proposals are implemented as planned. Subsection (7) requires the Secretary of State to give effect to the proposal, subject to its meeting the statutory test that it is expedient in the local interest. That will include the order providing for the name of the development corporation, the number of board members, who the oversight authority will be, and arrangements for the performance of functions by oversight authorities consisting of more than one local authority. The order must also provide for any other functions that the proposal sets out as planning powers.
Orders designating locally led development corporations will, as for mayoral development corporations, be subject to the negative procedure. That reflects the fact that local democratic scrutiny will have occurred prior to the proposal being permitted to be made. The clause will equalise mayoral and non-mayoral areas with locally led development corporations by standardising the parliamentary process, with democratic oversight at the local level.
We intend to use the powers in the clause as we did the locally led New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That includes setting out which functions will be transferred to the oversight authority. We will consult on regulations in due course to ensure that they are informed by both communities and stakeholders. In the light of that explanation, I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich not to press new clause 53.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to reconvene under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I welcome the two new Ministers to their places. I want to speak to new clause 53, not least because I am not entirely convinced by the reassurances just given by the Minister. As she said, and as the policy paper accompanying the Bill sets out, this part of the Bill makes provision for a new type of locally led urban development corporation accountable to local authorities rather than the Secretary of State. It amends the process for establishing locally led new town development corporations and updates the planning powers available to both centrally and locally led development corporations, bringing them into line with the mayoral development corporation model in terms of enabling them to become local planning authorities for the purposes of local plan making, neighbourhood planning and development management.
In the view of the Opposition, part 6 of the Bill is largely uncontroversial, and we are broadly supportive of the measures contained within it. The development corporation model established by the New Towns Act 1946 was a key part of the post-war planning settlement and, as the Minister referenced, it proved remarkably effective in addressing the housing emergency faced in those years. The 32 new towns built under the post-war UK new towns programme today house over 2.5 million people. Funded by 40-year Government loans, they ultimately not only paid the Treasury back, but returned a surplus. The legacy of urban development corporations is more mixed, but their potential for large-scale regeneration is undeniable and their capacity to successfully deliver major projects, such as the London Olympics, is testament to their utility.
In a real sense, development corporations remain an answer to one of the core weaknesses of the planning system, which is that local planning authorities have the power to develop and set a strategy in a local area, but few powers and little capacity to ensure the necessary development to realise it is delivered. On the other hand, development corporations combine strategic planning capability with powerful delivery mechanisms that help ensure that the development objectives they set are realised. They can, for example, commission private sector companies, or establish their own, to deliver homes and infrastructure, and they can compulsory purchase the land they need to deliver a plan and then control consent to bring forward development. For all those reasons and more, we therefore welcome the fact that the Bill includes provision to amend and enhance the development corporation model. However, we need to ensure that the new types of development corporation provided for by part 6 of the Bill realise their potential and have legitimacy in the eyes of the public—the latter being directly related to the former.
When it comes to their likely efficacy as a means of regenerating areas, the decision to provide for locally led development corporations risks proving a double-edged sword. The advantage is, of course, that a local authority, or authorities, seeking to designate an urban development area and create an urban development corporation, as provided for by clause 131, or to oversee the creation of a new town in an area within their administrative boundaries, as provided for by clause 132, can determine their own priorities rather than having them determined for them by the Department. In that sense, the measures provided for in this part are in keeping with the spirit of the original New Towns Act 1946. The disadvantage is that, in practice, there is likely to be little incentive for a local authority, or authorities, to take the financial and political risk of designating a given area and establishing the necessary development corporation to regenerate it. The recent experience of four north Essex authorities, which attempted unsuccessfully to designate and oversee the development of three garden communities, is a stark illustration of the need for central Government to be far more active in supporting locally led initiatives if they are to succeed.
The success of the post-war UK new towns programme lay, in part, in the fact that each development corporation operated within the context of strong national policy and enjoyed the active and direct support of the Government of the day and their Ministers. It is telling that this part of the Bill places no duty on the Secretary of State to support—financially or otherwise—the locally led development corporations it enables to be established. As things stand, we have no sense of what the Government ultimately wish to achieve by means of the provisions in this part, not least how they believe such locally led development corporations will assist in levelling up, given the likelihood that most will come forward in the south and, I would wager, the south-east of the country. Our new clause 53 is not designed to address the potential challenges involved in ensuring that locally led corporations realise their full potential in that sense, as vehicles for regeneration and levelling up, but I hope the Government will carefully consider the points I have made in that respect.
When it comes to community consultation, I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the proposed measures are sufficient. In terms of the perceived legitimacy of these development corporations, it is essential that they provide for an element of public participation in any proposal to designate and establish such a corporation. At present, the process provided for by clause 131 entails no public inquiry before designation and no right for members of the public to be heard prior to a decision being made.
The same is the case for locally led new town development corporations, as provided for by clause 132. That means the Bill will allow land to be designated as an urban development area, and powerful new bodies to be established to oversee development on such land, without any rights for the local communities affected to have their say and at least test the evidence as part of that process. We believe that is an error, and new clause 53 simply seeks to ensure that proposals to designate land as an urban development area and to establish a locally led urban development corporation would be subject to independent examination, at which the public would have a right to be heard. As you will know, Mrs Murray, that is part of our ongoing efforts throughout the passage of the Bill to overhaul it to ensure that there is an ongoing role for the public in the planning process at these stages, with the obvious benefits that that entails for trust and confidence in the planning system. I look forward to any further thoughts the Minister might have having heard my argument.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for not only expressing his concerns but indicating his broad support for part 6 of the Bill and the enhancements it will make overall to the development corporation model.
The point about trust and confidence in planning and the development corporation system is vital. On the point about consultation, I refer the hon. Member back to the comments I just made: there would be no unilateral ability for local authorities to go straight to the Secretary of State to request that a locally led urban development corporation be set up. There is a statutory requirement for authorities to consult local residents, businesses, MPs and other local authorities before making those representations to the Secretary of State.
On the resources for establishing a development corporation, we recognise that this can be a significant undertaking, but the Government have a range of programmes available to help support local authorities in their growth aspirations. We would encourage local authorities that are interested to approach the Department and see how we can work with them to provide that resource and confidence. On that basis, I once again ask the hon. Member not to press new clause 53, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 131 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Development corporations for locally-led new towns
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Independent examination of locally-led new town development corporations—
“(1) A proposing authority must submit a proposal for designating an area of land as the site of a proposed new town under section 1ZA of the New Towns Act 1981 to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
(2) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the proposal is in general conformity with national planning policy, the local development plan, and any other material considerations.
(4) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a proposal for designating an area of land as the site of a proposed new town must, if they so request, be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.”
This new clause would ensure that proposals to designate land as the site of a proposed new town and to establish a locally-led new town development corporation to oversee it would be subject to independent examination at which the public would have a right to be heard.
Dehenna Davison
As I said when discussing clause 131, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a fit-for-purpose development corporation model for all circumstances. The current designation of a development area and the establishment process for a locally led new town development corporation are overly burdensome. As I have outlined, our consultation on development corporations highlighted the authorities’ concern about the up-front resource required to make the case for a locally led new town development corporation and about uncertainty regarding the process. It was suggested that streamlining the establishment process could go some way to mitigating those concerns.
Matthew Pennycook
I will speak to new clause 54, but I shall be extremely brief. As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to achieve precisely the same outcome as new clause 53, in relation to locally led urban development corporations, but in relation to the locally led new town development corporations, as provided for by clause 132.
For the record, I reiterate that we are not reassured by the Minister’s comments about public consultation being intrinsic to the proposed measures. If I have understood her correctly in terms of that public consultation, we are talking about the ability for communities to comment after the areas of land in question have been designated and established. I suggest that the process of designating land to be developed in this manner and of establishing a corporation is a matter that local communities will want to have a say on, as is rightly the case, before they get a say on other elements of the process to follow.
We believe it is a mistake to establish a process for creating these corporations in which the public have no input into the designation and no right to be heard at the point that the land in question is delineated and the corporation established. I appreciate that the Minister will give me exactly the same answer she did in response to new clause 53, but I hope that the Government will at least reflect on what it will mean for trust and confidence in the planning system, which we know is extremely low, if local communities are cut out of this stage of the process entirely.
Dehenna Davison
Once again, I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments around trust in the planning system. It is absolutely paramount to the planning system operating and getting that local buy-in—it is really crucial. That is why it is a statutory requirement for a public consultation to be undertaken before the proposal is submitted to the Secretary of State, on the grounds that I outlined in the previous clause. I hope that that provides at least some reassurance that local residents will absolutely be consulted before these processes move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 132 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 138
Removal of restrictions on membership of urban development corporations and new town development corporations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 138, page 157, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) In the case of a locally-led urban development corporation, the board must include no less than three community members who represent a local qualifying body.
(5) In this section, ‘local qualifying body’ means a parish or town council, or an organisation or body designated as a neighbourhood forum, authorised for the purposes of a neighbourhood development plan or such other bodies that reflect the cultural, social or environmental priorities of the locality to be designated as a locally-led urban development area.”
This amendment would ensure that local communities within the locality to be designated as a locally-led urban development area are represented on the board of a locally-led urban development corporation.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for their contributions, and hope that I can provide a little bit of reassurance.
We feel that, while incredibly well intentioned, the amendments are unnecessary. The appointment of board membership for locally led new town development corporations is already addressed in the New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018. Those regulations provide that
“the oversight authority must have regard to the desirability of appointing one or more persons resident in or having special knowledge of the locality in which the new town will be situated.”
That could include members from parish councils or local community groups, or organisations that reflect the cultural, social or environmental priorities of the locality.
We intend to replicate that approach for locally led urban development corporations. We intend to set out further details on the composition of board membership in regulations, which will be subject to parliamentary debate. As we did with the New Towns Act 1981 (Local Authority Oversight) Regulations 2018, the Department will consult on draft regulations to ensure that they are appropriate and permit local communities and businesses to have a say.
In appointing independent members, we expect oversight authorities to ensure that the board has the relevant skills and experience needed. That includes those with an understanding of the local area. In accordance with the principles of local authority appointments, the appointments of the chair, deputy chair and independent board members should be through an open, transparent and publicly advertised procedure, which I hope will provide some reassurance to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I appreciated the examples from his own constituency.
Regarding the suggested minimum of three appointments, it is the Government’s view that it should be up to the oversight authority to determine the appropriate board composition and numbers, based on local circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will agree not to press his amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response and am partly reassured by it. As I hope I made clear, we are trying to drive at what I think is a very limited form of public participation on the boards. I accept what the Minister says, both on what is expected by the Government from oversight authorities in putting the boards together, and the further details, although what “a say” means is yet to be defined. We look forward to seeing in the regulations what those further details entail.
I hope the Minister has taken away our very firm view that there must be an appropriate level of community participation on the membership of the boards so that local communities have trust and confidence in what they are doing. However, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 140
Acquisition by local authorities for purposes of regeneration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 141 to 144 stand part.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
I will now explain clauses 140 to 144 and schedule 14. The Government want to see local authorities empowered to use compulsory purchase to regenerate their areas, so that places and regions can drive improvements in economic growth and pride in place. The levelling-up White Paper made it clear that we want local communities to be empowered to take the lead, and we want to ensure they have the tools they need to succeed. Key to that is ensuring that local authorities have the right compulsory purchase enabling powers and processes, and the confidence to use them. This is the intent behind the clauses, which focus on modernising and streamlining the compulsory purchase process to make it faster and more effective.
With clause 140, we are making it crystal clear in the Bill that local authorities in England have the power to use compulsory purchase for regeneration purposes and to bridge the gap the urban centre recovery taskforce identified last year, which we are keen to address. Currently, local authorities in England are able to use their compulsory purchase powers for development, redevelopment and improvement purposes.
Clause 140 will ensure that local authorities have the certainty to acquire land compulsorily for regeneration schemes too. That will align them with other public authorities such as Homes England and the Greater London Authority. That could, among other things, improve the social wellbeing of a local authority’s area, while not actually involving the construction or reconstruction of a building. For instance, this regeneration compulsory purchase order power could be used to transform a vacant commercial building into a community hub. Alongside this change, we will bring forward updated guidance to provide more clarity on the use of compulsory purchase for long-term strategic land assembly by local authorities.
On clause 141, we need to ensure that the CPO process is efficient yet accessible and fair for all involved in it. The clause retains the current requirements for the physical deposit of documents and service of notice. It remains the case that sufficient proof of delivery through electronic communications is difficult. Given the nature of compulsory purchase, it is crucial that affected parties receive—and can prove that they have received—the necessary communications. The clause also requires acquiring authorities to make CPO documents and notices available online, and it creates the flexibility for Ministers to direct, in extreme circumstances where the physical deposit of documents is impractical, that online provision is sufficient. Further provisions in clause 148 provide for the application of common standards to compulsory purchase data. As I have described, these amendments begin the modernisation of the CPO process, and I commend clause 141 to the Committee.
Clause 142 will create a faster, more effective confirmation process. At present, a single affected landowner can demand an expensive and lengthy public inquiry for any CPO. This can be used as a delaying tactic, slowing down the decision-making process and increasing the costs for the acquiring authority and others involved. As we know, cost for the authority means cost for the taxpayer. In turn, this can make acquiring authorities, such as local authorities, less inclined to use CPO powers. We believe that the confirmation procedure should reflect the complexity of the order. Many CPOs involve one or a very small number of properties, with little impact outside the boundaries of those properties. Confirmation proceedings for orders like these do not generally need a public inquiry.
We also believe that it is right to give the discretion to the confirming authority to determine the appropriate procedure based on the circumstances, while protecting the right for affected parties to have an oral hearing if they wish. In keeping with those ambitions, clause 142 enables confirming authorities to decide to hold a public local inquiry, or to follow the new representations procedure, which will include an oral hearing if objectors request one. We will engage with stakeholders in shaping the representations procedure to ensure it works practically and produces a faster and more efficient process.
On clause 143, we want to ensure that authorities have the confidence to achieve positive outcomes in making CPOs. Too often when there is a decision to confirm a CPO, the CPO is rejected because of a specific impediment at the point of decision, and that often results in significant delay or even the complete collapse of the scheme. We want authorities to know that where a specific impediment, such as funding uncertainty, remains outstanding at the point of decision, a condition can be imposed for that to be dealt with and discharged at a later point.
Clause 143 achieves that end by introducing the concept of conditional confirmation, which will allow decision makers to confirm CPOs subject to the conditions being met before the compulsory purchase powers may be used. That may assist progress-stalled developments, as conditions could be imposed to force a landowner to follow through on commitments to undertake developments, and if they fail to do that, that will allow a CPO to become operative.
We also want authorities to make their CPOs earlier in the delivery process of a scheme. That will encourage authorities to make their CPOs concurrently with seeking other consents, rather than sequentially after obtaining other consents. Introducing conditional confirmation will support that aim.
To reassure hon. Members, that does not mean that insufficiently prepared CPOs or CPOs without sufficient justification will be conditionally confirmed. The test of there being a compelling case in the public interest to confirm the CPO will absolutely remain. We expect only very specific conditions to be imposed in most cases—one or possibly two to a CPO that otherwise shows a compelling case in the public interest. Guidance will be updated to provide clarity on the imposition of conditions. Initial confirmations will be a significant lever to provide authorities with more confidence in using CPOs and to deliver schemes more quickly.
Clause 144 gives effect to schedule 14, which makes provision in relation to compulsory purchases by Ministers, corresponding to clauses 141 to 143. Given that Ministers may use compulsory purchase in a number of circumstances —for example, to deliver major highway or rail schemes—it is only right that those provisions benefit from improvements to the process. I hope I can get the support of all hon. Members for the clauses.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister referred to at least two further sets of guidance that are to follow. Can she give the Committee any sense of the timeline for that?
Dehenna Davison
I cannot today, but I will endeavour to write to the hon. Gentleman within the next 48 hours to provide that clarity.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 140 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 141 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 145
Consequential amendments relating to date of operation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 146 to 149 stand part.
Government new clause 62—Prospects of planning permission for alternative development.
Dehenna Davison
I sincerely hope that we can get agreement for these clauses. New clause 62 goes further to deliver the Government’s priority to ensure that the compulsory purchase system is fit for purpose. It will build on other measures to ensure a fair balance between landowners and acquiring authorities in the public interest when it comes to the payment of compensation.
The Land Compensation Act 1961 contains the principal rules for assessing compensation relating to compulsory purchase. Under the current rules, when assessing the open market value of the land to be acquired, there are statutory assumptions that must be taken into account. They include the discounting effects of the compulsory purchase scheme, known as the no scheme principle, and considering the planning prospects of the land being acquired. The latter gives rise to landowners being able to claim hope value as part of their compensation—an issue that has attracted significant attention in recent years, including from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
One method of assessing the prospect of planning consent is to establish appropriate alternative development, namely development that would have received planning permission if the scheme underpinning the compulsory purchase were cancelled. Where appropriate alternative development is established, it may be assumed for valuation purposes that planning permission is in force on the relevant valuation date. That is known as planning certainty. Assuming the value of the appropriate alternative development is greater than the existing use value creates an uplift in the value of the land.
The 1961 Act allows parties concerned with a compulsory purchase to apply to a local planning authority for a certificate to determine whether there is development that, in its opinion, would constitute appropriate alternative development. Certificates of appropriate alternative development, CAADs, are used as a tool to establish whether there is appropriate alternative development on a site, and thus planning certainty for valuation purposes.
Under the current rules, there is no requirement for a CAAD to be applied to establish planning certainty and secure any resulting uplift in the value of land. In addition, when issuing a certificate, local planning authorities are required to identify all developments that they think are appropriate developments, not just developments that match the description of the development being applied for. That can increase the administrative burden on a local planning authority’s resources and the risk of a legal challenge, which results in further costs to the authority and the taxpayer. Expenses incurred by applicants submitting their CAAD applications must be paid for by acquiring authorities.
My Department has been working closely with stakeholders to develop a package of measures to reform the CAAD process and ensure that the assessment of the prospect of planning permission is aligned with normal market conditions. It is important that a balance is struck between landowners and acquiring authorities. We are therefore seeking to introduce Government new clause 62 to ensure that the compulsory purchase compensation regime does not deliver elevated levels of compensation for prospective planning permissions, which would result in more than fair value being paid. That will be achieved by ensuring that compensation attributed to alternative development is claimable only via the issuing of a CAAD and, further, that value attributable to potential alternative development in the future cannot be claimed. Although the prospect of planning permission will still be claimable, our new clause will bring the assessment of value attributable to prospective planning permission in line with the position in a normal market transaction. It will also ensure that valuations of hope value are not disproportionate.
We are very clear that those affected by compulsory purchase are entitled to a fair value for their land, but we want to ensure that the compulsory purchase compensation regime does not lead to elevated compensation, including costs being paid for prospective planning permission, which would result in more than fair value being paid by local authorities, and thus by the taxpayer. I hope that the whole Committee will support Government new clause 62.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that very detailed exposition of the purpose of the new clause. She will be pleased to learn that, in general terms, we are supportive of the provisions in part 7 of the Bill, which concerns compulsory purchase. They are sensible and proportionate measures that will give local authorities clearer, more efficient and more effective powers; greater confidence that they can acquire land by compulsion to support regeneration schemes; and greater certainty that land can be assembled and schemes delivered quickly through compulsory purchase.
We also support the Government new clause, which concerns compensation in relation to hope value. The cost of land is a major barrier—only one of many—to development across the country, and to increasing investment in infrastructure and affordable housing. As the Minister made clear, land values are frequently inflated well above agricultural or industrial values because of hope value—that is, the value attributed to the expectation that land could be awarded planning permission for new housing.
Hope value often makes social housebuilding and the provision of infrastructure unviable for local authorities and developers, and the fact that it is based on the assumption that each plot of land will maximise short-term profitability disincentivises long-term value generation. A landowner with a plot of land that might be ideal for specialist or affordable housing, or other essential uses that the market has no incentive whatsoever to deliver, can under the current regime always choose to refrain from developing it, in the expectation that they will receive a far better price in the future for a standard scheme dominated by market-sale homes at current prices.
The 2020 White Paper, “Planning for the Future”, rightly recognised that less than half of the uplift in land values created by the granting of planning permission is being captured by communities to help to pay for infrastructure and affordable housing. Given the demands on captured value when it comes to infrastructure and affordable housing, we agree with the Government that it is right to seek to reform the system, in order to ensure that assessment of value attributable to the likelihood of alternative development is more akin to what it would be in normal market conditions, and to rebalance the position with regard to costs and compensation between landowner and acquiring authority to make it fairer. To that end, we believe that the Government new clause, which proposes implementing a range of changes to section 14 and other sections of the Land Compensation Act 1961, as set out in the first part of the Government’s compulsory purchase compensation reforms consultation, published in June, is good. We are pleased that the Government felt able to bring it forward.
Tim Farron
Obviously, I extend big congratulations to the Government for taking up a proposal that was in the last two Liberal Democrat manifestos—it was one of the few bits I actually wrote. A revision of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is welcome, given that it inflates land prices, and therefore housing prices. That was clearly not the intention 60 years ago, but that has been the consequence. A revision is a very good thing.
As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, we need to consider this revision as part of a suite of measures, and I am keen to press the Minister to take advice and consult widely; there will no doubt be pushback and comments from landowners and developers. I particularly urge her to talk to housing associations, and to organisations such as Shelter, which has campaigned on this issue for decades with great wisdom and insight.
When hope value drives up the price of land, it does two things. First, it makes affordable housing more difficult to create. I have tabled amendments to the Bill that seek to increase local authorities’ powers to deliver affordable housing. That is much more likely to happen if we can make sure that those developments are viable by reducing the cost of land, making its cost fair, rather than inflated. The Government have pushed back on zero-carbon homes because of the cost element, but they may wish to reconsider that. I propose that they do so, and make zero-carbon homes and other environmental measures compulsory at the planning stage. They will be able to afford to do that, and those proposals are much more likely to be viable, if we can reduce the inflated cost of land.
The hope value of land is such a problem because it also stops land coming forward for development. People hang on to it for the sunny day. We need to very clear that there ain’t no sunny day coming, and to say, “This is what you’re going to get for this land. Do you want to help your community by building 40 affordable homes for it, or don’t you?” In the past, we had very restrictive planning rules in the national parks; the thinking was that the more restrictive and clear we were to people in the long term, the more unlikely it was that land would come forward. It is quite the opposite, because people do not hang on waiting for that sunny day—for that big moment at which extreme wealth lands in their lap. Instead, they realise that they will either get some money and do good by the local community, or get nothing.
I welcome the Government’s action, which I think is a valuable and important step forward, but I hope that they will consult widely, especially with those at the forefront of fighting for and developing affordable housing, as they consider perhaps a wider suite of issues to reduce the cost of building.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his comments. I loved his point about the Lib Dem manifesto; I would love to claim that it is my favourite bedtime reading, but I would not want to mislead the Committee this early in my ministerial career. I thank him for his recommendations about the bodies with which we should engage. We have already engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that we get the process absolutely right. I thank him also for his passion for affordable housing, which the Government absolutely share. We are keen to make the developments as straightforward as possible—hence some of the reforms that we are making today.
I will write to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, with more points of clarity. On certainty, I assure him that that is absolutely the intention behind the new clause and the amendments that relate to CAADs. We want to provide certainty to landowners and local authorities about what the outcomes of the process may look like in order to speed up the process and prevent challenges and delay. I hope that reassures him. I will get back to him in due course on the other points he raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 145 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 146 to 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 150
Designated high streets and town centres
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 185, in clause 150, page 171, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) Designations under subsections (1) and (2) can only be made following consultation with the local community.”
This amendment would require designation of a high street or town centre to be consulted upon.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and for his passion about levelling up, which is right at the heart of this Government—if I did not believe that, I could not in good conscience have taken on the job of levelling-up Minister, given that levelling up is so important to me, who I am and what I stand for.
I am particularly grateful to the shadow Minister for his passion regarding high streets, which are the heart of our communities. We need to do all we can to ensure that local authorities and local communities have the tools that they need to deliver and see their high streets thrive. I also thank him for his constructive approach to our policy regarding high street rental auctions, and I hope that we can have some good debates today to make that policy the best it can be, in order to deliver for local areas. He mentioned meeting CAMRA. I am always pleased to meet representatives of CAMRA—they tend to choose the best venues for meetings—so I will definitely take him up on that offer.
Turning to the shadow Minister’s amendments, amendments 185 and 186 relate to the designation of high streets and town centres for the purposes of high street rental auctions. Amendment 185 would require local authorities to consult the local community before the designation can be made. That is linked to amendment 186, which would allow the local community to apply for a street or area to be designated as a town centre or high street.
While I appreciate the genuine concerns behind the amendments, I do not think they are needed. Local authorities are uniquely placed to make that designation, based on their deep knowledge of their own area. Given that high street rental auctions are an additional tool to enable authorities to take control of regenerating their areas, we have to empower them to do so. As such, the Bill will empower local authorities to use high street rental auctions based on the definitions of “high street” and “town centre” set out in clause 150, which require the local authority to take into account the importance of a street or town centre to the local economy. The designation may also be informed by places defined as high streets or town centres in that authority’s local plan, where one exists. We therefore consider that amendments 185 and 186 add an unnecessary extra layer of complexity to the designation process and a further burden on local authorities, which we are concerned may hinder take-up.
Amendment 195 would define the term “local community” as a result of the proposed addition of amendments 185 and 186 to the Bill, which relate to the designation of high streets and town centres for the purposes of high street rental auctions. As I have explained, we do not think those amendments are necessary. I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that consideration of the needs of the local community will be built into the high street rental auction process, and I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am pleased to hear that the commitment to levelling up remains at the heart of the Government’s programme, but may I gently say that that remains to be seen? I am conscious that the Bill is obviously from a couple of Secretaries of State ago. Having seen briefing that a lot of what the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) did is now considered socialism, I must say that that is not a socialism I would recognise. The Government may need to re-earn that space and show that this really is a priority, and of course we will make significant efforts in this area.
I am slightly disappointed that the Minister is not minded to take up these proposals, particularly amendment 186. What we are actually talking about is community power, which is a crucial part of levelling up; it is absent from the Bill, and the Minister now has a chance to correct that error. There is an expectation during the levelling-up process that we will see a shift of power from Whitehall to town hall, and from Whitehall to communities. If what communities get out of levelling up instead is a shift of power from Whitehall to regional and sub-regional bodies, the Government will not have passed that test. The challenge here is to add that bit that says yes to town hall, but actually goes even further, to our local communities, and the community power we propose would have been the way to do it. I will not push the amendments to a Division, because we will cover community power in later proceedings, but I hope the Minister might reflect a little in the meantime on the points I have made.
I will conclude by saying that, whatever side of the Chamber colleagues are on, and whoever is sitting in our seats in three, four, five or maybe 10 years—I talked about the Localism Act with an 11-year perspective, and they might be here in 11 years—they will say that high street rental auctions are effective in some parts of the country but not in others. The reason will be that we have not given the public strong enough tools to involve themselves where their local authority does not involve them. I hope the Minister will reflect on that, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to both hon. Members for sharing their thoughts, and particularly to the hon. Member for York Central—I have had a number of fantastic trips to York, and it is a brilliant place to go. I have never actually been to Spark, so that is definitely on my radar. I thank the hon. Member for mentioning it.
On the point about warehouses being excluded, this is largely because it is incredibly rare that warehouses are in the area that is determined as the high street. That is why we have excluded them in this way. I am certainly happy to sit down and have a conversation about it, if that would be helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 150 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 152
Vacancy condition
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 187, in clause 152, page 172, line 21, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment would remove the Henry VIII power for the Secretary of State to alter the circumstances of vacancy.
Dehenna Davison
Once again, I thank the shadow Minister for his incredibly constructive approach. I certainly hope to be in post long enough to see the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill make it on to the statute books. Watch this space, but that is certainly my plan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the points that he raised. As we have discussed, high street rental auctions are a new concept and power for local authorities. The amendments focus on the powers to amend elements of the process for introducing high street rental auctions. We believe that those powers provide much-needed flexibility to ensure that auctions deliver the intended policy outcome of regenerating our high streets and town centres.
Clause 152 sets out the criteria for the vacancy condition, which must be met before local authorities can consider premises for a high street rental auction. For the vacancy condition to be satisfied, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North has highlighted, the property must be unoccupied on that day, and have either been unoccupied for the last year, or for a total of 366 days in the last two years. That provision aims to ensure that only reasonably long-term vacant properties are subjected to high street rental auctions, and to set out where use of premises will not count as occupation when assessing the vacancy condition.
The vacancy condition will have an important bearing on how widely used the measure is, and on the frequency with which the power can be used by local authorities. As it is a new power, the vacancy condition may need to be changed in future. The experience of implementing high street rental auctions may lead us to want to alter the period, so that we can ensure that the measure targets the right premises. For example, there may be evidence that a longer or shorter period should be afforded prior to implementation. Amendment 187 would remove that power and flexibility. The Government accept that changing the vacancy condition would be a significant change. That is why any regulations to amend the vacancy condition will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that they will come into effect only if approved by Parliament.
Amendment 192 would remove the flexibility in clause 160 to allow for the addition, amendment or removal of grounds of appeal against a final letting notice set out in schedule 15. A final letting notice informs the landlord of a local authority’s intent to proceed to auction, and must be enforced for an auction to be carried out. I recognise that we may need to amend those grounds of appeal in the future in the light of experience in operating the new power. For instance, we may find a need to increase the safeguards available to landlords, or to revise the grounds of appeal where they are found to undermine the effectiveness of the measures and overall policy objective.
As we have discussed, we appreciate the significance of the change, and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the grounds of appeal. To reiterate, any change will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and the approval of Parliament, before coming into force. I hope that has provided reassurance, and I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North not to press amendment 187 to a Division.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I am glad that she accepts that these would be significant changes to make by regulation. I am glad of the confirmation regarding the affirmative procedure.
I am not sure that I can accept the argument of flexibility. I understand that we are talking about novel powers, and that we may learn by experience what does and does not work. However, I cannot believe that there would not be appropriate legislative vehicles, either in a local government, property or business space, that would give the Government the opportunity to alter the provision, rather than their doing things in the way that they propose, which I think is a cop-out and backing into the tackle, so I will press amendment 187 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
Very briefly, I have a similar question to the one I asked during discussion of clause 151, which was not quite addressed. Clause 153 reads as follows:
“the ‘local benefit condition’ is satisfied in relation to premises if the local authority considers that the occupation of the premises for a suitable high-street use would be beneficial to the local economy, society or environment.”
Again, whether the condition is met is sort of in the eye of the beholder. Presumably, that provision means that the whole process could be waylaid at the stroke of a pen if the local authority was so minded. To reiterate the question from clause 151, what protection is there if the power is not used appropriately?
Dehenna Davison
My apologies for not getting to that point. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some assurances in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 153 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 154
Initial notice
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 189, in clause 154, page 173, line 5, leave out “ten weeks” and insert “28 days”.
This amendment would reduce the period after which an initial letting notice would expire to 28 days.
With clause 154, we are getting deeper into the detail of how the process is likely to work. It is right that it should be a tight process. Ultimately, we are talking about private assets, and it is important that the state does not act in an overbearing way; we must establish a balance between private and public interests. At the moment, the balance tilts entirely towards landlords, which leaves long-running vacant and derelict premises blighting our communities. This part of the Bill is about finding the balance, but it must be a fair balance.
That process starts with clause 154 and the initial notice. When a local authority identifies a premise that satisfies the condition of having been on a high street or in a town centre, and satisfies the vacancy condition, it can initiate a high street rental auction, which it does by serving an initial notice that basically tells the landlord to use the premise or an auction will take place.
Clause 154 sets out that an initial letting notice will be in force for 10 weeks, and that a final letting notice can be served only while the initial notice is in force; we will cover that shortly. In essence, I suspect that this 10-week period will act as a de facto time limit—a period during which the landlord must find tenants; otherwise, the local authority can move the process on. This is a point of taste, but our view is that 10 weeks is too long. If we add the 14 weeks of the final notice period, which we will get to shortly, that makes a 24-week process. Of course, the premises will have already been vacant for at least a year, or 366 days in the preceding two years. That is a long time on top.
We want the Bill to deliver swift action to bring about the change that people want in their communities; we do not want a long process. The amendment seeks to rectify that by specifying a shorter notice period of 28 days. We think four weeks is more agreeable than 10 weeks. Given how long the landlord will have had already, four weeks is ample time for them to understand what will happen, and to act promptly if they wish. Certainly once these powers are on the statute book, such a notice should not come as a surprise, especially as it will have been preceded by a long period of vacancy. It is the right amount of time to encourage landlords to find new tenants promptly as a last opportunity before the process starts. That speed strikes the fine balance between private and public interest.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. The Government are keen to get the process right, and to make it as speedy as possible. There is no one more keen than I to fill the vacant properties on our high street. He talked about getting the balance right between private and public interest, and we had that in mind when drawing up the legislation. As he outlined, the amendment seeks to reduce the initial letting notice period from 10 weeks to 28 days. It is set at 10 weeks to provide the landlord with a reasonable amount of time to work with the local authority to let the premises. If the landlord fails to let the property within eight weeks, the local authority will then have two weeks to serve a final letting notice. Reducing the initial letting notice period to 28 days increases the risk of a number of high street properties going through the auction process unnecessarily, as landlords will have significantly less time to find a new tenant once an initial letting notice is served. The point is that we want to get properties filled; that is the intention.
We do not think 28 days is a reasonable period for landlords to find a tenant and complete a letting once an initial notice is served. There is also a desire to allow local authorities to work with landlords where possible to find a tenant, and the additional time allows for that. I appreciate the desire from all of us to get vacant premises filled, but we need to strike the right balance, so that we can find sustainable tenants to drive up economic growth. I gently ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the Government’s thoughts. Again, as a point of taste, I think that four weeks would be reasonable because of the preceding period of time. I also expect that local authorities—who are very canny in these processes—will be engaging informally. There will be a whole informal discussion before we get anywhere near this process about what might happen if the premises are not used. I would hope that would salve some of the Minister’s concerns.
I am also not 100% convinced that the amendment would cause lots of properties to unnecessarily go through the auction process. If properties have had a year of vacancy, or 366 days of vacancies in two years, I find it difficult to agree with the idea of them just being sat there waiting to be rented out, and landlords having not quite got round to it. Nevertheless, this is a point of taste, and I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. We will perhaps unpack the issue more when we get to the final notice element. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nigel Huddleston.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Third sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 13th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 October 2022 - (13 Oct 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 155, page 173, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) transfer the premises to a related entity.”
This amendment would prevent the landlord from transferring the premises between related entities while the initial letting notice is in force.
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. The amendment, which is in my name and that of my colleagues, deals with an important issue. Its substance is perhaps not my most elegant work, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.
With this clause we move on to what a landlord can and cannot do while operating under the initial notice. As the Minister explained, in practice the notices are likely to act as a kind of kick-up-the-backside provision—a shock to the landlords to get them moving and renting out their premises, lest they end up renting to someone they were not intending to rent to, or for less than they were hoping for.
Subsection (1) prohibits landlords from entering into contracts for the building—other than sale of the site—without the consent of the local authority. In reality, it is a limited provision, as the local authority, as covered in clause 156, must grant approval, provided that the landlord has agreed a lengthy tenancy that starts shortly. We will cover that more fully in the next debate.
The restrictions at least seek to prevent landlords from using chicanery to escape their obligations—for example, entering into a bogus tenancy including an immediate break clause. A new tenant—possibly a friend or family member—might be a tenant for a day, then the break clause could be executed, the premises vacated and the clock restarted. We think it is right that these sorts of loopholes are closed.
Subsection (1)(a) states that landlords of a premises may not
“grant, or agree to grant, a tenancy of, or licence to occupy, the premises”,
and paragraph (b) say that they may not
“enter into any other agreement”—
none of that—
“without the written consent of the local authority that served the notice.”
They can sell the property or enter into a proper tenancy arrangement, but nothing else.
With the amendment, I want to probe the Minister about whether the clause leaves a gap where a landlord might seek to pass ownership of a premises to a friend or family member, or perhaps a related company, in order to establish new ownership and restart the clock when in reality nothing has changed. As I said, the amendment might not be the most elegant way to do this, but I am interested in the Minister’s views on how to avoid any such loophole.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The shadow Minister expressed a fair concern, and I hope I can reassure him.
The clause places restrictions on landlords in relation to any new lettings of the premises while the initial letting notice is in force. As discussed, the proposed amendment is intended to prevent landlords from transferring their interest to a related entity in order to avoid the high street rental auction process. We share the concerns that underpin the amendment, but we consider it unnecessary, because any related party that purchases the landlord’s interest will still be bound by the initial letting notice, as made clear by clause 173(7), which tackles exactly that concern and removes the incentive for landlords to transfer the property to related entities in order to avoid the auction process. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister.
Alex Norris
Yes, it does. I had not seen that, so I appreciate the clarity. That closes the point. I thank the Minister and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 156 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 157
Final notice
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 191, in clause 157, page 174, line 25, leave out “eight weeks” and insert “two weeks”.
This amendment would reduce the period of time before a final letting notice can be issued to two weeks.
Clause 157 establishes final notices. These are used when a premise has lain vacant for a year or 366 days over two years and has been served its initial notice, and still no action has taken place and the premises continue to lay vacant, obviously having an impact on its local community. On the face of the Bill, final notice has to take place after eight weeks have elapsed from the serving of the initial notice, but not before the notice itself expires after 10 weeks, as per clause 154(2)(b). A final notice of intent to carry out a high street rental auction can take place between the eight-week marker and the 10-week marker.
As we stated in the earlier debate, the Labour party feel that that period is too long. Those communities have waited long enough, and those landlords have had long enough. Instead, amendment 191 would allow for the final letting notice to be served after two weeks have passed following the serving of the initial letting notice. The amendment would have worked a little better had our earlier amendment been more successful in moving the Minister, because that would have established a regime whereby the initial notice lasted four weeks, with the final notice being served at any time after the first two weeks. As we said earlier, we believe that would be a good enough window to get the process going, but that was not the view of the Committee. On its own, this amendment would ensure that the initial notice still lasted for 10 weeks, but the final letting notice would be servable by the local authority at any time after the first two weeks. That is less good than it could have been, but it remains better than what is on the face of the Bill.
In our earlier discussion, we talked about the expectation that landlords would be using this time to seek a tenant, work with the local authority to find the appropriate tenant and move things on—which was why they needed 10 weeks rather than four weeks—and that the local authority would be an important part of supporting that process, both formally and informally. That probably leaves local authorities as good final arbiters to say, “Actually, this is not going anywhere. There is either no engagement, or no meaningful engagement. We have already been in this situation informally for a year, and have now been in the process formally for a couple of weeks. There is no prospect of this moving forwards.” That decision could be taken after two weeks and a day, after six weeks and a day, or—as is currently on the face of the Bill—after eight weeks, but nevertheless, we are giving them a bit of case-by-case flexibility. I do not want to rehash the argument about the premises having been vacant for long enough, because that point has been made, but our amendment would add a bit of flexibility for some common sense to be applied. I would be interested in the Minister’s views.
Dehenna Davison
I completely appreciate the concerns raised by the shadow Minister. I think he shares my real desire to get those vacant properties filled as quickly as possible, so we are at least starting from a common ground.
As has already been debated, the amendment relates to clause 157, which currently provides that a local authority may serve a final letting notice on the landlord of a vacant high street premises eight weeks after the initial letting notice has been served. The amendment would allow the local authority to serve a final letting notice two weeks after the initial letter had been served. It is important to note that service of the final letting notice allows the local authority to carry out a rental auction, and means that further, more significant restrictions on letting are imposed on landlords, as set out in clause 158. While reducing the period to two weeks could help to fill vacant premises more quickly, we consider that, on balance, landlords should be afforded a further opportunity for a reasonable period to fill the vacant premises after an initial letting notice has been served. We all know that property negotiations can be incredibly complex and often take parties several weeks to agree, so we consider a two-week period to be too short, and think that eight weeks is more realistic and reasonable.
We do want to enable local authorities to deliver high street rental auctions within 24 weeks when possible, as they are intended to be the quickest possible intervention that strikes the right balance between the public interest and the private interest. However, we need to provide landlords and local authorities with reasonable and realistic timescales and build appropriate safeguards into the process. That includes giving landlords a reasonable opportunity to respond to the initial letting notice by allowing them a further opportunity over an eight-week period to let the premises themselves, and a 14-day period to decide whether to appeal against a final letting notice.
Consideration also has to be given to the interests of the local authority, as making the process too quick could place an additional and unreasonable strain on local authorities that are looking to exercise these powers and deter them from using them at all. Local authorities are effectively given a 12-week period to run the auction process and complete the tenancy contract. Given those explanations, I really hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that explanation. As we have discussed previously, there is a point of difference on what we consider sufficient time, notwithstanding that, as we have seen on other clauses, the period of time under a letting notice comes after a long period of vacancy already. I would make the case strongly that this is an issue of inclination rather than time for the landlords, but I accept the points that the Minister has made. We have different views on this issue. I am not going to pursue it today, but I suspect we will come back to it at a later opportunity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 157 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 158 and 159 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 160
Counter-notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 161 stand part.
Dehenna Davison
Clauses 160 and 161, and schedule 15, deal with the issue of appeals by landlords against a final letting notice. Under clause 160, the landlord will be able to appeal against a final letting notice within 14 days of receipt by issuing a counter-notice to the relevant local authority. The counter-notice must set out the grounds for appeal.
Schedule 15 specifies what grounds of appeal are permitted. They include whether the vacancy condition and local benefit condition have been satisfied, the suitability of premises for high street use, and the opportunity for the landlord to re-let the premises within an eight-week window following the initial letting notice. Schedule 15 also provides for grounds of appeal based on redevelopment by the landlord or where the landlord intends to occupy the premises, which is taken from other similar contexts, such as the opposed lease renewal process in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The right of appeal is an important safeguard for landlords, and the step of issuing a counter-notice allows both parties to take stock before matters are referred to the county court. Clause 160 gives the relevant local authority early warning of the landlord’s intention to appeal, and clause 161 provides an opportunity to withdraw the final letting notice before any appeal application is made by the landlord to the county court. Local authorities may be reluctant to serve a final letting notice without that additional step, because they will want visibility on whether the landlord intends to appeal before matters are submitted to the county court. Clause 161 sets out further procedural requirements relating to the landlord’s appeal against the final letting notice, particularly the role of the county court in considering such an appeal.
An appeal by the landlord must be limited to the grounds specified in the counter-notice and can be brought only in the county court. The court will then have the power to confirm or revoke the final letting notice. An appeal must be brought within 28 days of receipt of the counter-notice by the local authority. Where the landlord appeals, the clause also extends the 14-week window set for the letting procedure, as set out in clause 157, so that the local authority has sufficient time to complete a high street rental auction process if the landlord’s appeal is unsuccessful.
These clauses and schedule 15 provide clear timeframes and requirements for a landlord to appeal a final letting notice. They also allow local authorities to establish quickly whether it is clear to proceed with the auction process without fear that a late appeal may disrupt it. On that basis, I commend the clauses and schedule to the Committee.
Alex Norris
We appreciate that this is an important part of the process, so I will be brief. We made the same point prior to the break for lunch, but again I find it odd that the Government think they need to reserve to themselves, in subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c), the power to add grounds for appeal through a counter-notice.
This is a serious thing. We are talking about a rare situation, especially for a Conservative Government, whereby private property will essentially be transferred to the state, in terms of its agency, so that it can be used properly—although the receipts will of course still go to the private landlord. I would be surprised if the Government do not know, or think they do not know, the grounds on which that decision would be appealable. I therefore wonder whether they have really bottomed out the process. As with previous parts of the Bill, I think they are retaining too much power for later. They have broadly got the measure right and should commit to it, so these are not necessary provisions, and I will be interested to hear why the Minister thinks they are.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for voicing his concerns; I completely appreciate them. As I said earlier, it is important that we get this process right. Given that this is a novel policy, we want to make sure we get it right. Through experience of implementing the rental auctions, we may want to alter the grounds of appeal to ensure that the measure can target the right protections and make sure they are in place if, for example, there is evidence that the policy is preventing landlords from using the property in ways that are beneficial and complementary to the policy. It is all about ensuring we have the flexibility to get this right and make sure it works. We want to fill vacant properties while ensuring that landlords have adequate protections. I hope that has provided some reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 160 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 161 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 162
Rental auctions
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 193, in clause 162, page 177, line 36, at end insert
“These regulations must be laid before Parliament before the end of a period of 90 days beginning with Royal Assent.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay any regulations under this section before Parliament within a period of 90 days.
The amendment reflects the Opposition’s anxiety, which the Minister has gone some way to assuage, that there are significant portions of the Bill—those to be discussed and those that we have discussed—that are not likely to see the statute book. I know we cannot live and die by briefing in the media, but it has a habit of being on the nose very often. There is a sense that we will lose provisions from the Bill, and this is one that we are most likely to lose. It is of its time, given the Secretary of State when it was written, and less so of the supposed direction today. I want to probe that a little.
Clause 162 sets the rules for rental auctions—or, to be more precise, subsection (3) says that there must be rules, and the Government have reserved the power to set them. I think that would have been better done by schedules to the Bill, but that is the path chosen. The rules do not have to be very difficult. Subsection (4) says that the local authority must designate suitable use of the premises. That seems reasonable. We always argue for public engagement, but I suspect that the existing use classes are likely to guide that.
Beyond that, there needs to be an advertisement and an auction held. We support subsection (8), which allows a degree of local variance, although subsection (7) slightly contradicts that, in the sense that regulations set by the Secretary of State are likely to constrain that. I want to hear from the Minister that that is likely to applied rightly. I hope that local authorities will have the headroom to hold auctions in a way that is practical, otherwise central Government might as well conduct them themselves.
I do not think all the subsections in sum create a particularly complicated picture. Actually, I think those of us in this Committee could design a system very quickly; I think it is quite obvious how to hold an auction on a premises that has a use-class designation. The terms of the clause, and in particular subsection (7), may delay the provisions coming into force, but public expectation is building and we must deliver on it. Amendment 193, perhaps ironically or perhaps elegantly, imposes a “use it or lose it” provision on the existing “use it or lose it” provision to ensure that the regulations must be laid within 90 days of Royal Assent. I cannot believe that that would not be enough time, so I am keen to hear from the Minister when we would be likely to see those regulations.
Dehenna Davison
Again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his clarity on the intention behind the amendment, which I think is well intentioned. It seeks to require that regulations to implement the rental auction process are laid within 90 days of the Bill gaining Royal Assent.
Clause 162 sets out the principles of the rental auction process. It is likely that a significant amount of detail will need to be provided in relation to the process that will be procedural and technical. I firmly believe that that would be more appropriately dealt with through regulations. Although we are looking to make those regulations as soon as possible, at this stage it is not possible to commit to a timeline of 90 days, because those regulations will be informed by extensive engagement with the sector on the rental auction process. There is a need to consult, and we would like the input of local authorities, which will be responsible for arranging the auction process, and landlords, who will have an interest in how that rental auction is run. We anticipate consulting on those measures shortly—this autumn—which will allow any feedback to be taken into account in the detail of the regulations. More details will be available later in the year, and I will ensure that I write to the shadow Minister as we have them.
Given that this is a new and innovative policy, the proposed engagement is crucial to ensure that rental auctions operate as intended and result in genuine regeneration and levelling up. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that response. I hear what the Minister says about the significant amount of detail and technical elements that are likely to follow. I am not 100% persuaded that auctions are that complicated. Anyone who has ever attended one will know that they are actually quite brutal and terrifying experiences, with very clear and defined outcomes. It never feels like there are many shades of the grey in the auction room. I hear what the Minister says, particularly about engagement, and I would never speak against that. I hope that there is a sense of purpose and a desire to get on with the provision, however, because communities are waiting for it, so the sooner we can do that, the better. On that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 163
Power to contract for tenancy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I have three questions. Clause 163(1)(b) provides the power to contract for a tenancy if
“the period of 42 days beginning with the day on which that notice took effect has elapsed”.
I understand why there needs to be time, but I am not sure why a minimum time has been set quite so quickly. It might take a number of weeks to get a tenancy together, but why include a hard six-week period that will add to and elongate the process?
Clauses 164(5) and 166(3) address, respectively, pre-tenancy works and work that the local authority might have to do
“in order to make an effective grant.”
Are the costs incurred by a local authority in making a premises ready rechargeable?
Clause 165(7) provides for a reserve power to make regulation. I will not rehash that argument, but for clarity, do the Government expect a relatively simple tenancy equivalent to a general market or high street tenancy?
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Members for York Central and for Nottingham North for their remarks.
The hon. Lady raised a good point. On her drafting concern, clause 165(6) refers to schedule 16. Will she please let me know if that is not clear, and I will ensure that it is rectified? But my expert team have told me that that is the case. We can pick this up afterwards if need be.
Rachael Maskell
Schedule 16 refers back to clause 164, not 165, according to the note next to the schedule, on page 320. I am curious, shall we say, and that further adds to my curiosity, because there is no true cross-referencing, then, to the right clause.
Dehenna Davison
I will pick that up afterwards and write to the hon. Member with some clarity on that point.
On the point about larger properties—department stores and so on—I think that we all have that concern. We can probably all think of, in our high streets or the places where we grew up, department stores that are sitting empty and that we want to be filled, but filled in the right way. The hon. Member made reference to super-nightclubs. I am sure that there would be a few people in favour of such measures, but I think the local community would much rather see pop-ups and small independent businesses appearing in these places. Again, we want to absolutely ensure that we get this right. There is the definition of “premises” in clause 177(3). It does envision powers applying to part of a building. This could be a potential solution, but I am happy to sit down with the hon. Member afterwards to see what more we can do to reassure her and, indeed, people across the country on the point.
On the point about chargeable costs, this is something we hope will get picked up in the consultation, but the intention is to spread this between the landlord and the tenant as far as possible. Again, I am happy to take some time with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, to provide some clarity on the point after Committee has concluded.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 163 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 164 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clauses 165 to 168 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 169
Power to require provision of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
Clauses 169 to 172 relate to the powers of local authorities to acquire information about commercial properties in order to facilitate the process of running high street rental auctions. They also deal with circumstances in which that information is not forthcoming.
As I have explained, local authorities will need information on qualifying high street premises in order to enable them to pursue the high street rental auctions process. That includes details of the landlord, to enable a local authority to serve the letting notices. It also includes information on the premises that will need to be provided to prospective bidders as part of the auction process. Some of the information may be publicly available, but much of it will be in the possession of the landlord or those who have an interest in the premises. Clause 169 therefore gives the local authority the power to request information about premises in a designated high street or designated town centre from persons who appear to have an interest in those premises.
Some landlords may be less co-operative than others in complying with this process. Without this power, landlords could easily frustrate the process by refusing to provide information about their premises. We also consider it necessary to incentivise landlords to provide this information through the backing of criminal sanctions. That is why this clause includes an offence. If a person, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a request for information about premises or gives false information, they are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2,500.
Clause 170 deals with the circumstances in which local authorities may need survey information on the condition of qualifying high street premises in order to assess the suitability of premises for high street uses and the rental auction process. This clause gives local authorities the power to enter and survey premises situated in a designated high street or town centre to obtain survey information, if they so choose. The power is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the measures. Again, some landlords might be less co-operative than others and could frustrate the process by refusing access to local authorities.
Clause 170, however, also provides landlords with certain safeguards that usually apply to powers of entry. For example, local authorities are required to give advance notice of at least 14 days to the landlord before exercising the powers; and local authorities may only exercise the power at a reasonable time, and not in a way that involves the use of force, except on the authority of the warrant issued by a justice of the peace. Given the safeguards, landlords will have the opportunity to grant access. The premises are likely to be non-domestic and vacant, so the exercise of the powers is unlikely to harm the interests of landlords and should be only a mild inconvenience.
Clause 171 sets out the offences that apply in relation to the power of entry under the previous clause. As I said, we believe it best to incentivise landlords to provide access to premises that may be subject to high street rental auctions through the backing of criminal sanctions. This clause therefore provides for a fine of up to £1,000 for obstruction. It also provides the landlord with a safeguard by making it a criminal offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment for a person in the exercise of their power of entry to disclose confidential information obtained in the exercise of the power for purposes other than high street rental auctions.
Finally, clause 172 gives local authorities the ability to apply to the county court for an extension to the period that applies to the high street rental auction process. That is considered necessary to prevent landlords from frustrating the process by seeking to time out the local authority by not complying with requests for information, providing false information or obstructing access to the premises. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I have two quick questions. First, I want to check that I am reading clause 169(5) correctly. When a local authority asks for information from a landlord—an important provision—that is in a non-prescribed form. The Government do not intend to prescribe the form; it will just be the form that the local authority sees fit to use.
Secondly, clause 172 is important and tries to prevent landlords from trying to take local authorities and communities for a long walk to run out the clock. The clause means that a court may add time, which is very welcome. Will the Government be clear about that to local authorities, because one thing that will put local authorities off is the possibility that they could just go on a quixotic journey through lawyers’ letters, never actually getting anywhere? However, clause 172 should give us confidence that that will not be the case. I hope that the Minister can address those two points.
Dehenna Davison
Again, I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. My understanding is that his understanding is correct about the information being provided, but I will write to him for clarity.
On the shadow Minister’s point about not wanting local authorities to go around the houses in this legal process, we are absolutely trying to make the process as straightforward as we can. Again, the ultimate aim is to get the vacant premises let out and in use, which is why we want to make the process as swift as possible, while ensuring that there are sufficient safeguards in the legal process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 169 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 170 to 174 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 175
Compensation
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 194, in clause 175, page 185, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) Compensation for damage under subsection (1) does not include damage that reasonably occurred gaining access to the site or premises where a landlord fails to grant such access.”
This amendment would exempt from compensation damage that is caused when the authority, or their agent, needs to force access to a site following the failure to allow such access by the landlord.
If this part of the Bill is used proactively by local authorities and communities, as we and the Government want, it will doubtlessly be a disruptive one—it is meant to be a disruptive one. I have no doubt there will be cases where some landlords think the best course of action is to ignore the process entirely, especially in the cases of landlords based a long way away from the communities where the premises may be based. There have to be powers, as covered in clause 170, for the local authority to enter a premises, and we fully support that. It is necessary to have a look at the place, for a start, but it is also necessary to let it out to the winner of the auction.
Clause 175 provides that where this power has been used and damage has been caused, the landlord has a right to compensation. That is fair; it is wrong that landlords might sit on assets and help drag the community down, but nevertheless the premises are their property, and it is right that they are treated with respect. When that is not the case, they ought to be able to seek redress and compensation. I want to try and square the two circles; in a case where damage has occurred as the landlord has not been willing to grant access to the premises in line with the provisions of the Bill, they perhaps should not get compensation. If they refuse to remove a lock, it is reasonable to think that the lock might be cut off.
Amendment 194 would cover this. It would mean that damage could not be claimed for where it reasonably occurred when seeking access. There are two protections; first, that the damage happens reasonably—for example, cutting off the lock by knocking a wall through would not be proportionate; and secondly, that it follows the refusal of a landlord who has not availed the local authority of the opportunity to enter, so a reasonable action has had to take place. That is a fair balance between the protection of property, and compliance with law and the rule of law more generally. I am interested in the Minister’s response.
Dehenna Davison
Again, I thank the shadow Minister for his clarity on the intention behind the amendment. He outlined that the amendment seeks to clarify circumstances in which compensation will be paid as a result of damage caused by the local authority or their agent entering the property, pursuant to their power of entry in clause 170 where a landlord has refused to grant access.
Although we fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment, we consider it more appropriate to provide landlords with a general entitlement to seek compensation for damage where local authorities have exercised their power of entry. The upper tribunal can then decide whether there are any circumstances that can be taken into account that affect the landlord’s entitlement to compensation, rather than providing for specific exemptions within the primary legislation. This is the approach we have adopted in other legislation, such as the compensation provisions in section 176 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which relate to the power to enter and survey land. On that basis, we are not able to accept the amendment, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Alex Norris
In general, I am quite sceptical, where arrangements rely on what are often relatively small sums of money, that there will be formal court backing. Given what the Minister has said about alignment with other provisions, that is probably enough to give me reassurance for now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 176 and 177 stand part.
New clause 55—Resources—
“(1) Within a period of 90 days beginning from Royal Assent the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing the new resources made available by His Majesty’s Government to local authorities in order to exercise Part 8 powers.
(2) In order to discharge the powers under Part 8, Local authorities may charge landlords for associated reasonable costs.”.
Dehenna Davison
As we have already debated, clause 175 entitles a landlord to compensation for damage resulting from the exercise of the power of entry by local authorities. This is an established approach, as powers of entry on to private land where compulsory powers are being considered are typically given to statutory authorities on the basis that compensation is payable by those authorities for damage suffered by the landowner, and as a result of the exercise of the power. Subsection (5) provides that, aside from those arising from subsection (1) in respect of the power of entry, there is no other entitlement to compensation in respect of the exercise of the rental auction process as defined by the powers in part 8. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Let me move on to clause 176. There is certain legislation that applies to premises that are let. In order potentially to reduce cost burdens on landlords as an effect of high street rental auctions, clause 176 provides a power to disapply or modify relevant legislation to avoid unfairness on landlords. An example is the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, which apply minimum energy performance requirements. Compliance with those regulations may require works to be carried out to improve the energy performance of premises before they can be marketed and let. That work would fall on the landlord and may, in some cases, impose a significant burden. The Government have agreed that, due to the temporary and select nature of high street rental auctions, only very few properties will be affected, and we have agreed a review point after five years to assess the impact of the disapplication.
Clause 177 supplements the main clause in part 8 by giving definitions and clarifications of various terms used throughout the part. In particular, subsection (3) clarifies that the high street rental auction powers can be used in relation to premises that are the whole or part of the building, designed or adapted to be used as such, but, also, part of the building that
“could with reasonable adaptation be so used.”
Rachael Maskell
If premises were to be wholly let, but let in separate lots, how would that be covered by those clauses? It seems that the Minister is talking about, for example, half a building being let. However, if we are talking about half a building to be used in 10 separate sections, how would the legislation cover that scenario?
Dehenna Davison
I will write to the hon. Member on that specific scenario and provide additional clarity. The definition of short-term tenancy is also found here, which limits the term of tenancies granted under high street rental auction powers between one and five years. It also includes setting out what is meant by local authority. They are district councils in England, and county councils where there are no district councils, London borough councils, the common council of the City of London and the councils of the Isle of Skye. The clauses underpin the workings of this part of the Bill, and I urge the Committee to support them.
On new clause 55, I am grateful to hon. Members for seeking to ensure that local authorities have the resources necessary to auction vacant high street premises. I agree that is incredibly important. I want to reassure hon. Members that we intend to work with local authorities to produce detailed guidance to help them through the auction process, minimising burdens wherever possible. The provision would permit local authorities to charge landlords for costs associated with the high street rental auction process. The details of the rental auction process, including how we will distribute the costs of the process, will be set out in regulations following consultation with local authorities, landlords and tenants. I do not believe publishing a report within three months of the Act being in force, when local authorities may only just be starting to engage with the process, will benefit the aims of the Bill.
To go back to the point about premises being partially or fully let, as raised by the hon. Member for York Central, we will consult on a standardised lease that will deal with sub-lettings. There will be a consultation on that point to ensure that we get the policy right.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for raising that, but I wonder how will relate to the legislation. Obviously, this is the authoritative source. While the Minister may be consulting, is she saying that there will be greater clarity brought within regulations? How will that come forth? I think it will be of real interest across the country. It is the very scenario that the clauses are trying to address. Can the Minister bring more clarity?
Dehenna Davison
Absolutely. I go back to my earlier point; we all see those larger units that need to be let out, and we know that smaller businesses or community groups would be able to benefit from those smaller spaces. We intend to set this out later in regulations once we have consulted again to ensure that we get this absolutely right. It is a novel policy, so it will take some tweaking. We want to get it right to ensure that it works and fulfils the ultimate aim of getting our vacant high street premises filled.
Alex Norris
I shall speak to new clause 55. In an earlier answer, the Minister made the case for this measure because she characterised the new process as a strain—that is the word she used—on local authorities, and that is true. It is a new burden for which local authorities currently are not and will need to be funded for. The impact on local government funding over the past decade or more has been well stated, not least in this Committee. Our local councils have been hammered. The Government’s best record on localism is localising blame by cutting budgets and shifting difficult decisions. That seems to be the phase we are—bewilderingly—entering into again, and I dare say it will happen again.
Local authorities are incredibly hard-pressed. Unless there is proper support, that will be a limiting factor on the success of the process, because many local authorities will be so hard-pressed that they will say, “We just can’t get to that.” The Minister has already resisted community rights to initiate the process, and I fear that will act as a handbrake on it. I strongly argue—I feel certain in my case—that the Minister could help us and give us some comfort on this point. I have managed to go all day—a new record—without mentioning the publication of the impact assessment for the Bill. We are trying this with Whip No. 3, and Ministers 9 and 10. We feel such a level of disregard and discourtesy because the Government will not produce an impact assessment. We know it exists. The Regulatory Policy Committee, on the Government’s website on 19 July, said that the document exists.
The Minister is new to her role, but I know she is a plain speaker. I ask her please to release the impact assessment. If there is concern, as I think there might be on the Government Benches, that it will be writ large to the public that perhaps the provisions on levelling up will not make much of a difference, I gently say: the public already know. In the next stage of the Bill we will deal with hugely important decisions relating to planning, and we have no idea what the Government think the impact of those will be. That is no way to run a country. The Minister is not minded and I will not push the matter to a Division, but at some point that question needs to be addressed. I beg the Minister to do that at the earliest possible opportunity.
Dehenna Davison
I take issue with one thing that the shadow Minister said—we have done well today; we have got through almost two full sittings—about localism. I do not think that is to do with shifting blame. It is about empowering local areas. That is why we are running a very ambitious devolution agenda to make sure local areas have the powers and resources they need to succeed. We have seen fantastic examples in Tees Valley, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. The powers really come into their own, and show what devolution and localism can do for local areas and the people living there. I had to get that on the record. We needed a point of proper disagreement today, and we have managed to find one.
I will take away the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North on the impact assessment and come back to him on it as a matter of urgency.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 175 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 176 and 177 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 178
Requirements to provide information about ownership and control
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
Part 9 of the Bill will greatly enhance our understanding of who owns or controls land and property. To assist the economy to grow, the Government need to break down any barriers and find key tools that ensure our property market is fair, open, competitive and resilient. One big barrier at the moment is information asymmetries. The land market in England and Wales currently lacks full transparency, particularly when land control arrangements are used—opaque arrangements short of ownerships such as options and conditional contracts.
The Government are determined, for the benefit of us all, to shine a light on complex arrangements used to control land and property. Clause 178 allows the Secretary of State to expand the collection of information about legal and beneficial ownership of land and property in England and Wales. We intend to use the power to dig deep into opaque ownership, and to control structures into narrow use cases.
First, the power will ensure that landlords responsible for the cost of remediating unsafe buildings under the Building Safety Act 2022 do not avoid their liabilities. Some are seeking to avoid their remediation responsibilities and frustrate the Act through the use of obscure structures. A targeted power will help to cut through that, and will allow us to ensure that works are carried out swiftly, so that we avoid continued costs for leaseholders and calls on the Government’s legal budget. Secondly, the power will allow the intelligence and security agencies to identify opportunities for hostile actors to misuse properties in the vicinity of sensitive sites and put national security at risk.
Clause 179 further expands the Secretary of State’s power to collect information on certain specified types of arrangements used to control land. The powers will allow us, for the first time, to collect information on arrangements used by developers and others to control land. I would like to share some facts and statistics about the extent of land control arrangements, and the impacts that the practice has on the housing market, but I cannot, because Ministers and the public are blindfolded on that point. We have no accurate data on the area of land that is subject to such controls, although we suspect that it is substantial. That means that it is hard for local authorities, communities and businesses to identify who controls developable sites. In many areas, that hampers good place-making and slows down development of new areas for people to live in and thrive in.
Collecting and publishing information about land control arrangements will give communities and local authorities a better understanding of who controls land in their area, and addresses those barriers. It will also provide Government with additional information that will allow them to understand who exercises control over land and property, even where that person is not the legal owner. It will provide the basis for assessing that hidden market and producing evidence-based policy.
To implement these powers effectively, we must retain the flexibility to respond swiftly to attempts to avoid or evade this legislation, and ensure that we have all the information we need to unpick the complex and opaque structures used by some to hide their ownership or control. Clause 180 specifies the key information that must be set out in statutory instruments before the powers under the previous two clauses can be used. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under this part of the Bill before they come into force, and all draft instruments will be laid before the House under the affirmative procedure.
Clause 181 allows for the retention, sharing within Government and publication of information collected under clauses 178 and 179. In her Second Reading speech, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), expressed concerns that we were seeking to withhold information on arrangements used by developers to control land. I am pleased to reassure her, and members of the Committee, that we will publish such data as machine-readable open data, in line with our commitments, set out in the 2017 housing White Paper, to improve the transparency of those arrangements and—our key motivations behind the measure—to make the land market more transparent and competitive.
Bearing in mind privacy and security considerations, it is the Government’s intention that other types of information collected—but not published—will be shared with and used by Government bodies to carry out their functions; for example, they could be used for the enhancement of national security and the implementation of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Clause 181 allows for the payment of fees to cover the costs of collecting that information. As our proposals are designed to work with the grain of existing processes, we expect that any fees, if charged at all, would be modest. To be clear, regulations creating any such fee must be made under the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have to approve them first.
Clause 182 allows the creation of criminal offences by regulation, so that penalties could be imposed on those who failed to comply with requirements to provide information, or who provided false or misleading information. In the overwhelming majority of cases, we expect that people will comply, but the steps that we are taking through this legislation to increase transparency about the ownership and control of property will be disruptive to dishonest actors, or those seeking to conceal their ownership or control of land and property. The stringent transparency measures are, in part, designed to deter nefarious activity or the avoidance of other initiatives aimed at increasing transparency. It would be naive to assume that there are not those who will try very hard to avoid their obligations. That is why that power is so important. The final clause in this part, clause 183, is a technical clause that sets out key definitions. I hope that is non-contentious.
In summary, together, these clauses will provide crucial tools to ensure that our property market is fair, transparent, competitive and resilient. I commend them to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Part 9 is one of the less remarked-on parts of the Bill, but it contains important measures. As the Minister outlined, it provides for enabling powers that require the disclosure of information relating to the ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information.
Labour fully supports the goal of increasing transparency and accountability in respect of the ownership and control of land that could be used for development, as well as transactional information relating to instruments, contracts and other arrangements. We agree with the Government that reform in this area has the potential to help expose anti-competitive behaviour by developers, tackle strategic land banking, aid smaller-sized enterprises to acquire land for development, facilitate more effective land assembly by local authorities and others, and help communities to better understand the likely path of development in their area. As the Minister rightly said, reform will also help to ensure that where buildings are defective in terms of building safety and require remediation, those works are undertaken as swiftly as possible.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your watchful gaze, Mr Hollobone. I do not want to add much, and I will not repeat what was said by the Minister and the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. This is an important part of the Bill. We are talking about disclosure relating to those who would seek to keep their ownership of land out of the public eye, and therefore away from the interference of local authorities and others. That is crucial, and this is an important part of the legislation. I am glad that the Government are pursuing the issue.
I echo the questions levelled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, but I also have a question. We are talking about the disclosure of information where somebody, at least, knows who owns the land. However, clarity of ownership is equally important when nobody knows who owns certain land. In communities such as mine—more than many others, I imagine—which are more rural, or semi-rural, and were first developed long ago—some areas are medieval—there are significant chunks of land that are considered to be potentially common spaces. Nobody knows who owns them. Generally speaking, the desire is not to develop them, but to enhance them as public spaces—to make use of them as parkland, children’s play areas and the like. As the Government explore this part of the Bill, it would be useful if they thought about the extent to which they are seeking clarity of ownership, or the extent to which who owns what can be adjudicated. To use a medieval term, could wastes of the parish be declared where ownership is unclear but the use of a piece of land is potentially in the hands of the local authority or local parish?
That could add real value—probably not in the development of commercial or residential property, but in terms of public amenity. In most parishes in my community, and in Cumbria as a whole, there will be at least one space that falls into that category. The issue is not just disclosure when someone is nefariously keeping the knowledge to themselves; it is clarity where there is none.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich, and for Westmorland and Lonsdale, for their broad support for this package of measures. I will do what I can to reassure them on the points that they raise, but I hope that they appreciate that we will follow up on some of them in writing. I am relatively new in post, and still getting on top of the detail. I feel as if I am doing okay, but on certain points I do not want to mislead the Committee, so I will write to ensure that I hit all the points raised.
I referenced the publication of data and its accessibility by the public. The data that is made available through machine-readable open data will be accessible to the public, but further gathered data will be retained—for instance, for national security purposes—and held by Government, but will not be publicly available.
On exemptions for information, I will write to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to clarify that point further. We aim to make the land market as transparent as possible, and as much data available to the public as possible, while ensuring that the privacy of personal data is absolutely protected. That is a very fine balance, but I hope that hon. Members appreciate that the intent is to make a more open, competitive and transparent land market, which will benefit all of us, and all parts of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 178 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 179 to 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Nigel Huddleston.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 18th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders that Mr Speaker has asked me to read out for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 184
Pavement licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The temporary streamlined route for pavement licences implemented in 2020 has been successful in supporting the expansion of outdoor dining during the covid-19 pandemic and the economic recovery. To continue supporting the hospitality sector, and to encourage better use of our high streets for our communities, we are making that measure permanent.
Clause 184 inserts a new schedule that amends the Business and Planning Act 2020, making the measure permanent subject to the amendments set out within the schedule. The clause is necessary to ensure that businesses, communities and local authorities have a sustainable process going forward, which balances the interests of all and enables better use of outdoor spaces. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 184 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Pavement licences
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 199, in schedule 17, page 321, line 27, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 1 of the 2020 Act (Pavement licences), in subsection (5)(b) at end insert ‘but includes any part of a vehicular highway which is adjacent to a highway to which part 7A applies.’.”
This amendment would enable the pavement licence to include part of the carriageway, where the carriageway were 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.
It is a pleasure to resume debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We support the principle of pavement licences, along the lines of the Minister’s introduction, but we have tabled a few amendments that would enhance them. We are interested in getting some views on the amendments, to ensure that the scheme works as well as it can, taking into consideration concerns about its implementation, whether of road users, walkers, businesses or disabled people. We need to ensure that all voices are heard, and the Bill provides a good moment to do so. As the Minister said, this was a very challenging time for business, but having gone through a dreadful couple of years of collective sacrifice we should seek to grab whatever good we can get from it.
One of the issues, with the benefit of hindsight, with the Business and Planning Act 2020, which legislated for pavement licences, is that a licensed area may take up part of the pavement but not part of the carriageway unless vehicles are already restricted or excluded from it. The existing provisions therefore protect vehicular space but reduce pedestrian space, which is contrary to the aims of “Gear Change”, the vision of the Department for Transport to make England a great walking and cycling nation. If it is right to license extra space for use for commerce, I do not think that we should put a blanket limitation on the nature of the space available, and not include highways when local space could sensibly accommodate it. Again, it would be a matter for local discretion whether it was reasonable to encroach on the space used primarily by motor vehicles, not just by pedestrians.
The amendment would allow a pavement licence to use part of the carriageway adjacent to a pavement. Local authorities would then be able to decide where it was appropriate to allow use of the carriageway. We would expect them to refuse the use of busy roads, but perhaps to license space in other roads and to use road furniture creatively, just as a build-out can accommodate a bus stop, to ensure that the space is still available in its usage. The amendment would empower local authorities, which know best in this regard, to make the decision, thereby giving a bit of flexibility. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts.
Dehenna Davison
The Government are incredibly supportive of provisions making it as easy as possible for businesses and authorities to facilitate outdoor eating and drinking through the use of the streamlined pavement licence process. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s broad support for this measure.
There are already a number of ways in which a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street—for example, through traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and through a pedestrian planning order under section 249 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That includes facilitating the placement of furniture on the highway for al fresco dining. The regimes already in place to consider pedestrianisation include important processes to allow the consideration of any issues, including whether vehicular access is required at any time of the day. Pavement licences can then be granted for highways that have been considered under those processes. We have seen the success of that in practice across the country, including in Soho in London and in the Northern Quarter in Manchester, so I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I felt that there was a contradiction, however, because she started by talking about a desire to streamline the process, but it was explained essentially as a double process. Not only will there be a pavement licence process, but the local authority will then have to do the other process that she detailed in order to change the use of the space. I am not sure that that is streamlined. Nevertheless, the facility is there to do it and I think that I have made my point, so I will not labour the argument any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a continuing pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Mr Hollobone.
The amendment moved by the official Opposition gives us something to consider. For someone who represents an area such as Cumbria, where it is always sunny and al fresco dining can therefore happen at any time throughout the year, it is hugely significant. One of the learnings in the development of the pandemic that could have a positive ongoing legacy is the move towards dining and drinking outside, and making better use of the public realm. That is a positive thing.
Let us remember that pubs in particular have never been under more pressure than they are now. We lose many every week, with people losing their livelihood and communities the thing that holds them together. It is deeply troubling to see that happen. We should allow smaller pubs especially to gain the full benefit of anything that they can from the provisions allowing use of the pavement and parts of the highway to expand capacity and therefore increase profit.
I agree, however, that with larger employers and businesses we absolutely need to ensure shared benefit from the development for two reasons. First, we are giving local authorities more responsibilities. Planning departments—we have discussed this throughout the Bill—have an enormous role to play in ensuring that communities have genuine power. If we are devolving power to communities, we have to allow planning departments that work on behalf of those communities the resources—the scope—to be able to enforce their rules. This is an additional responsibility, so we should enable additional finance to go to the planning authorities to make sure that they can uphold the rules, protect the community and ensure that the costs to the local authority, the community and the council tax payer for highways, refuse collection and other things are borne jointly.
Secondly, many people will observe that throughout there has been a disconnect between the interests of the local authority and the business community. The proposed measure would integrate them—the fact that there is joint benefit shows that it is in the interests of the council tax payer and the business rate payer to do the same thing. Organised synergy is almost a consequence of the two amendments, which is why they are important. I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
Dehenna Davison
The thing that is most wonderful about today is that only seven minutes into the Committee’s sitting, we have found some cross-party agreement, which is on the quality and value of a good pub garden. I hope that at some point we can share a pint in one, when the Bill Committee is over.
Clearly, in my last few trips, I have been in Cumbria on those incredibly rare rainy days, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a good point that pub and hospitality businesses are under pressure. According to our most recent stats, 73% of hospitality firms have outstanding debt as a result of the pandemic, so at this point we really do not want to put additional undue pressure on businesses.
In developing the proposals to make the streamlined pavement licensing process permanent, we have worked closely with local authorities, business, leaders of the hospitality sector and the community. That is why we are increasing the fee cap from £100. We will take detailed analysis of the actual cost to create a sustainable process, which will cover the cost to local authorities of processing, monitoring and enforcing the powers, while remaining affordable and consistent for businesses around the country. Businesses have seen inflated fees reaching thousands of pounds per application under the previous process.
Local authorities maintain flexibility to set fees at any level under the fee cap, to respond to local circumstances. For example, we have seen some areas make licences completely free in order to support their local high street. At a time of rising costs, we are not seeking to impose additional charges on business, in particular given that the hospitality industry was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. His point about joint benefit is a good way to characterise this—we do not envisage a situation in which business and local authorities scrap it out, but take a sharing approach, with the benefit going to local rate payers as well.
I am also grateful for the Minister’s response. She addressed well the point on cost, and we would not want local authorities and therefore rate payers to be out of pocket for the processes, so there should be cost recovery. However, I do not think she has addressed the point on the enhanced value through use of a public asset. As drafted, the amendment is not quite ready for inclusion in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the point that it makes. We will certainly return to it in due course, but for the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
Under the current provisions of the 2020 Act, the application and consultation process for a pavement licence do not adequately protect the public interest, particularly with regard to having suitable time to engage in a consultation. As it stands, the process is such that the applicant for the licence must immediately display a notice on their premises. The date of the application is the date on which it is sent to the local authority and that display is made. The local authority must then publicise the application for public comment. The public consultation period lasts seven days, starting the day after the application has been made. The Bill amends that to 14 days—that is welcome—but that is the sole change to the process. We think the process could be further improved and my amendments seek to do that.
Amendment 200 delays the date on which the application is deemed to have been made until the local authority issues a receipt. That delays the start of the clock on the public consultation period until the local authority has been able to act and do something about it. Amendment 201 builds on the increase to 14 days and instead increases the period to 28 days, therefore protecting the public with such a period of engagement. As the 2020 Act currently applies, if the local authority fails to publicise the application until a week after receipt, the public have no time to respond. That is assuming that they have not seen the site notice, and we know there is a challenge there. That cannot be right or fair for the public, and is probably reflected in the decision to move to 14 days. However, we still think that is not enough time, especially if we consider that we are often talking about the summertime. We know local authorities already have limited resources. If the appropriate officer is away or unavailable, there might be a delay to that process, when the clock is running down and the public do not know that.
That is worthy of consideration in and of itself, to ensure that the right balance is struck regarding the public interest. I am also interested in the Minister’s views on the following matter. In the 2020 Act, section 3(6) says that there may be circumstances in which the granting of a licence would have unacceptable effects on the use of a highway. That makes sense because, otherwise, why have a process? There are circumstances where the answer might be no. However, at the moment, if the local authority does not act quickly enough, the licence is granted notwithstanding those effects. There is a contradiction there. Can the Minister say whether the Government wish to draw the line at 14 days? Is it clear that there could not be a situation where what ought to be a rejected grant could, through delay, be granted anyway?
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for his clarity on the purpose of his amendments. The pavement licence process that we are seeking to make permanent has been successful over the past few years because it provides a simpler and more streamlined process to gain the licence. We feel that the amendments would place unnecessary new administrative processes on local authorities by requiring a receipt to be sent to all applicants. They also have the potential to create a delay in the process, meaning that licences could take longer to be determined should receipts not be processed within reasonable timescales. We are, however, seeking to double the consultation and determination periods, compared with the temporary process, to ensure that communities have sufficient opportunities to comment on applications.
We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the consultation period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with those groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that process is sustainable for the long term and gives communities an opportunity to comment on applications. That is why we are setting the consultation period at 14 days—double that of the temporary process. We feel that the amendments would create a slower process than that which it replaces, adding unnecessary administrative burdens for local authorities.
The shadow Minister is correct that if the local authority does not decide within the 28 days, the licence will be deemed granted, but local authorities still hold control, as they are able to publish conditions in advance that will automatically apply to any deemed licence. That provides an additional layer of protection, so I kindly ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 17, page 322, line 31, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
“7 (1) Section 3 of the 2020 Act (determination) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) A local authority, in deciding whether to grant a pavement licence under subsection (3), shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the free flow of pedestrians and other road users along the highway, and the avoidance of inconvenience to such persons.’.”
This amendment would confer discretion on a local authority to have regard to the needs of road users in deciding whether to grant a pavement licence.
As I said in the previous debate, under the 2020 Act the local authority can refuse to grant licences that prevent traffic from passing along the highway or that inhibit the passage of, say, mobility scooters. However, the Act is not clear—I want to test the Minister’s views on this—about whether a local authority can refuse a licence that inhibits or unduly influences the free flow of people or their enjoyment of the public amenity. For example, what if an authority believed that the use of the licence would substantially interfere with the free flow of pedestrians or cycles at a peak time or deprive people of the use of street facilities such as benches? If residents living nearby, or in flats above shops, would be disturbed by the use of the licence above and beyond what we would normally expect under the alcohol licensing process, would an authority be able to refuse the licence on that ground alone? The Government’s guidance states that
“1500mm clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway”,
but 1.5 metres is not a particularly generous allowance in a shopping street. Would the Minister be comfortable with a local authority seeking more than that?
The amendment proposes a solution to the examples I have listed. It proposes that an authority should be able to refuse a licence if the use of it would interfere with pedestrian flow—for example, if it would leave the pavement so narrow that pedestrians might feel they had to step into the carriageway to pass each other, which obviously is not very desirable. I am keen to test the Minister’s views on that, and to get on record the level of flexibility that local authorities have to balance the enjoyment of the amenity across various, possibly competing, interests.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for raising an important issue that local authorities must consider when determining applications, which is the continuing flow of pedestrians and other road users on the highway. The Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take that into consideration when determining applications through section 3(6), and it prevents licences from being granted where they would prevent pedestrians or other non-vehicular traffic from entering or passing along the highway or having normal access to premises adjoining the highway.
Ensuring that pavements remain accessible to everyone, including disabled people, is a condition of the temporary pavement licences issued by councils. Where that condition is not met, licences can be revoked. To provide some reassurance, we have worked with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to refine the guidance to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of people who are blind when setting conditions and making these decisions.
We have carefully considered the issue of minimum distances, which the shadow Minister raised, and we judge that we should leave some room for reasonable local discretion, given the different physical environments involved. However, we have made it clear that 1.5 metres will be the minimum acceptable width in most circumstances. We therefore resist the amendment on the basis that the existing legislative framework already requires local authorities to consider these issues, and they cannot grant a licence if pedestrians are prevented from using the highway as they usually would. I therefore kindly urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 202, in schedule 17, page 322, line 32, leave out “14” and insert “28”.
This amendment would allow a local authority 28 days to determine the application, instead of 14.
If this feels a bit like a replay of the debate on amendments 200 and 201, I assure colleagues that it is slightly different—they might just have to squint to see that.
At the moment, the Bill retains the stringent regime whereby a local authority must determine an application for a pavement licence within a fixed period. Formerly, that period was seven days; it will now be 14 days. If the local authority fails to do so, the application is deemed to have been granted. Labour wanted to extend the period for consultation purposes, but we have not succeeded. I want to test the point of potentially amending it to give the local authority
“28 days to determine…instead of 14”,
as it says in amendment 202.
We remember well the quick passage of legislation during the early knockings of the pandemic. As the Minister said, the industry was struggling and we needed to support it, and quick action was integral to that. The times for consultation and determination in the 2020 Act reflected that, but now that we do not have such time pressures, it is reasonable to expect a little more time for determination, not least because local authorities are hard-pressed. They will probably have only a single person, not teams of people, working on these applications.
The two-week period would not align with most applications people might make to their local authorities. For example, it would certainly not align with an alcohol licence—ordinarily, that would not be determined in 14 days, and it definitely would not be deemed to be granted if the clock had run out. Labour feels that having a little more time—28 days, rather than that two-week period—would give space for creative solutions in line with those the Minister set out in the previous debate and would ensure a fair balance between the business, the public and the local authority.
Dehenna Davison
We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the determination period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with those groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that the process is sustainable for the long term and gives local authorities sufficient time to consider any issues and determine the application. That is why we are setting the determination period at 14 days—double that of the temporary process.
I refer the shadow Minister to comments I made on the previous amendment. Local authorities can publish conditions in advance, which will automatically apply to any deemed licence. However, even if a licence is granted, local communities will still be able to contact local authorities about any concerns they have, and authorities will have enforcement powers to tackle any issues raised. We deem that the period is lengthy enough, but local authorities will of course continue to have those enforcement powers should any issues arise. We fear that the amendment would create a slower process than that which it replaces. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Alex Norris
It absolutely would create a slower process, but that was the intention. I will not press it to a Division, but I hope the Minister will reflect on the fact that it seems considerably out of kilter with other decisions of this nature that are made for licences and permits. I cannot think of another that would be as quick as 14 days, with a deemed acceptance if the clock runs out. In those others cases—say, for a parking permit or an alcohol licence—there is good reason to have a little time for reflection, and I think those reasons probably apply here.
This is perhaps not a point to labour any further today, but I hope the Minister will keep thinking about it. We could be in danger of being just a little too streamlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 206, in schedule 17, page 323, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) (1) Section 5 of the 2020 Act (conditions), is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(7A) The conditions to which a licence granted by a local authority may be subject include—
(a) a condition that any furniture which may be placed on the highway under the licence must be removed from the highway at times when the premises are not open to the public;
(b) a condition that, where the furniture to be put on the relevant highway consists of seating for use by persons for the purpose of consuming food or drink, the licence-holder must ensure that smoking or vaping does not affect others.’.
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) But regulations under subsection (8) must not prevent a local authority imposing a condition, nor affect a condition imposed by a local authority for the purposes of subsection (7A)(b).’”
This amendment would allow a local authority to require that furniture is removed from the highway when it is not in use, as well as imposing a condition to require the licensee to prevent smoke-drift affecting those in the vicinity.
Me again. Sections 5(4) to (6) of the 2020 Act cover the imposition in a licence of a “no-obstruction condition” and a “smoke-free seating condition”. These conditions require the licensee to avoid the effects specified in section 3(6), including
“preventing traffic, other than vehicular traffic, from…passing along the relevant highway”
and to make reasonable provision for seating where no smoking is permitted. The Bill does not affect these requirements, which the Opposition support. However, we might want to tighten up these provisions to ensure they have the desired effect.
Local authorities are already required to impose a smoke-free seating condition to ensure that reasonable provision is made to accommodate non-smokers. A smoke-free seating condition, however, does not give the public, people using the highway or neighbouring premises, or people living above the premises explicit protection to ensure that their enjoyment of the amenity is not affected by people smoking. Smokers are more likely to go to outdoor tables because they cannot smoke inside, and that can throw down a gauntlet, in that the public have to run through a cloud of smoke.
Amendment 206 would expressly enable local authorities not just to lay down conditions about smoke-free seating, but to require in those conditions that the licensed area should not affect passers-by, neighbouring shops or homes. If, for example, there are flats above a café, a condition could require steps to avoid the occupiers being affected by smoke drift. We are seeking a balance, so that people using a highway can do so peacefully and with the full enjoyment of the amenity. I hope the Minister will say that local authorities can already do that, but if that is not the case and if this amendment is not the right answer—though I think the principle is likely one that is shared—how do local authorities ensure that balance for people?
Dehenna Davison
I thank the shadow Minister for his dedication on this point. Pavement licences may be granted subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. We are aware anecdotally of conditions that would, for instance, require licensed furniture to be removed when not in use and that go further than our national smoke-free condition.
We are all about empowering local areas and relying on local leadership. That is why we consider that local authorities have the local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions, should they consider that necessary. A number of local authorities have already implemented local smoking ban conditions for outdoor seating, including the City of Manchester, Newcastle and North Tyneside, so it is clear that local conditions can be implemented where it is appropriate and desired. On that basis, we do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions, and there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate on a local level. I would therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that very clear answer. There are areas where this is still a point of debate. I think the Minister’s answer alone will resolve that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dehenna Davison
The Government recognise the importance of having a system that can be properly enforced to deter and tackle the unauthorised placement of furniture. Powers introduced in the Bill enable local authorities to serve notice requiring that businesses remove furniture that has been placed on the pavement without a licence. If that notice is contravened, local authorities can remove furniture themselves or issue an instruction to have it removed, and can then recover the costs of that and go on to sell the furniture and retain the profits.
The Government’s position is that the introduction of the powers proposed will lead to appropriate protection of our communities by giving local authorities powers that work as a deterrent and to directly tackle issues where notices are ignored, ensuring that the licensing system operates appropriately. Ultimately, local authorities will still have the power to revoke a licence.
It is also important to note that highways authorities already have powers in the Highways Act 1980 to tackle obstructions on the highway. That includes section 148, which creates an offence of depositing, without lawful authority or excuse, things that cause interruption to users of the highway.
The shadow Minister mentioned some of the groups that he has worked with, and I would be delighted to sit down with him to discuss their response. However, at this stage, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that. It is of note that those who know of what they speak in this area, particularly on a day-to-day basis, feel the way they do. However, the Minister’s offer is a good one and I will take her up on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clause 185
Historic environment records
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 185, page 190, line 2, leave out “an historic environment record” and insert
“or have access to an historic environment record and adequate specialist advisory capacity”
This amendment is intended to ensure that all current models for service provision of HERs are covered by the provisions of Clause 185 and that HERs have access to specialist archaeologists and conservation officers.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We are making good progress. Although the provision in the legislation on historic environment records is good in itself, it simply does not go far enough. My amendment calls for specialist archaeologists and conservation officers to be engaged in the planning process to a greater degree.
Historic environment records extensively map the physically accessible historic environment and archaeological areas. However, they do not come with a voice, a brain or context. The amendment, which is supported by those who work in the field, recognises the unique importance of specialist archaeologists and conservation officers in the process and the need to draw on their skills and expertise to advance the understanding of a site, which often is missed when just looking at historic records.
Although HERs are an important starting point, it is about the interpretation of the relevance of a site and using that specialist knowledge combined with the records that makes a significant impact on the site and makes it significant. Eighty areas in England are covered by HERs; two thirds of records are held online and are accessible via local authorities. An archaeologist can interpret the HER data, bringing it to life, placing it into context and giving the site relevance, weighing the possibilities and asking the challenging questions about that site: why is it there? What is it about? How does it impact on us, past and present?
I use York as an example of the discoveries made, because there have been so many incredibly significant finds in the city that have led to further exploration and understanding of the context of our history. Ensuring that we engage specialist archaeologists and conservation officers extends the understanding of our past and the influences on us. In York there have been so many finds on the Coppergate site. People think about the Jorvik centre, but behind that is the understanding of our city as an international place of trade, and what that meant then and today for diversity in our country and where we all come from. Those issues are so important in the archaeological context, but we would not get that from an HER. That is why it is so important to extend the legislation to ensure that we have those minds and that knowledge applied to the records, to ensure that there is significance.
I think about the Richard III finding in Leicester. Had the minds not been there, that site could have so quickly been missed. Yet the discovery of Richard III has given a huge economic opportunity for that city, not least from tourism. It is important that the skills that we have educated people in, which they have applied in their science and their art, can be brought into the process. That will ensure that we have the specialist archaeological and conservation officers’ engagement with the historic environment records, which will give real value to this process and ensure that we are not just looking at a paper exercise, but using the science and arts of archaeology and conservation to ensure the value of that site and build it into the identity of the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for introducing this amendment. We agree that historic environment records are an important source of information about the historic environment of any given area, especially its archaeology. I defer to the hon. Member for York Central in terms of her knowledge of the history, particularly in her area. HERs can help the public learn more about where they live and ensure that local plans and planning decisions are informed by an understanding of an area’s history. I am glad that the hon. Lady and others have broadly welcomed clause 185 and the fact that we are putting historic environment records on a statutory footing for the first time. I know that the heritage sector has warmly welcomed that as well.
I completely understand the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment. The first philosophical question we have to deal with is not whether this is a good thing in principle, but whether it is necessary to have it in primary legislation. My gentle challenge to the hon. Lady—and the reason that in a moment I will ask her to withdraw her amendment—is that I am not convinced this necessarily needs to be put forward in primary legislation in this instance, given what I am about to outline and the fact that there will be other opportunities for her to make her case and for the Government to consider what is possible.
Furthermore, though I understand the intent behind the amendment, we are concerned that the wording may potentially water down some of the statutory duties of local authorities, if it is looked at in certain ways. It may also be inconsistent with the current drafting of subsections (4) and (5), which provides for how the duty should be discharged by a local authority. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Lady, but it is something that has been raised by officials in discussion and appropriate assessment of this. Consequently, I will ask the hon. Lady if she would be minded to withdraw her amendment. She may be aware that we intend to publish accompanying guidance alongside the intention of putting HERs on a statutory footing. That will give some clearer views about how those records can be maintained. If she is willing, we will be happy to receive more detail about her concerns, and I will ask that officials give those concerns complete consideration when we are creating that guidance. I hope that some of the understandable concerns she has outlined today can be assuaged through that process. Therefore I will ask the hon. Member if she is content to withdraw her amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I welcome the Minister to his place. I take the challenge straight on. First, I reiterate the point that records themselves do not have application—they are presented in the way they are but they do not have a voice, they do not have context and understanding and they certainly do not have a brain, though they are written by those who do. Of course, archaeology is about a process and a journey; it is not static, but is moving the whole time. Therefore that context is really important to engage with.
I issue a challenge back to the Minster on the matter of watering down the role of local authorities. We all have a huge responsibility to preserve our heritage, understand our history and ensure that we are using the science of that. I know that archaeologists know more about science than we do, but we draw on the opportunities that that presents, which takes us into a stronger future as well as having commercial benefits. However, I am heartened to hear that there will be guidance that looks specifically at HERs and their application. I hope that when drafting the guidance the Minister ensures that specialist archaeologist resources are drawn on, as well as that of conservation officers, so that the maximum opportunity can be derived from looking at the historical context within the planning system. I will closely examine that guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
I will not detain the Committee for long. Historic environment records are, as we have just discussed, an information service that provides access to comprehensive and dynamic historic environment resources. They relate, as the hon. Member for York Central indicated, to a defined geographical area, for public benefit and use. They are important sources of information for plan makers and applicants, as well as for the public and other Government bodies. We seek to put them on a statutory basis in order to provide clarity for the sector and those who wish to use the records. The clause will make it a statutory requirement that all local authorities maintain a historic environment record, which must be kept up to date, be maintained to an agreed standard, contain specified information as a minimum, and be publicly accessible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 185 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 186
Review of governance etc of RICS
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
The clause enables the Secretary of State to commission, from time to time, reviews of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS, as many hon. Members will know, is the leading professional body for surveyors. Its members work across the UK, and RICS plays a vital role in these sectors. The guidance RICS publishes is valued by surveyors, industry and members of the public. The clause will enable reviews into RICS’s governance and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. The clause does not prescribe the frequency of reviews, but gives the Secretary of State the necessary power and flexibility to further specify the scope and timing of any review that is required.
The Government do not envisage enacting a review of RICS on a regular or specified basis, so long as RICS demonstrates its effectiveness and is reviewing its own performance to the satisfaction of Government and Parliament, but should a review be required the clause sets out that the person the Secretary of State appoints to carry out the review must be independent of both the Secretary of State and RICS. The reviewer must submit a written report setting out the results and any recommendations of the review to the Secretary of State, who will publish a copy of the report. The clause does not include powers for the Secretary of State to act on any such findings or recommendations; they would need the explicit approval of Parliament. That will ensure that the Government have the ability in law to review whether RICS is performing in the public interest, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose of the clause, but he will be aware that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has expressed deep concerns about its precise wording, not least in terms of the precedent that it would set in relation to Government interference in other royal chartered bodies.
The issue is not the need for RICS to undergo periodic reviews of its governance and performance. Following the September 2021 publication of the Levitt report into the events that took place within the institution in 2018 and 2019, and the subsequent independent review undertaken by Lord Bichard, which examined its purpose, governance and strategy, RICS’s governing council accepted that regular independent reviews should take place, with their findings laid before Parliament and the devolved nations. The case for periodic independent reviews is therefore uncontested.
From what the Minister said, I think what remains the point of contention is whether the Secretary of State should be given the power to commission reviews of RICS, the scope and frequency of which are not clearly defined in the Bill, or whether the clause should be revised to reflect the commitments made by the institution in the light of Lord Bichard’s independent review. Given the serious concerns expressed by RICS, I will probe the Minister further on the Government’s rationale for the clause’s wording. Can he set out more clearly why, given that RICS’s governing council has made it clear that it accepts recommendation 14 of Lord Bichard’s review in full and will implement it subject to Privy Council approval, the Government believe that they still need to legislate to ensure that the Secretary of State can initiate reviews of RICS whenever they choose, as well as determine their scope?
Can the Minister also outline how such periodic reviews initiated by the Secretary of State using the powers in the clause would differ, if at all, from the parameters of independent reviews as outlined in paragraph 3.22 of Lord Bichard’s review, and accepted in principle by RICS? Can he reassure the Committee that the Government have given serious consideration to the potential impact of approving this clause unamended on not only RICS’s independence and ability to act in the public interest but the status of royal chartered bodies more widely?
As I say, we have no issue with the clause in principle, and we do not suggest that it should be removed from the Bill entirely; there is clearly a need to act to ensure that RICS is subject to regular independent review. However, we want the Government to properly justify the inclusion of the clause as worded in the Bill, rather than amending it to reflect developments following the publication of Lord Bichard’s review. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions, which are entirely reasonable and on which I hope to provide some assurance. First, he asked why the Government are asking for this power, given that the Bichard review has outlined a process to resolve the current situation. The view of the Government and of previous Ministers who instigated this was that a process was likely to be under way, but equally there is value in the Secretary of State having this power, should it ever be necessary in the future, which obviously we hope it would not, and we have indicated that it would be used extremely sparingly. The principle of having the ability to instigate a review is one that the Government believe is reasonable and proportionate.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked how the terms of reference would differ from an independent review. That question would have to be asked in individual circumstances, so I hope he will accept that it is a difficult one to answer. However, I understand the sentiments behind the point he makes.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government have given serious consideration to the impact of this approach on the ability of RICS and other bodies to operate. I am happy to confirm that the Government and I will engage in discussion with RICS about this in the coming weeks before further stages of the Bill, and I will be keen to discuss with RICS all elements of the Bill, to understand its concerns and to see what reassurances I can provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 186 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 187
Vagrancy and begging
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dehenna Davison
We recognise that this is an issue on which there is a great deal of passion and heart. The Government agreed that the Vagrancy Act 1824 was antiquated and not fit for purpose. That is why we committed to repeal the Act once an appropriate and modern replacement was in place. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so passionately on this issue, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
It is important that we balance our role in providing essential support for the most vulnerable with ensuring that the police and other agencies can protect communities, while embedding rehabilitation and support at the heart of our approach. We launched a public consultation to seek views and inform any replacement for the Vagrancy Act. This placeholder clause will allow Government to introduce appropriate legislation once the results of the public consultation have been analysed.
In the meantime, the Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament. We remain steadfastly committed to that goal. By autumn last year, rough sleeping levels were at an eight-year low, having reduced by 49% since 2017. In September we published a bold new rough sleeping strategy, backed by £2 billion of public money, which sets out how we will end rough sleeping for good. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell
I, too, rise in disgust at the piece of legislation before us today, and I urge the Government to think again. It is an insult not only to Parliament, which strongly voted to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824 just this year, but to those incredibly vulnerable people who find themselves on our streets, for whatever reason. It is not for us to judge them; we should provide support and pathways for people out of that situation.
Yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the new Chancellor announced a new era of compassionate Conservatism. Today, we have this legislation before us, which is anything but. It is about othering people—the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about calling them out, and using despicable language to describe them: “vagabonds” and “rogues”. These people are incredibly troubled. Today, language has moved on. We recognise that people who have serious mental health problems or addictions need support. We recognise people who simply do not have the money to survive in our society. That population is growing. There are three people officially registered as on the streets in York, yet when I went out the other morning, there were 23 people sleeping rough.
This is not just about people who are sleeping rough. Many people who are living in hostel accommodation, sofa surfing, and so on find themselves begging on the street. Many people I talk to—and this is where the Government must engage with the community—simply find applying for social security too complicated. They are fed up of being rejected by the complex process of getting access to the public money to which they are entitled. They therefore turn to begging as a mechanism by which to survive, feed themselves and get through the day or night. Many people have multiple challenges pressing down on them, including financial debt and other things that they owe.
To put into legislation once again, having just repealed them, measures that criminalise people who are trying to find their pathway through life—trying to survive—is an abomination. It is completely unacceptable to criminalise those individuals. This measure is not just about civil penalties; it is about the criminalisation of the most vulnerable people. Any compassionate Government would reach out and recognise their duty, and would recognise their blame and responsibility for allowing people to fall into that state. The language used is horrific. It is a horrific piece of legislation. I urge the Government to U-turn on it, and will praise them for it if they do. It is prejudicial and insulting, and it is certainly not beign done in my name, or in the name of my hon. Friends who are signed up to the amendment, which is significant.
Although the Conservative party is desperately trying to rebrand itself, deep down the roots of prejudice seem to continue to exist. If this Government spent time with those vulnerable people across our society, and understood their pathways and stories, they would not write such appalling pieces of legislation. It is not for any of us to judge those individuals, or to place our prejudices on them. It is for us to provide support and pathways out, so that they have the future that we have been afforded, and the opportunities we have had the privilege of having. We need to enable people to have that fresh start, however many attempts it takes. We need restitution and opportunity, not blame and criminalisation of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is therefore disgraceful to see this measure before us, and I trust that the Minister will withdraw the clause.
Dehenna Davison
The hon. Lady made a very good point when she said that it is for us not to judge, but to provide support and pathways, and the Government are absolutely committed to that. I have already outlined the rough sleeping strategy, which was announced just a few weeks ago.
I want to reassure the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed—we have repeatedly been clear about this—to not criminalising anybody simply for having nowhere to live. The intent of any replacement legislation will not be to criminalise people for being homeless. I want to put that point very firmly on the record.
On our support for rough sleepers, we want to ensure that rough sleeping is ended in a way that is sustainable in the long term. That means preventing people from needing to sleep rough where possible and, where rough sleeping does occur, ensuring that those spells are rare, brief and non-recurring. We recently published our strategy, which is backed by more than £2 billion of funding over the next three years. As part of that, we announced the new £200 million single homelessness accommodation programme, which aims to provide up to 2,400 supported homes for rough sleepers by March 2025, and £500 million to provide 14,000 beds for rough sleepers and 3,000 staff to provide tailored support across England. That support is absolutely crucial in ensuring that those who are homeless can get back on their feet. The support includes helping individuals to find work, manage their finances and access mental and physical health services. We will fully enforce the landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which we believe is the most ambitious reform to homelessness legislation in decades.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister is asking us to have faith that the Government do not want to criminalise rough sleeping, but is asking us to approve a clause that will allow them to do just that. We are not debating what the Government are doing on rough sleeping; we are debating this legislation.
Dehenna Davison
That is why I made the point about the consultation we are running. We want to make sure that we get this right, which is why we sought views on this issue in a public consultation that closed in May. Analysis of those responses is ongoing and will form the backbone of our response to any new legislation. The measure is a placeholder until we can bring something forward. I recognise that it is not an ideal situation, but that is where we are.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to challenge the Minister on that point. If I heard her correctly, I think she said that the intention behind the clause is not to recriminalise homelessness.
Matthew Pennycook
Can she explain why subsection (2) allows regulations to include provision to create criminal offences, in similar ways to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which the House voted to repeal? It effectively will allow for the recriminalisation of homelessness. I think she is wrong on that point, but if she could provide further clarification, I would appreciate it.
Dehenna Davison
As I outlined, this is a placeholder, and we are analysing the consultation responses. The commitment I have given is that no criminalisation will result from the fact that someone is homeless. I want to put that point on the record incredibly strongly.
I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I have spoken to the Minister with responsibility for rough sleeping, who has committed to writing to Committee members to outline the next steps. As I say, this issue does not usually sit within my brief, but we are limited by the number of Ministers we can have in Committee today. Hopefully, that Minister will be able to provide additional reassurance.
Rachael Maskell
This measure was not brought forward in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, so we have had a period in which the Government have not had the opportunity to criminalise people for being homeless or begging on our streets. Nothing has changed since Parliament as a whole gave the Government a clear indication that it wanted to see off a 200-year-old piece of legislation, yet today, Government are trying to resurrect the opportunity to criminalise people.
The Minister says that there is no need for the measure, but it is hardwired into the legislation. It is the text of the statute, not what the Minister says, that decides what the Government have the capacity to do. The clause is completely unnecessary, yet the Government push it before us. Will the Minister explain the context of having such measures written into the Bill? We have not had them for the past six months; indeed, she says, while still analysing her consultation, that we will not need them moving forward. The measure is seen as a draconian move, and should be taken out of law.
Dehenna Davison
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for her passion on this issue, which is prevalent in the City of York, and she has campaigned on it well and strongly in recent years. The best thing that I can do is ask the Minister with responsibility for homelessness to write to her directly. Indeed, he has committed to writing to all Committee members to set out the next step. I hope that he can provide some reassurance. However, at this stage, I ask that the clause remain part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 187 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 188
Data protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
The clause stipulates that any duty or power in the Bill, or provision made under the Bill, to disclose or use information must be in accordance with data protection legislation. This is subject to an exception, which I will come to, that provides for “data protection legislation” to be interpreted in line with the definition in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a standard provision to make it clear that relevant provisions in the Bill are subject to data protection legislation. As was discussed in the debate on the planning data clauses, the Government are clear that nothing in the Bill should jeopardise the proper protection of data.
Hon. Members will note the exception from the clause: they will immediately recall that clause 77, which is part of our digital powers, will enable the open publication of prescribed planning information to anyone for free. Clause 77(2) ensures that planning authorities cannot publish planning data that is otherwise restricted in law, including under the DPA. The exclusion in clause 188 preserves that position. There is therefore no intention to allow our digital powers to operate outside the framework of data protection legislation.
Clause 189 provides that the Bill will bind the Crown, except where it amends legislation that does not bind the Crown. There are two exceptions to that: part 8 does not apply to the Crown in relation to land that is Crown land for the purposes of part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and part 9 does not apply in relation to land belonging to His Majesty in right of his private estates.
Clause 190 is a technical provision that sets out the abbreviations used throughout the Bill in order to ensure that the abbreviations used are clear and consistent. Finally, clause 191 provides a power to make consequential provision, which includes the power to amend primary legislation to ensure that the statute book remains coherent and legally operative as a result of the provisions made in or under the Bill through regulations. It confers no power to make policy changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 188 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 189 to 191 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 192
Regulations
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 192, page 195, line 7, at end insert “(fa) under Part 8;”.
This amendment corrects a drafting omission by applying the negative procedure to regulations under Part 8 (unless they amend primary legislation, in which case the affirmative procedure will apply under the existing drafting of the clause).
The amendment relates to the high streets rental auctions measures in part 8 of the Bill and seeks to correct a drafting omission. Clause 192 prescribes the parliamentary process applicable to the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State. Under the existing drafting, the affirmative procedure applies to regulations made under clause 176, or where they amend primary legislation, which is the case for regulations made under clauses 152 and 160.
Lee Rowley
This series of clauses covers a number of technical matters in the Bill. Hon. Members will have noted the number of delegated powers taken by the Bill. Clause 192 deals in particular with the parliamentary procedure to be followed in making certain of those regulations. It also allows those regulations, for example, to deal with incidental or transitional matters arising from them. It is a standard provision found in legislation, and allows us to protect against unintended disruption of the legal position.
The Committee has already debated specific delegated powers in the substantive clauses. My predecessors and colleagues have already committed to consulting on various regulations to be made under powers in the Bill. That will ensure that the public and sector stakeholders are brought into the detailed design of the new policies that the Bill will introduce. The delegated powers memorandum published alongside the Bill sets out the Government’s view on the necessity of the powers, and the approach to scrutiny as a result.
Clause 193 authorises the spending of money for the purposes of this Bill. It is a standard provision included in Bills that incur costs on the public purse. Hon. Members will note that clause 194 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part. As a consequence, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 192, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 193 and 194 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 195
Commencement and transitional provision
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 197, in clause 195, page 197, line 1, after “sections 107” insert
“, (Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications)”.
This amendment provides that the clause inserted by NC60 will come into force two months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 60—Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications.
Lee Rowley
The Government and the country need to ensure that world-class sustainable infrastructure can be consented to, vitally, in a manner that can support our ambitions for economic growth. To achieve that, we must have a robust planning system that is able to accelerate infrastructure delivery and to meet the forecast demands and complexity of projects coming forward in order to attract strong investment in infrastructure. Through these changes, the planning system can continue to lead in its approach to supporting the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, which incentivises investment and makes it quicker to deliver that infrastructure.
The Government have an ambition in the national infrastructure strategy for some development consent applications entering the system from September next year to go through the process up to 50% faster from the start of pre-application to decision, but to achieve that a national infrastructure planning reform programme was established to refresh how the nationally significant infrastructure project works and to make it more effective and deliver better and faster outcomes. New clause 60, as a consequence, will amend the part of the existing NSIP process that concerns the examination of a development consent order application. Under existing legislation, the relevant Secretary of State can set an extended deadline for the examination of an application for development consent, but there is no corresponding legislative power to enable the same Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for such an examination.
Our measure will rectify that, providing the means for the Secretary of State to set a shorter examination period for projects that meet quality standards as part of wider NSIP reform and the fast-track consenting route that we plan to put in place, as set out in the energy security strategy. The mechanisms and criteria that could trigger the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State will be set out in supporting guidance and we will commit to consulting on that in due course. I commend these measures to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
We have serious concerns about the potential implications of Government new clause 60, which, as the Minister has made clear, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose a shorter statutory timeframe for the examination stage of some NSIP applications.
In the policy note entitled “Improving performance of the NSIP planning process and supporting local authorities”, which was published in August to accompany the tabling of the Government new clause, the rationale cited for its introduction is specifically the need significantly to reduce the time it takes to gain consent for offshore wind projects in order to realise the commitment set out in the British energy security strategy. That objective is entirely laudable, but while we support efforts to improve the overall performance of the DCO system—a reform, after all, introduced by the last Labour Government to expedite decisions on large-scale infrastructure projects—the Government have not provided any convincing evidence that the length of the DCO examination stage is the reason why project consents can take too long to secure.
As the Minister will know, the DCO system already specifies a fixed timeframe of nine months for the planning inspectorate to make a final decision, with only six of those months being allocated to the examination stage. The Minister might have some convincing evidence that he can share with the Committee to explain why the six-month examination process is the reason why the Government believe that offshore wind projects are taking up to four years to gain consent, but we are not aware of any such evidence that has been published.
Allowing an appropriate time for a DCO examination is important not only because that enables inspectors to gather and analyse all the available evidence and the social and environmental impacts of projects properly to be interrogated, but because it is the part of the statutory process in which communities have a say over developments that are often likely to have a significant impact on their lives. If the Government want to hand themselves the power to curtail the timeframe in which that important part of the DCO process takes place, we feel strongly that they need to bring forward the evidence to justify such a measure, and they have not done so yet.
However, beyond that in-principle concern over reducing the time available for the public to engage with a detailed process, there is a further reason why we are concerned about the possible implications of the Government new clause, which is that its scope is not limited simply to offshore wind projects. Instead, the powers provided to the Secretary of State by the measure will seemingly apply to all DCO applications and any large-scale infrastructure project that meets as-yet-to-be-specified qualifying criteria.
To take a topical example, the powers could be applied to schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production, which I know is of deep concern to the new housing Minister and other Government Members. With the Government having abandoned their manifesto commitment by signalling the end of the fracking moratorium and with UK onshore oil and gas already gearing up to convince Ministers to designate fracking projects as nationally significant, the obvious concern about Government new clause 60 is that the Government will use it to facilitate fracking applications with only the most limited opportunity for local communities to have their say on them. That concern is made more acute by the fact that Ministers have so far failed to provide any detail on precisely how it will be determined that local consent for fracking schemes exists.
Given the serious nature of those concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, what evidence do the Government have that the examination phase of the DCO process is unduly holding up consent for offshore wind and other large-scale renewable energy projects? Secondly, given that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to set an unspecified date for a deadline below the current six-month timeframe for DCO examinations, can the Minister give us a sense of how much shorter the Government believe the examination stage should be under the proposed fast-tracked DCO application process? Thirdly, when will the Government tell us what the qualifying criteria will be for large-scale infrastructure projects subject to shorter examination stage timeframes via this route? Lastly, do the Government intend to designate schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production as “nationally significant” and bring them within the purview of this new fast-tracked DCO process—yes or no? I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to returning no doubt to this matter as we consider the Bill further.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Again, they are entirely reasonable and I will answer as many of them as I can. We recognise that this is a change to the approach, but it is a change that comes directly from a recognition, which I hope we all share, that where there is a desire to move quicker on important infrastructure for this country that we are able to do that. We have an in-principle ability to extend this process, which has been in place for a number of years, and—although I do not know the history—presumably ever since the Labour party started this process a number of years ago, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. Given that, it is not necessarily conceptually problematic that we have the ability to vary that in the other direction, while accepting the understandable challenge of ensuring that there are appropriate reassurances within the process that mean that it will be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidence base and working through all the detail and ensuring that it is reasonable and proportionate, we are trying to establish the principle that while there is already an ability to vary this timeline in one direction, we can also vary it in another direction. In that narrow sense of what we are trying to achieve, that is a reasonable thing to do. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as directly as I can. On evidence, I am happy to have a further discussion with him—either verbally or in writing, whatever his preference—going through why the Government think this is reasonable and proportionate. This is all part of a broader attempt to improve this in aggregate, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that pulling multiple levers to try to secure incremental improvements in all parts of the process is a laudable aim to pursue.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions on the length of time the stage should take and the qualifying criteria, that can be dealt with in guidance. I will ensure that the officials have heard his concerns and I hope we can deal with them at the guidance stage. In addition, because we have given a commitment to consult, there will be an opportunity for that. We have an interest in providing that information in the detail that is sought, so that the Government can consider it in appropriate detail as well.
Finally, on fracking, I have strong views on hydraulic shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, which I have put on the record many times in this place, and I will continue to share those views. At the same time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are times and places to debate policies like this one, I am no longer a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am sure that there will be regular opportunities to develop this matter, but my own position is known and understood. On his specific question, hydraulic fracturing is not within the NSIP process. There was a consultation in 2018-19 in which the Government decided not to put it in the NSIP process at the time. Should that change, I would be happy to debate with him at the appropriate moment.
Amendment 197 agreed to.
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 195, page 197, line 1, after “sections 107” insert—
“, (Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders)”
This amendment provides that the clause in NC61 will come into force two months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 61—Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders.
Lee Rowley
A key benefit of the NSIP regime in the Planning Act 2008 is that it puts forward statutory timeframes for consideration and determination of applications concerning NSIPs, thereby providing a degree of certainty to developers and others in order to ensure a timely outcome, as we discussed in the previous debate. The outcome of a successful application is the granting of a DCO. Subsequent changes to a scheme after a DCO is granted—regardless of whether they are material or non-material changes—require consent from the relevant Secretary of State. Although there are statutory timeframes in place for the consideration and determination of DCO applications for material change, there are none currently for non-material change.
Lee Rowley
This group contains the two final clauses in the Bill. Clause 195 governs the commencement or coming into force of the various provisions. It enables certain provisions to commence immediately on the Bill gaining Royal Assent—for example, some devolution measures, notably clause 42, which allows proposals to establish combined county authorities to be made. That will facilitate proposals coming into effect as rapidly as possible. Other provisions commence two months after Royal Assent—for example, the levelling-up missions in part 1. The remaining provisions will come into effect on a day appointed by regulations. In all cases, clause 195 provides additional powers to make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision in the Bill. The final clause, clause 196, contains the short title for the Bill. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 195, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 196 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 60
Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications
“(1) Section 98 of the Planning Act 2008 (timetable for examining, and reporting on, application for development consent order) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) The Secretary of State may set a date for a deadline under subsection (1) that is earlier than the date for the time being set.’
(3) In subsection (6), after ‘subsection (4)’ insert ‘or (4A)’.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for the examination of applications for development consent orders and makes related provision. The new clause will be inserted after clause 110.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 61
Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders
“In paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (non-material changes), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1);
(b) the making of the decision as to whether to exercise that power;
(c) the effect of a decision to exercise that power.
This is subject to sub-paragraph (2).
(1B) The power to make regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) includes power to allow a person to exercise a discretion.’”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision about the decision-making process for non-material changes to development consent orders (for example, by setting time limits for making decisions). The new clause will be inserted after clause 110.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 62
Prospects of planning permission for alternative development
“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1961 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (taking account of actual or prospective planning permission in valuing land)—
(a) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—
‘(b) of the prospect of planning permission being granted on or after that date for development, whether on the relevant land or other land, other than development for which planning permission is in force at the relevant valuation date.’;
(b) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
‘(2A) If a description of development is certified under section 17 as appropriate alternative development in relation to the relevant land (or any part of it), it is to be taken as certain for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) that—
(a) planning permission for development of that description would be (or would have been) granted on the relevant valuation date, and
(b) the permission would be (or would have been) granted in accordance with any indication given under section 17(5B).
(2B) In relation to any other development, the prospects of planning permission are to be assessed for the purposes of subsection (2)(b)—
(a) on the assumptions set out in subsection (5), and
(b) otherwise, in the circumstances known to the market at the relevant valuation date.’;
(c) in subsection (5), in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘subsections (2)(b) and (4)(b)’ substitute ‘subsection (2B)(a) (and in section 17(1B)(a))’;
(d) in subsection (9), in the words before paragraph (a), for the words from ‘to’ to ‘15(1)(b)’ substitute ‘in subsection (2) to planning permission that is in force’.
(3) In section 17 (certification of appropriate alternative development)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the words from ‘containing’ to the end substitute ‘stating that a certain description of development is appropriate alternative development in relation to the acquisition’;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Development is “appropriate alternative development” for this purpose if it is development—
(a) on the land in which the interest referred to in subsection (1) subsists (whether alone or together with other land),
(b) for which planning permission is not in force at the relevant planning date, and
(c) in respect of which the following test is met.
(1B) The test is whether, had an application for planning permission for the development been determined on the relevant planning date, the local planning authority would have been more likely than not to grant the permission—
(a) on the assumptions set out in section 14(5),
(b) on the assumption that it would act lawfully, and
(c) otherwise, in the circumstances known to the market at the relevant planning date.
(1C) For the purposes of subsections (1A) and (1B), the “relevant planning date” is—
(a) the relevant valuation date, or
(b) if earlier, the date on which the application under this section is determined.’;
(c) in subsection (3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
‘(ba) must set out the applicant’s reasons for considering that the description of development given in the application is appropriate alternative development, and’;
(d) for subsections (5) to (8) substitute—
‘(5A) The local planning authority may issue a certificate under this section in respect of—
(a) the description of development given in the application for the certificate, or
(b) a description of development less extensive than, but otherwise falling within, the description given in the application.
(5B) A certificate under this section must give a general indication of—
(a) any conditions to which planning permission for the development would have been subject, and
(b) any pre-condition for granting the permission (for example, entry into an obligation) that would have had to be met.
(5C) The test to be applied for the purposes of subsection (5B) is whether the local planning authority would have been more likely than not to impose such conditions, or insist on such a pre-condition, on the assumptions, and otherwise in the circumstances, referred to in subsection (1B).’
(e) in subsection (10)—
(i) for ‘there must be taken into account any expenses reasonably’ substitute ‘no account is to be taken of any expenses’;
(ii) omit the words from ‘where’ to ‘favour’.
(4) In section 18 (appeals to Upper Tribunal)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) after paragraph (a) (but before the ‘and’ at the end) insert—
‘(aa) must consider those matters as if, in subsections (1B) and (5C), the references to the local planning authority were references to a reasonable planning authority,’
(ii) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
‘(iia) cancel it, or’;
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) Where the local planning authority have rejected an application for a certificate under section 17, the person who applied for the certificate may appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the rejection.
(2B) On an appeal under subsection (2A)—
(a) paragraphs (a) and (aa) of subsection (2) apply as on an appeal under subsection (1), and,
(b) the Upper Tribunal must—
(i) confirm the rejection, or
(ii) issue a certificate,
as the Upper Tribunal may consider appropriate.’;
(c) in subsection (3), for the words from ‘the preceding’ to the end substitute ‘subsection (2A) applies as if the local planning authority have rejected the application’;
(d) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) The references in sections 14(2A) and 17(5A) and (5B) to a certificate under section 17 include a certificate issued, or as varied, by the Upper Tribunal under this section.’
(5) In section 19 (applications by surveyors)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘paragraphs (a) and (b)’ substitute ‘paragraph (ba)’;
(b) after that subsection insert—
‘(4) In the application of section 18 by virtue of subsection (1)—
(a) subsection (1)(a) of that section is to be read as if it included the surveyor, and
(b) subsection (2A) of that section is to be read as if the reference to the person who applied for the certificate included the person entitled to the interest.’
(6) In section 20(a) (power to prescribe time limit for issuing certificate under section 17), for the words from ‘time’ to the end substitute ‘period within which an application under that section is to be determined’.
(7) In section 22 (interpretation of Part 3), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The completion of the acquisition or purchase referred to in the applicable paragraph of subsection (2) does not affect the continued application of that subsection.’”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause (to be inserted after clause 149) changes how prospects of planning permission are taken into account when assessing land value for purposes of compulsory purchase compensation. Planning permission will be taken for granted only if the planning authority certifies that it would have granted it, and such certificates will be reduced in scope.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Independent body to monitor levelling up missions
“(1) The Secretary of State must assign an independent body to assess the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and make recommendations for improvements to delivery of them.
(2) The body must prepare parallel independent reports for each period to which a report under section 2 applies.
(3) Each parallel independent report must—
(a) assess the progress that has been made in the relevant period in delivering each of the levelling-up missions in the current statement levelling-up missions, as it has effect at the end of the period, and
(b) make recommendations for what the Government should do to deliver each levelling-up mission in the following period.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament on the same day as the report under section 2 which applies to the relevant period.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body that can provide reports on the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and outline recommendations for their future delivery.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 18th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 October 2022 - (18 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for raising this matter. As MPs for the north-east, we are acutely aware of the value of manufacturing. She referred to her manufacturing powerhouse, which the north-east certainly is. We want it to continue to thrive, but we also want the entire UK to thrive when it comes to manufacturing.
Manufacturing is vital to levelling up as it provides high-skilled and well-paid jobs. It is supported by the Government, including through a new £1.4 billion global Britain investment fund, with grants to encourage internationally mobile companies to invest in the UK’s critical and most innovative industries.
There are already publicly available official statistics covering matters in the new clause, such as the number of manufacturing jobs by region. We are a little concerned that the new clause would require an additional and disproportionate burden on businesses to collect data in a timely manner at a time when they are already facing unprecedented rising costs, which are particularly acute for manufacturing businesses. We therefore feel that the new clause is unnecessary at this stage.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about having real metrics at the heart of levelling up, which the Government are certainly passionate about. We want to be able to measure levelling up to show that we are successfully delivering it. That is why we are already taking steps to improve the quality of the spatial data that we have available.
My Department has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data transformation required in central Government. The unit supports the delivery of levelling up by transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and manipulate sub-national data to underpin transparent and open policy making. On that basis, I think we are reaching for the same end here. I reassure the hon. Member for South Shields that the spatial data unit will be pivotal in this matter. The Department for Education is also working to deliver a better understanding of local area skills demand and supply through its unit for future skills.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I referred to the fact that the Government’s technical annex to the White Paper identifies an issue with measuring and understanding pay, jobs, living standards and productivity. If the Government do not want to put an extra burden on businesses, who will they ask to get this data for them? How will they do that?
Dehenna Davison
This is a matter for our excellent new spatial data unit, which is doing valiant work. It will really help us to understand the scale of the challenges, as well as the progress that we are making against the levelling-up missions. As a Government, we are determined to level up and make progress against those missions.
We are doing a lot of great work in this area and the spatial data unit really will be revolutionary in how we gather this data. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Tim Farron
I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on bringing forward these important new clauses. I agree with an awful lot of what he said. Undoubtably, food security is something that our country has overlooked hugely in recent decades, to our great cost. By some metrics, we produce only about 55% of the food we eat. That is not just a dangerous position to be in given the global situation, but it is morally questionable. As a first-world nation, we will go out and find the food we need, and we will inflate prices on the commodities markets, which will end up increasing prices for the poorest people in the world. On that level, we have a moral requirement to make good use of the land we have to produce food to feed ourselves so that we are not literally starving other people around the world.
It is worth pointing out that 70% of England’s land and about 72% of the United Kingdom’s land is agricultural. If we are serious about tackling global carbon emissions and improving biodiversity, we have to start with those working in farming. Anyone who thinks we can improve our environment without keeping people farming to deliver those environmental policies is not living in the real world.
The other thing that makes the new clauses attractive to me is that they refer to the responsibilities not just of planning authorities, but of Ministers. When it comes to planning authorities, a requirement to look at the impact of any proposal on food production and farming may sometimes mean that we protect land and do not allow development. It may also sometimes mean that we permit development, in order to allow, for example, diversification. Some level of renewable energy on farm sites is something that farmers actively want, to help shore up their businesses. I agree that we do not want to see whole farms handed over to solar, but many farmers would like the option to use renewables for environmental reasons and to cross-subsidise and diversify their business. Also, sometimes we simply need labour in those communities, and we may need to build some houses to ensure that we have sustainable farming.
I wish that the provisions of these important new clauses were already in law, because they would stop the Government botching the transition from the common agricultural policy, which was far from perfect, to the new ELM scheme. That will see farmers lose 20% of their income by the end of this year, with very little to replace it. Fewer than 2% of the 1,000 farmers in my patch—13 of them—have signed up for the new sustainable farming incentive. The botching of the transition means that farmers will lose their income, and so far they have very little to compensate for it.
However, to botch the unbotching is almost inexcusable. In the last few weeks, the Government have signalled that they might be ready to rip up ELMS altogether, after farmers have spent two years preparing for it. We see foolishness upon foolishness, all of which puts our farmers in a desperate position. They have never been more angry with the Government of the day—and we do not have time to go into the damage being done to our farming community by trade deals. We desperately need to remember, at the heart of policy making, nationally and locally, the importance of farmers and farming to food production and the environment. If the hon. Member for Buckingham were to press the new clauses to a vote, he could count me on his side—I would vote with him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his introduction to the new clauses and for the work he is doing on this important policy area. We absolutely accept the challenge that he puts to us. He made strong points about the importance of balancing competing demands, all of which are important in isolation and need to be thought through and integrated as best as possible, while recognising that it is sometimes not possible to do everything. The point of Government, both local and national, is to try to ensure that that balance is struck in the best possible way.
I hesitate to go too much into an agricultural discussion, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was keen to move into that space, but I acknowledge the points that have been made. It is critical that we continue to have food security in the United Kingdom, that consumers have access to good quality, healthy and sustainable food and that domestic producers have a viable business in the long run. Although I do not want to trade figures, the figures I have in front of me state that we produce about 60% of what we eat, and we produce roughly 70% to 75% of what we can produce in this country. Given the problem of dates, times and the like, I recognise that those things move around, although they seem to have been relatively static over the last 20 years. Therefore—to my hon. Friend’s point—the question is whether the planning system needs further content and signals so that it is clear that these things can be weighed up more clearly.
At the current time, things are going on elsewhere in Government, particularly around the Agriculture Act, which my hon. Friend referenced. The Act commits the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and for that production to be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Also in the Agriculture Act is a legal obligation to produce an assessment of food security once every three years. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend, although I acknowledge that he is also interested specifically in the planning element.
This might be one of the statements that I make regularly over the next few minutes or so, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend in more detail about the underlying intent and calls behind his new clause. However, at the current time, I ask him to withdraw it in lieu of further discussions and debate outside after our sitting.
Greg Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to keep the conversation going. This is a subject, as right hon. and hon. Members can perhaps understand, that I get very passionate about. I could have a debate on agriculture for as many hours as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale could. Our farmers produce the best food in the world, and we have to find the right balance to ensure that they have the land on which to produce it. In the spirit of carrying on the conversation before the Bill reports, I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I urge the Government to keep listening and talking to protect our world-class, best-in-class British farmers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Prohibition of mandatory targets and abolition of five-year land supply rule
“(1) Any housebuilding target for local planning authorities in—
(a) the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),
(b) regulations made under any enactment, or
(c) any planning policy document
may only be advisory and not mandatory.
(2) Accordingly, such targets should not be taken into account in determining planning applications.
(3) The NPPF must not impose an obligation on local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient housing development sites are available over five years or any other given period.”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause requires a revised NPPF within six months to provide that housing targets are advisory not mandatory and that the five-year housing land supply rule will no longer apply.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
This should be relatively straightforward, given the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in the leadership election during the summer. I believe that she described her approach as ending the Soviet-style, top-down housing targets that exist in the United Kingdom at the moment.
New clause 14, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), gets to the nub of the matter by getting rid of mandatory targets and leaving local areas free to decide what housing development, commercial development, infrastructure and so on they need. It also gets rid of something that has been an aberration in the planning system for far too long. I have talked to local government colleagues up and down the land, and the five-year land supply rules have got in the way of many areas deciding exactly what is right for them and of their ability to be dynamic.
The new clause gets to the nub of these issues. I hope that the Government can listen and that we can move forward by adding to the Bill either this new clause or whatever the Government wish to bring forward to meet the Prime Minister’s commitments over the summer.
Lee Rowley
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses and for articulating the rationale and reasoning for them. I think he and everybody else present would accept the principle that these would be significant changes, whatever people’s views about some of the important points he highlighted, such as the five-year housing land supply rules, local plans and the NPPF. The appropriate balance needs to be struck in each case, and those debates could detain the Committee for many hours, with extremely strongly held views in many places. Each of us will have—as I do and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who is not on the Committee, do—individual recollections and experiences of the implications of the NPPF, the five-year housing land supply rules and other things for their constituencies and more broadly.
I recognise and acknowledge the significant underlying element of change that is proposed in the new clauses, the significant move away from the current approach, and the balance that needs to be struck. I also acknowledge that, as part of the leadership campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a series of statements over the summer about looking again at this area and bringing forward new proposals. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be content on this occasion to emphasise the point in his speech, which was that we should either look at the new clauses or bring forward additional proposals. I hope we can bring forward proposals in due course that he will have the opportunity to comment on, so I ask him to withdraw the new clause, pending further discussions in advance of the Bill coming back at a later stage.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for those commitments. The statements made over the summer were very clear, and I look forward to working with the Government on their proposals or to put new clause 14 into the Bill on Report.
New clause 15 goes to the heart of localism and the same issue that new clause 14 talks about: the ability of local communities, rather than Whitehall, to decide. Given the commitment that the Minister made, I am equally content that we continue the conversation, which we will come back to on Report. For the time being, I am content not to press new clause 15.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn
New Clause 16
Character test: determination of applications
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. New clause 37 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is, like new clause 16, a simple amendment. I will not devote too much time to making the case for it.
We all agree that it is essential that the integrity of the planning system is upheld, not only to ensure that unauthorised development cannot blight local communities, but to maintain public trust and confidence in the planning decision-making process. When considering chapter 5 of the Bill, we had a number of debates about how planning enforcement might be improved as well as better resourced. A number of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have spoken at length about the impact that rogue developers can have on communities across the country.
New clause 37 seeks to probe the Government on a specific issue of concern. As the hon. Member for Buckingham has just made clear, at present it appears that it is entirely permissible for an individual developer to consistently breach planning control, with the only risk being that they face enforcement action in respect of that specific breach. We believe that it is right that enforcement of planning law and regulation is based on the principle of proportionality and that when it comes to cases of alleged unauthorised development, local authorities have discretion to determine how the breach can be remedied. However, we also believe there is a strong case for changing the law so that certain categories of proscribed persons, in particular those who breach planning control and make no efforts to rectify those breaches, can be prohibited from carrying out development of any kind.
New clause 37 would allow that sanction to be applied to those who persistently offend when it comes to contraventions of planning law and regulation. Its objective is the same as new clause 16, on a character test and the prior record of an applicant. Adopting new clause 37, or a version of it, would reduce the burden on local authorities that are attempting to deal with the minority of rogue developers of this kind, and would also strengthen the integrity of the system overall. I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for their new clauses. I am extremely sympathetic to some of the concerns. I agree with the hon. Member that ensuring the integrity of the planning system is paramount. We will all have examples from across the country of where development does not occur in the way that is sanctioned, or before it is sanctioned, and then an attempt is made to gain planning permission retrospectively by those who are not necessarily following either the letter or the spirit of the rules as set down. It is extremely frustrating.
By the same token, we have to tread extraordinarily carefully here. There are a set of principles, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged in their speeches—that the planning system is based on a specific application, which should be judged accordingly on its merits. It is challenging to bring forward a form of character test within those principles, although I recognise that there is an issue here that many communities up and down the land are seeing.
As those who have debated it for longer than I have will know, the Bill already includes a significant package of measures that will help tackle persistent abuses of the system. Those will speed up the enforcement process, restrict the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged, increase fines for non-compliance and discourage intentional unauthorised developments that rely on a slow enforcement timescale. The Government acknowledge some of the concerns and are trying to find appropriate levers with which to approach them.
While offering a commitment to continue to talk about this issue, although wanting to be being clear that it is extremely difficult in terms of legislation, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged, the Government are not minded to accept the new clauses. I therefore ask both Members not to press them.
Greg Smith
I welcome the commitment my hon. Friend has just made to carrying on the conversation. I accept the complexity, in a system that looks at individual cases, of bringing in a more universal test. However, there are other areas of life where people—for example, those with particular criminal records—are barred from doing certain activities—particularly where children are involved. If we could extend the principle and precedent whereby somebody who has form with rogue development—that is, turn up, build now and apologise later—which blights communities up and down the land, is barred through legislation that is practical and that does not undermine the planning system, I am up for carrying on that conversation. If not through the exact wording of this new clause, then perhaps by another means, we could find a happy solution that protects our communities from those who, I am sorry to say, continue to blight them by building out schemes that they do not have planning permission for.
Lee Rowley
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a high level, the new clause is attractive, and I am tempted by it, but for reasons that I will outline, I am afraid that we will be resisting it. I completely accept the way in which all three of my colleagues have articulated the issues. I am sure that everybody in this room has stories of cases in which, although planning applications have gone through the process, there is a general lack of consent from the community to the manner in which they went forward.
Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding my acceptance of the points that the hon. Member for York Central rightly made about the importance of franchise of place and embedding local consent in decision making, two fundamental principles mean that I am unable to accept the new clause. First, it is absolutely vital that we retain the principle that those who own land have the right to make applications, and to understand the processes that they can go through. Once that due process has been concluded, those landowners have the right to do as they wish with their land, within the established framework that the Government deem it reasonable and proportionate to apply.
Secondly—I recognise that I am speaking to people with a great interest in this area, and I am probably telling them lots of things that they already know—we would all accept that planning is a long, difficult and convoluted process at the best of times. In another part of my portfolio, I am looking at the reasons why a large proportion of local authorities do not have a local plan; a local plan is one of the processes through which discussion takes place and consent, hopefully, is given to development. That is a multi-stage, multi-consultative process in which people can put forward ideas, and in which those ideas can be tested, and then accepted or not, first in the community, and then with an additional body looking at them. Once that process has concluded, on most occasions, there is the opportunity for planning applications to be debated in principle. The community has the opportunity to get involved at that stage, and then once again in the case of reserved matters.
That is a very imperfect process, and we will all have lots of experience of it not leading to communities liking, or particularly wanting, individual applications. However, it is important to note the multi-stage nature of the process and the multiple elements of consultation in. While I understand the sentiments behind the new clause and the frustrations that have been articulated, and while I recognise that the system is very imperfect, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to consider withdrawing the new clause. As many Members know, and occasionally remark on, I am only six weeks in post, but I have spoken to a number of people who have been involved with these matters for years. I understand that this proposal has been around for many decades, and one of the reasons why it has not been taken forward is the fundamental change it would make to the planning system. I accept and understand the importance of the new clause, but we are not able to accept it.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate that the Minister was not here for earlier stages of debate on the Bill. Will he consider my suggestion about greater community engagement and involvement, and my point about ensuring deliberative democracy when sites are brought forward for use? It would be a way of trying to address the problem at source, rather than retrospectively, and it would give communities that engagement, franchise, and opportunity to determine how the community develops.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. We may have another discussion about deliberative democracy when we debate another amendment in a few minutes’ time.
I am a great advocate of local communities having as much involvement in these discussions as possible. It is a shame when councils—I experienced this in North East Derbyshire a number of years ago—do not emphasise the discussion at the appropriate point, and people do not feel as involved as they need to if they are to understand what happens later in the process. I hope that local councils take opportunities to be as broad and open in their discussions as possible. I am also a big fan of neighbourhood plans, because they give communities the opportunity to be more involved in discussion. There are parts of the system that can be used at the moment, though I respect and acknowledge the challenge of involving local communities in it. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.
Greg Smith
I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about due process for landowners who wish to develop their land. I am not in any way, shape or form seeking to take any of that away through the new clause; it is quite right that landowners or developers should have the due process set out, and a clear path to appeal if they feel that they have not been treated fairly.
What is missing is the other side of the equation, when something materially affects a village, town or neighbourhood. Some months ago, when speaking to an amendment, I gave the example of the way flooding is dealt with in the planning process. In the village of Ickford in my constituency, every villager knew that a piece of land flooded not just a little, but a lot, but that was completely ignored throughout the planning process and when it got to the Planning Inspectorate. The community could see the problem—they knew and felt it; they had puddles lapping up to the top of their welly boots regularly—but was left with a choice of going to judicial review or nothing. That community right of appeal did not exist. They could see, feel and breathe the issues. This was the place they call home, but that knowledge could not be put into any meaningful challenge that would not cost the village £1 million.
I am happy to withdraw the new clause for the time being, but I really urge my hon. Friend to look at how we can restore fairness, so that when a place feels that the planning system has worked against it, it can lodge a good, well-thought-through challenge that that does not go into the unaffordable realms of judicial review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
Start of development for planning purposes
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 56(4) (time when development begun) leave out paragraphs (aa) to (c)
(3) In section 92(2)(b) (outline planning permission) for ‘two years’ substitute ‘one year.”—(Greg Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
These interesting new clauses highlight two issues about which I am particularly concerned—issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. They are very helpful new clauses, and I am grateful to him for tabling them. He is right that, over the past decade, roughly a million properties granted planning permission have not been built. That tells us something. When the Government consider growth and the need for new developments, they think they just need to loosen planning regulations. Well, the answer to that is that 1 million new homes have obtained planning permission but have not been built. Let us focus on making sure that those developments get delivered, rather than on reducing the regulations, because that tends to lead to the wrong sort of homes in the wrong sort of places.
Another issue affects tens of thousands—but not a million—houses. It is when developments begin but are not completed. That may be for a range of reasons, such as genuine business failure. It may also be due to a disreputable developer; we have seen plenty of those. I think of one in my constituency, a serial bankrupt, and it seems obvious to me that in their case, we are talking about a deliberate business tactic. Developments are either completely or partially abandoned. That is a waste of time and money, and it creates eyesores for communities, when the development could have provided nice, decent homes for people to live in.
Would the Government consider going further than the new clauses suggest and applying existing legislation, namely empty dwelling management orders? They allow local authorities to commandeer empty properties after a period. It should be noted, however, that the period is seven years, which is far too long, but we should be able to commandeer developments that were begun but not completed for public use and public good. I can think of one house in the Kendal Parks area of Kendal that has been uncompleted for 20 years. It is an eyesore, and damaging to the local community. It could be a decent home for someone. I can also think of a whole development in Burton-in-Kendal that has been poorly managed and has fallen out of the hands of one set of owners into those of another. The ability of local authorities to commandeer properties for the public good would be of huge benefit, not just to my community but to every Committee member’s community.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his comments, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses.
I accept that this is another area of policy that is difficult and challenging and that a balance needs to be struck. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised. In order not to detain the Committee, and without offering any guarantees, I would be keen to continue the conversation outside the realms of the Committee to consider and reflect on the points made by those who have spoken. I am happy to discuss that in advance of further stages of the Bill, should my hon. Friend be content to do that.
Greg Smith
I welcome that commitment. I stand ready to carry on the conversation; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is in a similar vein to many of the others that I have tabled, although it looks at the controls for planning enforcement and essentially abolishes the time limits so that where rogue development or development carried out without planning permission takes place, especially in protected landscapes, it can no longer be timed out by a lack of enforcement action. I accept that planning enforcement is not a statutory service on local authorities, which are often overstretched. Removing the time limit would ensure that those who have done wrong by a community and developed that which they should not have, or have developed in a manner that is not commensurate with their planning permission, can still face the appropriate planning enforcement beyond the current statutory time limits.
Lee Rowley
I share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that important landscapes are protected from breaches of planning control. We would need to consider the time limit by which that occurs, and whether an open-ended time limit is the most appropriate way. While I understand the underlying principle and point that my hon. Friend makes, there is a challenge in leaving something so completely open ended, as it could come back in many years’ or decades’ time, however unlikely that may be.
As my hon. Friend will know from sitting on this Committee longer than me, the Bill already increases the time limits for some breaches of planning control from four years to 10 years. We hope that is a positive direction of travel that demonstrates the Government’s willingness to look at this area and make changes where appropriate, but in this instance, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the clause. I am happy discuss it further—although it is very difficult to see how an open-ended timeframe can be obtained. I hope that he can see in other parts of the Bill the Government’s intent to look at that where we can and where it is proportionate to do so.
Greg Smith
I very much welcome the Minister’s words. I accept that, with a totally open-ended time limit, the new clause is imperfect. I am happy to negotiate and find a happy medium that sets a more realistic and reasonable timeframe, so that planning enforcement does not just fall off the metaphorical cliff edge and communities are not left wanting. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Report on measures to incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the merits of measures to financially incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider the impact of—
(a) introducing a greenfield plot tax to provide dedicated funding streams for brownfield development,
(b) setting a uniform zero-rating of VAT for development on brownfield sites,
(c) applying standard VAT to development on greenfield sites,
(d) applying variable measures to ensure that increases in land values attributable to the granting of planning permission for development are used in support of communities local to those developments, and
(e) allowing a high degree of variation in the Infrastructure Levy to enable communities to value the loss of greenfield land depending on local circumstances.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.” —(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the merits of measures that would financially incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development and to report the findings to Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I want to give the Committee a change of scenery for five minutes, before I let somebody else speak. I will not develop these points; I will just add a thought that the Minister might wish to take away and consider in further conversations.
The Bill will, I hope, create numerous mechanisms and levers to incentivise local areas to bring forward brownfield sites, not least development corporations, combined authorities and the investment zones that have been the subject of much conversation. I should declare an interest, because I am the leader of a local authority and I am involved in a devolution conversation in the east midlands. At a regional level, we have been given funding to bring forward brownfield sites for development, and we are considering how we might use that funding locally to achieve this goal. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether some of the levers, funds and opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has proposed would sit better at a devolved, local level within one of the mechanisms created by the Bill, rather than in the Bill itself.
Dehenna Davison
It is a pleasure to speak to this amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. We have done some great work on it together, and I hope we can continue in that spirit. Members will know that the Government strongly encourage the use of brownfield land over greenfield, and in national policy there is an expectation that local planning policies and decisions will give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land to meet our communities’ housing needs and other identified needs.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight the cost differential that developers face. We are investing significant funding to support brownfield development, including in some of the schemes that he has mentioned. I will rattle through them one more time for the Committee’s benefit. There is the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £180 million brownfield land release fund 2, which builds on the success of the £75 million first brownfield land release fund. In addition, later this year we aim to launch the £1.5 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, which will unlock sites around the country.
We are particularly sympathetic to this cause, which is why we are setting out a range of new measures and powers in the Bill to support brownfield development. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is right to talk about local empowerment—something that I know he is a real champion of in his other role, at local government level. We are keen that the Bill in its entirety will empower local leaders to regenerate towns and cities through a range of provisions, including new locally led and locally accountable development corporations, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and support for land assembly and regeneration through enhanced compulsory purchase powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the infrastructure levy introduced in the Bill. It provides a framework in which, where increases in land value are higher—as is often the case with greenfield development—higher rates can be set. This mechanism would allow differential charging rates to be set by local planning authorities for different types of development, so that more could be levied on greenfield land as compared with brownfield land to incentivise development on that brownfield land.
We will also continue to work on wider planning proposals that will give the public an opportunity to shape our future national planning policy, and in relation to which the Government have committed to consult the public.
On that basis—because we are already taking such strong steps to encourage brownfield development and have a commitment to review national policy—we do not feel that the new clause is necessary, so I kindly ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it today.
Greg Smith
I very much welcome the Minister’s commitments. She is absolutely right in outlining the various schemes to support brownfield development. I guess the thought I will leave her with is the reflection that, rightly, there is a lot of carrot in those schemes; where I do not think we have quite enough at the moment is the stick to dissuade people from greenfield development. We need to ensure a proper balance of incentivising, through grant funding or whatever it might be, development on the brownfield sites, and also something to actively dissuade developers from looking at the greenfield sites. If we can carry that conversation on through to Report, I am content to withdraw new clause 23 at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Report on measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the merits of measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider the impact of—
(a) a stamp duty exemption to encourage elderly homeowners to downsize,
(b) an additional stamp duty surcharge on purchases by person not resident in the UK,
(c) a stamp duty surcharge on second home purchases,
(d) a reduction in the highest rates of stamp duty, and
(e) measures to promote an active market in long-term fixed rate mortgages to encourage lending to first time buyers.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of this review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the merits of measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market and to report the findings to Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause. I absolutely accept his points about discussing this matter sensitively and accepting the real challenges in parts of the housing market. I understand and acknowledge that challenge, which the Department grapples with daily and as much as the state can. It is vital to have an effective housing market and for people to have good-quality properties and roofs over their heads, irrespective of tenure. Most fundamentally, we Conservatives know that expanding home ownership is vital. Although it is starting to increase again as a proportion, a gap remains between the number of people who want to buy a house and the number of people who can.
We all have our own individual stories. In North East Derbyshire, the way that properties are distributed—that sounds like a very technical word for real people’s lives—does not necessarily align in all instances with people’s needs. In one town in my constituency, a significant amount of which was built in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, lots of people who purchased properties to bring up their families are struggling to find houses—bungalows in particular—to downsize to, now that their families have flown the nest. Many Members will have similar stories.
At the same time, my hon. Friend has considered the matter closely and will acknowledge that there is a question about whether we need to legislate in this area. I humbly suggest that we do not, but I recognise the intent behind the amendment. Over the course of my time in post, I will continue to do what I can to answer some of those questions, as will the Department, so I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Greg Smith
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. To clarify, yes, we would be putting a clause into legislation, but we would not be legislating for the outcome. We would be legislating for a duty on his Department to publish a report—to properly kick the tyres, if I may put it like that—on the housing market failures that are leading to the demand for so many new housing units to be built.
Of course, I fully accept that tackling stamp duty is not within the competence of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Altering the rates to get the market moving more quickly would have to be pitched to His Majesty’s Treasury. With that in mind, I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I urge my hon. Friends the Ministers to consider this point as the Bill and the Department’s work on housing and planning move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Report on promoting development in already developed areas
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on possible measures to promote development in areas that are already developed.
(2) The report must consider measures to promote—
(a) the purchasing by housing associations of properties that—
(i) have been unoccupied for an extended period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), or
(ii) are currently unfit for human habitation (with reference to requirements of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018;
(b) novel means of providing increased affordable housing that is sustainable and accords with surrounding areas.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Greg Smith.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
New clauses 25 and 26 are quite important to free up for good use properties that may have fallen into disrepair or been unoccupied for a long time. I am sure that we could all name properties in our constituencies that we have canvassed for five elections running but nobody is ever behind the door. We put leaflets through the door, but the post reaches almost as high as the letterbox itself. Those are homes that I hope all Members, of whatever political persuasion, would acknowledge really should not be sat empty, but should have a family or whoever living in them. Of course, the wider public good is also served by not allowing properties to fall into disrepair and become eyesores or perhaps hotspots for disorderly behaviour, as people seek to take them over illegally.
New clause 25 does not contain specific legislative measures to deliver the outcomes we are seeking, but it creates a duty on DLUHC to report on how better to ensure that empty properties that have fallen into disrepair and are perhaps causing other public health hazards can be more easily brought back into the housing supply chain for social rent, for part rent, part buy, for discount market housing, or for whatever it might be.
New clause 26 is about ensuring that the compulsory purchase powers available to local authorities are suitable, if I may put it in those terms, to enable them not just to get those properties back into productive use and put a roof over human beings’ heads, but to ensure that local authorities that often bang their heads against a brick wall when it comes to certain compulsory purchase powers are freed up to make the right decisions for the communities they represent.
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with the sentiment behind these new clauses. We can probably all think of examples in our constituencies of the sorts of vacant properties that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, I was out in Eldon Lane with neighbourhood wardens, local police and local councillors—I think last week or the week before—looking at streets where most of the houses sit empty and can become hotbeds for antisocial behaviour and petty crime, so this is certainly something we want to tackle.
I agree with the benefits of promoting development in areas that are already developed, but I do not think that new clause 25 is necessary. We have already debated the Government’s national planning policy framework, which promotes the development of previously developed land and makes it clear that local plans should also include sufficient provision for affordable housing. I share the interest in novel ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing. The Government’s affordable housing guarantee scheme is a good example of this kind of innovation. The same is true of the proposal in the Bill to secure affordable housing contributions in future through a new streamlined mandatory and locally determined infrastructure levy.
My hon. Friend also made the case for housing associations to purchase homes that are empty or not currently fit for human habitation. I agree that this can play a valuable role in expanding the availability of affordable housing and improving the overall quality of our housing stock. Local authorities and other social housing providers can access funding to acquire empty homes on the market and bring them back into use through programmes such as the affordable homes programme and the rough sleeping accommodation programme.
Briefly, on new clause 26, I strongly share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that the compulsory purchase system is fit for purpose and can play its part in delivering our levelling-up agenda. My officials have worked incredibly closely with key stakeholders to review the current system and develop the package of measures in the Bill. We believe that these measures, supplemented by improved and updated guidance, will together ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to bring forward the regeneration of their high streets and town centres, and to deliver much needed housing and infrastructure. We also believe they will deliver a faster and more efficient compulsory purchase system and make compensation simpler and clearer. I have also asked the Law Commission to undertake a review and consolidation of the existing legislation on compulsory purchase and land compensation, which will begin shortly.
On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that a statutory review is not necessary and ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Greg Smith
On the back of those commitments, I am happy to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Deliberate damage to trees linked to development
“(1) Section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation order) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4AA) Subsection (4AB) applies if—
(a) the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this section, and
(b) the offence was committed for purposes connected to planning or development.
(4AB) The court—
(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would make damage to trees or woodland in contravention of a tree preservation order an aggravated offence if it was committed for purposes connected to development or planning.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause goes to the heart of an issue very close to my constituents, who have seen a great number of trees damaged—largely by the Government’s HS2 project, I have to say. It happens far too frequently in rural environments, but it is equally applicable to urban ones, where trees that are unacceptably damaged, often with preservation orders on them, are often the only green for some distance around. Very straightforwardly, this new clause in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet seeks to put in place measures that will clamp down harder on those who deliberately damage trees during development.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving this new clause, and I am sympathetic to the issue that he and other Members have raised. The protection of trees and the environment is hugely important, and it is frustrating when others do not support that cause. The information I have is that the law already provides a substantial amount of leeway to seek appropriate financial redress from people who have been accused of damaging trees, should the contravention have been through the local council via a tree preservation order.
With that in mind—I may be misinterpreting my hon. Friend—I am keen to understand from my hon. Friend or his colleagues why they believe there is still a need to change the law. There is obviously a bit of a difference in views at the moment, so we should try to bottom that out. If we can find an issue to debate, I would be very happy to do so, but for the purpose of today, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
Tim Farron
The two new clauses are about trusting local communities. We are not saying that every meeting must be held virtually, but that local authorities—in this case, planning authorities—should have the power to do so, and for good reason. My preference is for in-person meetings, but for the reasons that have been set out, especially by the hon. Member for Buckingham, local authorities should have that power.
Every part of my patch is parish. There are 67 parishes, and some of them are bigger than most Members’ constituencies and have not very many people living in them. To get from one end of the Lakes parish to the other, people have to pass three or four lakes. We should consider the age profile of some of the members of the parish councils and the distances involved. I said earlier that it rarely rains in the lakes, but occasionally it might. It certainly gets dark at certain times of the year. On a wet November night, holding a meeting on screen rather than physically is probably safer and better for everybody. Let us trust communities to make those choices on the go, and not impose.
The pandemic has been a traumatic and formative experience for us as a culture, as a society and as representatives of the people. We have learned many lessons, and some of them we should carry on with. I was disheartened and disappointed that some members of the Government seemed to be almost determined, as a point of principle, to close down any virtual operation of democracy during the pandemic—never mind at the end of it. It is encouraging to hear a cross-party outbreak of common sense today. It would be great if the Government listened.
Dehenna Davison
As a millennial Minister who is used to swiping and not to turning pages, Members might expect me to say that I prefer virtual meetings, but actually I do not. In-person meetings and the social element are important, yet we saw the value of virtual meetings during the pandemic, at the time when we needed them most. Hon. Members will remember the powers granted through the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allowed local authorities flexibility on remote and hybrid meetings, in certain circumstances. They will also know that those regulations expired back in May 2021. Since that date, all council meetings have had to be in person. The new clauses lean into the terms of those previous provisions and seek to replicate them on a permanent basis, but only for planning committees. I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
Looking beyond the circumstances of the pandemic, the Government considered that there may be benefits to permanent provisions for remote meetings, and that local councils may be keen to have the flexibility to use that provision as they see fit. I have been lobbied by a lot of my local parish councillors on the benefits that remote meetings can bring.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield highlighted, the Government conducted call for evidence last year to test the views of those who had participated in and experienced councils’ remote meetings to inform our decision on this matter. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for their points on trust in local governance and local planning, which we all agree is paramount. Increasing participation is only ever a good thing.
The Department has considered the responses to the call for evidence and we have been weighing the benefits, which hon. Members have highlighted, against views that physical attendance remains important to deliver good governance and democratic accountability. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the investment in the technology that a lot of local authorities had made, which must also be taken into account.
I genuinely thank my hon. Friends for tabling the new clause, but we need to first consider the call for evidence. We will issue our response, which will set out the Government’s intentions. I ask for a tiny bit more patience and for the new clause to be withdrawn.
Greg Smith
The self-styled millennial Minister makes the commitment. Asking for slightly more time seems reasonable to me. However, if we are to be true to localism, I would double-underline and highlight the need to ensure that local people are able to participate in proceedings. Just as we can still have a witness virtually at a Select Committee in this place, councils should have the discretion to use virtual proceedings, to maximise participation locally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Local authorities to be able to raise planning fees to cover costs including planners
“(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section may provide for local planning authorities to vary fees or charges under this section payable to the local planning authority to cover the reasonable costs of their exercise of planning functions.
(5B) In subsection (5A), “reasonable costs” includes the employment of qualified planners.’”—(Greg Smith.)
This new clause would enable the Government to allow local planning authorities to vary planning fees and charges to cover their costs relating to planning, which could include the employment of qualified planners.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause.
I absolutely accept the validity of this discussion; it is an important one, and I am relatively sympathetic to the point that is being made. It is appropriate that we think through the balance between localism and centralism in this area, and my own personal instincts are that localism should take priority and precedence. So, if he is willing to withdraw this new clause, I am very happy to talk about this matter in more detail.
As I know my hon. Friend will know, we have already committed to increasing planning fees, as part of an earlier discussion. However, I am happy to talk about what he perceives as the need in this area over and above that, particularly given his own local circumstances.
Greg Smith
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments; I fully accept that planning fees are allowed to go up and I look forward to having a discussion with him about how some geographical areas, particularly those areas that border London and that compete with London weighting, need to have greater flexibility.
In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Housing powers of the Mayor of London
“(1) Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority) is hereby revoked.
(2) Section 333D of the Great London Authority Act 1999 (duties of the Authority and local authorities) is amended as follows.
(3) At the end of subsection (2) (general conformity with the London housing strategy), insert—
‘, but any housebuilding target in the London housing strategy is advisory not mandatory and should not be taken into account in determining planning applications.’”— (Greg Smith.)
This new clause would remove the Mayor of London’s power to direct a London borough that the Mayor will be the local planning authority for a development, and clarify that any housebuilding target in the Mayor’s housing strategy is advisory only.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come to the end of this marathon run of new clauses. New clause 30 is one that could be a little bit prickly to navigate.
Without wanting to get into a debate about personalities who occupy the office of Mayor of London, the new clause seeks to test where the principle of localism actually sits, because across the London boroughs there are locally and democratically elected councils or directly elected mayors, and across the whole of the capital there is the Mayor of London. The councils and directly elected mayors, and the Mayor of London, have planning powers, which is an anomaly that has been thrown up and that causes political tension, when there is a Labour Mayor and a Conservative borough, or indeed when there is a Conservative Mayor and a Labour or Lib Dem borough. That tension is real; it exists.
My instinct is always that the most local area should be the one that makes the decision rather than the regional area or a pan-regional area. I accept that that is an ideological position of mine; it is how I believe decisions are best made. However, there is clearly a tension. I have talked to colleagues, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—this new clause has also been tabled in her name—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been very engaged in this debate as well, so I know that that tension exists.
It might not be my preference, but it might be the case that the most appropriate decision-making level in London is the regional level, which is the Mayor of London. I do not believe that it is, but that would be a legitimate answer. Alternatively, is it the London boroughs that have primacy when it comes to planning? If we are true to the principle of subsidiarity, it would be the London boroughs, but at the moment that tension exists. However, if we were to make the Mayor’s powers in relation to the boroughs advisory as opposed to compulsory, we would take that tension away.
I offer the new clause to the Committee as one that identifies a very tightly defined geographical problem that affects many Members’ constituencies and causes a lot of community upset, where a London borough’s planning authority is essentially over-ruled by a regional structure.
Lee Rowley
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause. I will resist the opportunity to defend the current incumbent Mayor of London, as I am sure he would expect, although I know other members of Committee would disagree with me.
A number of us in this room share experience of local government in London; at least three of us here—I apologise if I have missed anyone—served simultaneously on different councils in London. I served on Westminster council for eight years, until 2014. Even when there was alignment between regional and local tiers in terms of party, I recall a number of disagreements about individual applications and the general principle of where the relevant powers should sit. We will probably not resolve that philosophical debate today, other than to say that I acknowledge the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put their name to the new clause.
It is particularly important to acknowledge the difference between inner and outer London, and the difficulties of making sure that policies can apply to both areas equally. I think we should tread extremely carefully when considering whether to amend the strategic powers of the Mayor, even if I happen to disagree with much of what the current incumbent does. Although my hon. Friend for Buckingham has made known his strength of feeling about the matter, and that of other colleagues, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Greg Smith
I welcome the Minister’s comments, and as I acknowledged, it is a difficult issue to navigate. It almost reopens some of the devolution questions. It is an anomaly that many London colleagues, certainly on the Conservative Benches, feel and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with them and me. Like him, I was a London borough councillor just a little way up the river from him for 12 years, some moons ago, and felt the same pressures. If he is willing to work with London colleagues to find a satisfactory way through this, I am content to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 34
Local government capital investments: economic appraisal
“(1) This section applies to local government capital investments of a value of £2 million or more.
(2) Before making an investment to which this section applies, a local authority must—
(a) commission an economic appraisal of the investment, and
(b) publish the findings of that appraisal.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require local authorities to commission, and publish the findings of any capital investment of the value of £2 million or more.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to move the new clause and to give the hon. Member for Buckingham some respite. The new clause relates to fiscal responsibility in local government. Without proper viability being sought, local authorities can pay millions of pounds on projects and never reap the return. That is why the new clause relates to capital investments and economic appraisals, which should be undertaken and understood, but without a Green Book-style appraisal, local authorities can end up paying and developers and landowners gaining, with ultimately no reward and benefit to the local community. The new clause is designed to ensure that the finances on any project are transparent and for the benefit of local people. It would ensure that there is gain for all and not ultimate loss, not least given that we are talking about the use of public resources. That is why the new clause is important.
The case study to which I want to refer particularly is that of the York Central site. The cost of bringing that site forward is now believed to be £200 million of public funding. As that project moves forward, more and more is being demanded from public sources to fund it, and yet the local authority may never see a return on that investment. City of York’s infrastructure investment was planned to be around £35 million, but it has now been given an estimated debt cost of £57 million based on April interest rates, which will clearly be significantly higher now.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also put in £77 million and it is believed that more than £50 million will have to come through the Mayor’s budget once it is approved and in place—we are expecting that to be in 2024. In a briefing, councillors were told that the council would need to put in £85 million and debt costs to fill the gap, but we could now be talking about nearer £100 million rather than the £35 million once rejected. As a result, it is necessary to weigh up the viability of the site not for the developers, as set out, but for the local authority. It is that check that is not required for such a project today, but it is really important, not least because local authorities simply do not have the necessary margins and, as a result, have to cut back on vital services to fund such capital projects.
My amendment therefore calls for prudence. On sites where any capital investment over the value of £2 million is made, there must be an economic appraisal commissioned and then published assessing the financial viability of the site to the authority. York Central has been developed for housing, so it will not reap the opportunities that a larger business owner could bring in nor those to do with council tax, as most of the properties being developed will be for investment, not for local residents to live in. They will either be empty units, leading to a cost to our city, or will be turned into Airbnbs, a matter that I will turn to later. Of course, Airbnb falls under the thresholds of flipping the property, not paying council tax and not paying business rates either, so the local authority loses millions of pounds as Airbnbs dodge the system.
At a time of significant austerity in local government, it is crucial that more scrutiny is given to the costs it has to expend on sites. My amendment simply calls for proper governance over finances and, at a time when the whole nation is looking at how Governments at all levels are more prudent with the spending of their money, it is right to bring forward such a measure to ensure that public money is spent in a way that will see its return and will be for the benefit of the people, not the developers and landowners who ultimately gain from such development.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central, who always talks incredibly passionately about her constituency. I thank her for bringing her experience of the capital project she mentioned to the Committee. As a Conservative, my ideology tells me that ultimately we always need to get best value for taxpayers’ money.
The Government recognise the importance of local capital investment for economic growth, improved public services and meeting our priorities, such as on housing delivery. That is why we need a robust system that supports the benefits of local decision making and allows sensible investment while safeguarding taxpayer’s money and protecting the local government finance system. Unfortunately, in recent years a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive risks with taxpayers’ money; they have become too indebted or have made investments that have ultimately proved too risky. That is why we need to ensure that the system is fit for purpose.
The changes made through clause 71 provide a flexible range of interventions for the Government to investigate where capital practices may have placed financial sustainability at risk and to take steps to remediate issues if necessary. We think that that is sufficient to address risk.
We have recently taken a number of steps to improve the transparency of local authority capital investment and borrowing. Last year we completed our data survey, which is designed to extract new data from local government and fill our identified information gaps. As of February 2022, we amended our regular statistical returns to obtain more detailed data on local authority investment activity. That will provide the Government with the clarity they need on the performance of investment assets as well as the location and risk management of investment properties.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the Minister’s contribution. However, will she acknowledge that even if the viability of a site stands up, some of the investors in it may not? What ultimately happens is that local authorities become the backstop for financing and have to fill the gaps in order for those sites to be brought forward. As a result, the benefit goes to the developer and the risk sits with local authorities.
Dehenna Davison
I have certainly heard what the hon. Member has said, and we all have examples from our own constituencies and authorities. The current legislation and statutory codes allow local government to appraise risks as they stand. Alongside that, the monitoring and provisions that we are seeking through clause 71 will provide central Government with assurance. We think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Reflecting on the example that I gave, will she say how her Department would scrutinise the funding of sites such as the one in York Central to assess the viability of the local authority’s having to make increased contributions? Has the Department done that?
Dehenna Davison
I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that point in writing.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not satisfied that what she says will be sufficient to ensure that there are safeguards on local public resourcing that is brought forward on a site, particularly one as important as the York Central site, where eye-watering sums of money are being spent. I will therefore read with care what she writes to me to see whether there are sufficient safeguards. If I am not satisfied, I will want to return to this issue at a further stage of the Bill, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
New use classes for second homes and holiday lets
“(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 (dwellinghouses)—
(a) for ‘whether or not as a sole or’ substitute ‘as a’, and
(b) after ‘residence’ insert ‘other than a use within Class 3B)’.
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Class C3A Second homes
Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a secondary or supplementary residence by—
(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;
(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or
(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within class C4).
Interpretation of Class C3A
For the purposes of Class C3A “single household” is to be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004.
Class C3B Holiday rentals
Use, following a change of ownership, as a dwellinghouse as a holiday rental property.’”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would create new class uses for second homes and short-term holiday lets.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Lee Rowley
I thank Opposition Members for tabling the new clauses, and I understand why they have done so. In all processes, there will be challenges; there will be difficulties at the margins in how things work and where people try to push boundaries beyond where they are intended to be. I do not disagree that there will be examples around the country where PDRs have not been used in the right way, in the same way that there are problems with the existing planning system when people go through planning applications, or with enforcement when people have not done that.
There are problems in all systems, and I accept that the Government’s job is to try to minimise those problems while recognising that it is always a work in progress. I particularly accept the challenge that the hon. Member for York Central made about holiday lets and the like. I am happy to discuss that with her separately, if that would be helpful.
There is obviously a question about where we strike the balance between enabling processes to continue to happen in a way that is sped up, gives certainty and clarity, and brings out the “right answer” most of the time, and where additional consideration or time, or additional processes, are required. The latter all comes with cost, in terms of time and clarity, for those making applications. That balance is very difficult to strike, but we are trying to strike it by ensuring that the PDRs in the system, but also a significant proportion of applications that potentially require further consideration, go through the normal process.
The challenge that I have with the new clauses—I absolutely do not mean to caricature them—is that, in the way that they are written, they seek a review of every single element of PDRs. I know that the Opposition Front Benchers know that a significant amount of permitted development rights are relatively uncontroversial. The Opposition are effectively saying that, in order to look at problems that are understood and that need consideration and review—I am happy to talk to them about what we should do with those, if we are able to—we must also look at every single other PDR, including things such as how porches, chimneys, flues and microwave antennae are changed.
I am not sure that is the Opposition’s intention, so I gently ask them to consider withdrawing the new clauses on the basis that, while I am happy to continue the conversation, I think that their approach may be disproportionate to their intention.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister admitted that PDRs are not being used in the correct way. He feels that our new clauses seek a review of every element of PDR, but if he and the Government do not want to review every element, what elements would they review? He has already admitted that the system is not working properly, so will he offer an alternative?
Lee Rowley
For clarity, I said that no system is perfect. That is not necessarily a recognition that anything is systemically wrong, although I am happy to debate individual instances if Opposition Members believe that to be the case. We will never create a perfect system. I am sure that we all intend to make the processes better. There will be differences of view, both in the Committee and outside it, about where it is appropriate to draw lines in terms of the use and non-use of PDRs. That will be a discussion long after we have left this place. I am keen to hear from colleagues on both sides of the House about where they think PDRs are not working in the ways that we hope, recognising that no system is perfect but hoping that they are used correctly in most instances. I do not think, however, that it is proportionate to do a wholesale review of PDRs at this stage.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way again. I do not think that he quite understood the point that I was making. He said that PDRs are not being used in the right way, so where do he and the Government feel that they need to be looked at? I am not getting any clarity.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to clarify. I did not say that PDRs were not being used in the right way; I said that no system—
Lee Rowley
I know that Hansard will demonstrate the context. I was saying that no system is perfect. I was not making any comment on individual PDRs, but I have said to colleagues on both sides of the Committee that I am happy to discuss individual areas where they have concerns, outside of a proposal for every single one of the 155-odd PDRs to be reviewed in detail within a timeframe that is not particularly proportionate. If there is a problem, let us talk about it in individual areas, but this approach is disproportionate. I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing the motion and having a separate discussion about specific instances that have been raised, and others that they are concerned about.
Rachael Maskell
I listened carefully to the debate, and I am grateful for all the contributions to it. The Minister will know that we are not putting forward a plan to tear up the whole PDR framework; we are simply calling for a review, as we believe is appropriate. After a scoping review, we would determine which points to drill down on, to ensure that we are looking at the parts of the system that are simply not working. That is the intention behind the new clause. Although it has a broader scope, it homes in on some of the challenges in the system. I therefore do not think that the proposal to put a scoping exercise in the legislation is unreasonable. I welcome the Minister’s offer of dialogue on these matters, which clearly are significantly impacting our communities. Dialogue will be really important. I will not press my new clause to a vote, but I will certainly take up that offer.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 20th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2022 - (20 Oct 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, on the final day of our proceedings on this incredible Bill. I want to place on record my thanks to all the Clerks for the support they have given the Committee, particularly when writing our amendments.
There are omissions in the levelling-up agenda. Future generations, let alone the current one, will not forgive a levelling-up plan that fails to focus on the natural environment and to ensure that people have equal access to our greatest assets. Equitable access to the environment needs to be in the Bill through a specified mission. Some 70% of UK adults have said that being close to nature improves their mood, saving the NHS at least £100 million a year, with a nature-rich space leading to healthier and happier people. One in three people in economically deprived areas does not have access to green spaces within 15 minutes of where they live. These measures are therefore vital for our mental and physical health. It is often those who live in urban, deprived communities with the least connection to our natural environment who suffer the most. Making tacking that issue a central mission of the levelling-up agenda would prove that this Government understand that enrichment is for everyone and would bring Government focus to it.
I have constituents who have never been to the country, children who have never run along a beach and adults who have never climbed a mountain, never got lost in a forest and never been to a place where they can breathe the cleanest air. Without nature, our wellbeing is impaired, productivity falls and poverty rises—that is inequality, not levelling up. Access to the natural environment must therefore be a central mission if levelling up is to have any purpose at all.
New clause 46 would place a duty on Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature, to protect at least 30% of the land in England for nature by 2030, and that land must be monitored and managed for conservation and restoration. If, like me, you miss hedgehogs—perhaps they have no connected corridors—or birds, bees and butterflies, which we have failed to protect from pesticides and whose habitats we have failed to save, you will understand why this new clause is important. If you live somewhere like York and see more and more severe flooding because grouse moor shooting practices have damaged the upper catchment, you will want to see that practice stopped and the land restored. Our incredible natural environment was created to be in perfect balance, but our interference has caused so much harm.
We have a serious duty to monitor the natural environment, end the harm and restore nature before it is too late. Homing in on key sites must be our priority. We have heard so much this year about the climate emergency, and COP15 is highlighting the ruinous state of our natural environment. Just over the weekend, I was reading a WWF report that states that, on average, 69% of populations of mammals, birds and fish have vanished since 1970. We have to stop and save. My new clause would be the first step in that and would show that the Government were serious, not grandstanding, on such a serious issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I am again delighted to find some common ground so early in the Committee sitting; I think we were three minutes in when the hon. Member for York Central mentioned her love for hedgehogs—something that I definitely share. I thank her for these proposals, which aim to address the importance of the environment within the levelling-up framework.
New clause 44 concerns the inclusion of a specific mission on environmental equality. While I fully appreciate the sentiment behind it, the missions as depicted in the levelling-up White Paper are the product of extensive analysis and engagement already. They are supported by a clear range of metrics, which will be used to measure them at the appropriate levels of geography. They take into account the wider range of inputs, outputs and outcomes needed to drive progress in the overall mission. They cover a wide range of policy issues that are all clearly linked to the drivers of spatial disparities.
The Government have already explicitly acknowledged the importance of natural capital in the White Paper. As an asset, it underpins sustainable GDP growth, supports productivity over the medium term and provides resilience to future shocks. Natural capital has been estimated to be worth £1.2 trillion in the UK alone. It also has a place under the 25-year environment plan, which sets out the Government’s plans to help the natural world regain and retain good health. It pursues cleaner air and water in our cities and rural landscapes, protection for threatened species and provision of richer wildlife habitats. Importantly, the Environment Act 2021 already contains provision for the setting of long-term environmental targets for England, which is also referenced in the levelling-up White Paper, so the Government’s commitment to the environment is incredibly clear.
The Bill is designed to establish the framework for the missions, rather than the individual missions themselves. The framework provides an opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions and further environmental protections against a range of existing Government policy.
New clause 46 aims to establish a duty on relevant Ministers to identify and maintain a network of sites for nature. The Government have already committed to protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030 and to developing the most appropriate approach to increasing and enhancing protected land as we do so. Protected sites are our best existing areas for nature, providing places within which species can thrive, recover and disperse. The nature recovery Green Paper sought views on how the protected site system in England could be improved to better deliver our domestic and international biodiversity objectives, including our commitment to protect 30% of land by 2030 and wider species recovery. We are considering responses to the Green Paper and will be publishing our response in due course. This is the means through which the Government will implement and identify sites for the 30 by 30 commitment, but I hope the Government will be given the opportunity to respond on the Green Paper first. On that basis, I hope I have provided enough reassurance for the hon. Member for York Central not to press her new clauses.
Rachael Maskell
I have to disagree with the Minister that such priority is being given to the natural environment. This has to be a central mission, not least because of the recognition that she has given to the value of natural capital. While the 25-year environment plan sets out an ambition, it is weak on targets and monitoring. We need to go far further, which is what this proposal will do if it is a central mission in levelling up.
On new clause 46, I note that the Government are consulting on the issue, and I am interested in the responses. I will not push these new clauses today, save to say that the natural environment does not have high enough priority in this legislation, but it is essential for our future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
General duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being
“(1) For the purposes of this section ‘the general health and well-being objective’ is the reduction of health inequalities and the improvement of well-being in England through the exercise of functions in relation to England.
(2) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must prepare and publish a plan to be known as a health inequalities and well-being improvement plan.
(3) A relevant planning authority must have regard to the general health and wellbeing objective and that plan when preparing relevant plans, policies and strategies.
(4) A relevant planning authority when making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the general health and well-being objective.
(5) In complying with this section a relevant planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of—
(a) delivering mixed-use walkable neighbourhoods which accord with the 20 minute neighbourhood principle; and
(b) creating opportunities to enable everyday physical activity, through improving existing and creating new walking, cycling and wheeling routes and networks and natural spaces.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a), neighbourhoods which accord with the 20 minute neighbourhood principle are places where people can meet most of their daily needs including food shops, schools, health services and natural space within a 20 minute return walk of their home.
(7) Where the relevant authority is a local authority, in complying with this section, the authority must—
(a) include specific objectives for access to natural spaces and ensure that those objectives are met;
(b) ensure that the objectives established under subsection (a) set out standards for high quality accessible natural green and blue spaces, using Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards as a baseline, and going beyond these standards where possible; and (c) implement and monitor the delivery of those objectives.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance today, Mr Hollobone. On this last day of the Committee, I want to put on record my thanks to the Clerk here and those who are not present for their work and support throughout the Committee. I also thank colleagues on both sides. Although I have been disappointed that the Government have not accepted amendments from the Opposition or from their own Back Benchers, I have nevertheless appreciated the courtesy with which that has been done. I have enjoyed this time on the Committee with all Members present—I genuinely mean that.
I have a few words to say on the new clause. Health inequalities are hugely significant for levelling up, and I want to pick just two issues that affect rural communities—not just mine, but others too. I will start with GPs. In my constituency alone there has been a 17% drop in the number of GPs in the past five and a half years—that is more than one in six GPs gone—and the average GP there serves 403 more patients than they did in 2016. Any Government criticism or implied criticism of GPs not seeing people quickly enough needs to be seen in that context. Let us support our GPs with the resources they need, rather than lambasting them.
It is worth pointing out that that period coincides with the time since the Government got rid of the minimum practice income guarantee, and I am going to argue that those things are connected. The minimum practice income guarantee was money that supported small, often rural, surgeries to ensure they were sustainable. Its removal has led to the closure of a number of surgeries, including the current threat to the Ambleside and Hawkshead surgeries in my constituency. A new small surgeries strategic rural fund could support those surgeries, make sure we do not lose more and bring some back.
The second issue is about cancer. In the north of Cumbria, 59% of people with a cancer diagnosis are not seen within two months of their diagnosis—they are not being treated for the first time for more than 62 days after diagnosis. In the south of Cumbria, the figure is 41%. Either way, that is outrageous. People are dying unnecessarily.
There are a whole range of reasons for that. One is the lack of easy access to radiotherapy. According to the Government’s national radiotherapy advisory group, any patient who has to travel more than 45 minutes one way for radiotherapy treatment is in receipt of “bad practice”. That information was published a few years ago now, but it still absolutely stands, clinically and in every other way. There is not a single person living in my constituency who can get to treatment within 45 minutes—not one. Mobile or satellite units at places such as Kendal and Penrith are absolutely essential. If we are going to tackle levelling up and health inequalities between rural areas and others, we need to ensure that small rural surgeries are properly funded and that there are satellite radiotherapy units.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for raising this incredibly important issue. All hon. Members will agree that it is vital that we safeguard the health and wellbeing of our nation. The Health Secretary talked about the ABCD of national priorities—ambulances, backlogs, care, and doctors and dentistry—and giving her time to tackle them is incredibly important. That is why the Government have introduced a new approach to co-ordinating local efforts to improve health outcomes, and why we have already set clear expectations through planning policy.
Rachael Maskell
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham for raising that issue. He is absolutely right; we need to look at the broadest possible scope. This particular issue has been raised within the Church of England, but he is right—there are many places of worship that should be marked as community assets.
When those assets are disposed of, communities should have a right to access them and bid for them, as we have discussed during previous stages of the Bill, rather than them going straight to market sale. That leaves communities devoid of any assets whatsoever. It is so important for communities to have the option to maintain an asset and use it for multiple purposes, including as a place of worship or as a place to serve the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for putting forward the new clause. She powerfully made her point about the importance of church properties and church land at the centre of our communities. We have all recently seen buildings that have brought communities together for decades and centuries, very sadly, no longer able to continue in the way that they have previously, and they may be released for other purposes. I accept that; we all regret it and many people in the communities regret it. I have an example in my constituency: there was a long-standing campaign for St Andrew’s Parish Church in Barrow Hill, which concluded only a few months ago. It was an early version of a church built along the lines of the arts and crafts movement. It has significance, and yet it looks as though it will leave ecclesiastical aegis.
I completely understand the hon. Member’s sentiment and she has made a cogent case for the new clause, but the challenge—and why I will ask her to withdraw it—is that the assets of community value scheme allows local communities to make applications to retain community assets where they think it is reasonable and proportionate. On balance, while I accept her point, it would be better to allow local communities to continue to make those decisions. When the challenges that she highlighted arise, I hope that communities try to ensure that churches are protected as much as possible.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
This is an issue dear to my heart.
It is a very good new clause. I cycle every year in Suffolk churches’ “Ride and Stride” to raise money to protect their incredibly expensive infrastructure. We have wool churches in South Suffolk, which are very beautiful, but whether beautiful or not, they are very important to their communities.
In 2015—I think—we had the church roof fund, which was used where there was very serious degradation. We then had a spate of lead theft, which further undermined churches. We may be rejecting new clause 47, but are the Government considering specific measures, and perhaps working with the Church of England, to see what more we can do?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that, historically, we have attempted to address such issues, both through the continuation of the asset of community value process, which allows local communities to try to intervene should they feel that appropriate, and the community ownership fund, which is £150 million of taxpayer subsidy that supports communities to save at-risk assets.
Although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for York Central, my personal preference, and that of the Government, is that local communities reserve the right to request assets of community value and to go through that process. Automatically designating churches as assets of community value may not be appropriate in all circumstances. I ask that the hon. Lady kindly withdraw the motion.
Rachael Maskell
I want to pick up on a couple of points. I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk for raising his concerns. Considerable public money is invested in many such historic buildings before they end up at market, so we need to consider that opportunity. However, churches are not just ordinary buildings; they are very special buildings in our communities. We must consider the broader value that such places bring to our communities. Although I will not press the motion to a Division, I hope that the Minister will regard this as a new issue on his desk and that, when we have debates on later stages of the Bill, he will look further at how we can protect these vital community assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 48
Requirement to hold a referendum for large and strategic sites
“(1) A planning application which a local planning authority has received is subject to approval by residents in a referendum in either of the following cases—
(a) the planning application is for a site of two hectares or over, or
(b) the planning application is for a site of one hundred housing units or over.
(2) The local planning authority may not approve an application under section (1) unless the result of the referendum is to approve the application.
(3) Where the result of the referendum is not to secure an application the applicant may resubmit an application to the local planning authority if the following conditions are met—
(a) they have carried out further public consultation on the plan, and
(b) the plan has been substantively revised as a result of this consultation.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require planning applications for large and strategic sites to be subject to approval by residents in a referendum.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lee Rowley
This is an interesting set of new clauses, on which I could detain the Committee for many hours, although I wonder whether it would be keen on that. In the interest of brevity, I will limit my comments, because the clauses go to a philosophical question about where and how decisions should be made, and about the rights of individuals to at least propose activities on their own property with their own capital.
A single principle that has been part of the planning system for many decades is that people have the right to make applications within an existing and approved framework or, if that existing and approved framework is not in place, within the broader national planning policy framework, and for them to be heard. Although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for York Central, that important principle should be upheld.
There is a broader question about whether we should seek to disintermediate the planning system more generally in terms of public involvement, but that is probably one for another forum. I would be happy to debate that question with the hon. Lady, as it raises a number of broader and more interesting issues. As an expert in this area, she will know that it is important to note that the significant number of interventions currently in the planning system allow people to have their say.
I do not necessarily think that the system is broken, but a lot of people feel that their voices are not heard at the right time or in a substantive way, and I completely appreciate their frustration, even if I am not sure about the kind of structural reforms that the hon. Lady proposes. Fundamentally, if local councillors do not consistently do the right thing on planning—if they fail to bring forward local plans, fail to be clear about what should or should not go into plans and where things should or should not go, and fail to create a framework because there has been no local planning, or the framework is wrong—residents should vote them out and replace them with councillors who will. That is what happened in North East Derbyshire in 2019, and I encourage all local residents who feel that their councillors are not consistently doing the right thing on planning over many years to look at whether they have the right leadership in place.
Although the hon. Lady made a strong point—with which I agree—about the importance of democracy in the planning system, I hope that she will not press the new clauses, as I do not think they are necessarily the way to go at this time.
Rachael Maskell
I am sure the residents of York will heed the Minister’s advice in May and ensure that they have a council that engages with them and listens to their needs. While we wait for that event, I think it is clear that, across the planning system, communities may have a voice but they do not have the power to influence decisions. We need to ensure greater democratisation of our planning system, which should be about people and communities, and their homes, futures and jobs. At the moment, the planning system is insufficient in helping people to level up, which is what the Bill is all about.
The Minister has heard my arguments, and I am sure that we will debate this further, but I trust that, in the interim between this stage and Report, he will give further consideration to how that balance can be tipped more towards communities, ensuring that they have a proper say, so that that the Bill does not become another developers’ charter under which developers hold all the cards and all the power. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Disposal of land held by public bodies
“(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022.’
(3) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.
(4) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsection (5).
(5) After section 211 (acquisition, use and maintenance of property) insert—
‘211A Disposal of land held by NHS bodies
Any power granted by this Act to an NHS body to dispose of land is exercisable in accordance with section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 as if the NHS body were a local authority.’
(6) Subject to subsection (8), a disposal of land is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (7).
(7) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—
(a) after paragraph 1 insert—
‘(1A) This consent also applies to any NHS body in England as if it were a local authority in accordance with section 211A of the National Health Service Act 2006;’;
(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;
(c) for paragraph 3(1)(vii) substitute—
‘(viii) a Police and Crime Commissioner established under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;’;
(d) for paragraph 3(1)(ix) substitute—
‘(ix) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime;’;
(e) for paragraph 3(1)(x) substitute—
‘(x) the London Fire Commissioner;’;
(f) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—
‘(xiii) a combined authority;
(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;
(xv) the Greater London Authority;
(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this sub-paragraph.’.”
(8) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would bring an amended and updated version of the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 into primary legislation, extends its application to NHS bodies and clarifies that the Consent applies to Police and Crime Commissioners, MOPAC and the London Fire Commissioner.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I, too, want to support the new clause and briefly draw attention to the way that we need to ensure that public land is used for public good. Whether it has been NHS Property Services, which has been selling off land to private developers, or Network Rail, which has been using its land to maximise capital receipts, or the Ministry of Defence selling off much of its estate, which we know has not gone well for the Government, we need to ensure that this type of land is used to build the homes that people need now and in the future. I can cite many examples of places in York where it feels that the city is, bit by bit, being sold off—not for the public benefit, but for the benefit of developers. That is why I will support this new clause today.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for York Central for expressing their views on this new clause.
The legislative framework governing the disposal of surplus land is, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, a long-standing one and it is designed to protect taxpayers’ money. The starting point is that land should generally be disposed of at the best price that is reasonably obtainable. However, as he also indicated, there are on occasions the opportunity to dispose of land for less than its maximum value where that creates wider public benefits, such as facilitating community projects. Therefore, it is possible, with the Secretary of State’s consent, for local authorities to dispose of land at less than best consideration in some circumstances.
As the hon. Gentleman also indicated, a general consent is in place for disposals where there would be a loss of value of up to £2 million, and in those cases it is at the discretion of local authorities, and above this threshold—as he also indicated, because he is seeking to change it—disposals require a specific application to the Secretary of State for consent. The legislative framework is designed for local authorities and other locally accountable bodies. It already includes the fire commissioner, and other bodies are accountable in different ways to different regimes.
So, while I completely appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expressed, and I have read the correspondence from the hon. Member for Twickenham—although I cannot comment on individual cases, I know that she is making a very clear case regarding a particular instance within her Twickenham constituency—I ask him whether he would be prepared to withdraw the new clause. I know that it seeks to offer solutions.
As a new Minister, I would be interested to understand in more detail from the hon. Member for Twickenham the specific problems that she sees, and while I cannot give her any guarantees, if she wants to write to me with that detail I will happily read it and go through it in more detail. However, at this time I ask him whether he would consider withdrawing the new clause.
Tim Farron
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I am also grateful for the remarks from the hon. Member for York Central. This is a huge issue for all of us and there is much public land, particularly in a community such as mine, with multiple local authorities and, indeed, predecessor local authorities, national parks and all the other parts of the public sector that are present. Sometimes, that land becomes available and there are opportunities for us to make good public use of those other properties in ways that get far more lasting value to the community than a slightly inflated cash value upfront that could then be spent filling a black hole, no doubt, for next year’s budget.
I will not press this to a vote, as the Minister asks, but I encourage him to engage with my hon. Friend. If I could push him, I am sure she would be very grateful to have a sit down with him to talk through the issue to see whether he could provide additional guidance. All we are really asking for here is that the Government update the list of what counts as a public body and accept that there has been some inflation since 2003. They are not big asks, and I ask that the Government take those things into account. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 56
Annual pubs reports
“(1) Each tier 2 local authority in England must produce an Annual Pubs Report.
(2) A report under this section must consider the latest trends in pubs and on-licensed establishments across the authority.
(3) The Secretary of State may by guidance suggest the contents of such reports.
(4) Central government must provide funding to local authorities to cover the costs of this new responsibility.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dehenna Davison
The shadow Minister is absolutely right: this is an area where we have found a lot of common ground in the few days that I have been serving on Committee. Long may that common ground continue. We can all recognise the incredible value of our hospitality businesses. I am sure that for many of us in this room, myself included, it is where we got our first experience of the job market in our first roles that gave us some of the skills that we needed to move through our careers. For many people, as the shadow Minister rightly outlined, it is not just a pub or a restaurant; it is somewhere we go to have a bit of company, to have a chat, to celebrate or commiserate, so it is right that we do all we can to get hospitality businesses through what has been a really difficult few years. That is why we have recently taken steps through the energy bill relief scheme to try to provide support for hospitality businesses and recognise the unique challenges that they face. That will be a vital tool to ensure they get through this difficult winter; and through kickstart we are helping businesses to recruit more staff.
On the specifics of the amendment, data on the hospitality sector is already available. The Office for National Statistics publishes a range of regional data, including on the output of the sector, the number of hospitality businesses and the number of workers they employ. I am keen not to duplicate the incredible work of trade bodies such as UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping, as well as organisations such as Statista and IBISWorld, who provide regular updates and industry statistics and reports detailing the state of the hospitality sector from its position of incredible expertise.
I am concerned that if we implemented the amendment, we would create an extra reporting requirement, putting an additional requirement on businesses at a time when they are already facing unprecedented costs and challenges. As I have already outlined, the Department has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data that we have in central Government. That could have a role to play when it comes to the hospitality business. More broadly, the amendment is unnecessary, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, although we are all on the side of hospitality businesses at this difficult time.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer. I have a slight concern that relying on the data alone might make us a little reactive in this space, but I hope the Minister will think more about the idea of having it as part of a spatial data suite. That would be a valuable thing. I note her previous commitment to meet the Campaign for Real Ale, which is very interested in this. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Review of England's public conveniences
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, appoint commissioners to consider the level of need for public conveniences in England and the extent to which current provision matches that need.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish the report of the Commissioners before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of their appointment.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
Yes, changing place toilets are hugely important. I pay tribute to Martin Jackaman, the pioneer of those places and a Nottinghamian. Where available, changing places have been life-transforming for some of the most profoundly challenged families in the country. We want more such places, and to be clear that everyone going out in their city or town centre should have access to such provision—with a hoist and all those things that make the difference. That is why the issue is important.
On my new clauses, first, new clause 57 proposes a review of public conveniences. The Government would be asked to form an independent panel to assess the level of need for public conveniences within various communities and, having determined that need, to assess the level of provision. If there is a gap—I suspect there might well be—the panel should ascertain its root causes and make recommendations about what might be done to rectify the situation. I hope that the Government will encourage the devolved Administrations to undertake similar exercises.
Secondly, as addressed in new clause 58, one of the barriers to improving provision is a bit of a gap in ownership of the problem. Therefore, my new clause suggests that there should be a new duty on tier 2 councils to produce a local public convenience plan. That is not to dictate how councils use their resources, but it seems reasonable to have a plan for provision in the area. One would hope to work with partners for public convenience provisions and accountability.
Thirdly, new clause 59 is one proposal that could close the gap more quickly. Where businesses—we should recognise that many businesses up and down the country already do this—allow their toilet facilities to be used by non-patrons, that is a wonderful thing. If they do so, that could be reflected in the business rate. I am interested in the Minister’s views. My new clause might not be ready for the legislation today. That range of things would help close the gap in provision. We cannot afford to do nothing in this area. The gaps should close, but they continue to be a limiting factor on our high streets and in our town centres. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.
Dehenna Davison
I have just taken the Committee on a virtual trip to the pub, so it only seems right that we should go to a public toilet on the way back. We know how important public toilets are for all of us, but in particular for some of the more disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled or those with young children. The shadow Minister was right to outline some of the particular challenges.
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for talking about changing places. As she will know, in the past year we have introduced a £13 million changing places fund, which has been fantastic in allowing local authorities to improve their provision. We all recognise that public conveniences are incredibly important, but they are very much a local issue. Local areas know best what provision they need—be that of public toilets or other amenities—alongside other local priorities that they hope to deliver.
New clause 57 would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences, and public convenience plans would be required under new clause 58. Such changes would risk increasing bureaucracy, while decreasing the importance of local decision making. The shadow Minister will have heard me banging on in Committee about this, but it is certainly not what the Bill is about; it is about empowering local decision making and local leaders. It would be disproportionate for the Government to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue. Many local authorities already operate local community toilet schemes to encourage cafés and other businesses to open their toilets to the public. The Government welcome that and we encourage all local authorities to consider whether such a scheme would be beneficial in their area.
I will keep my points on new clause 59 brief, because the shadow Minister said that he did not intend to press it today. However, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who does not sit on the Committee but campaigned passionately to have business rates removed from public toilets. He ran an incredibly successful campaign, and it was implemented through the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Act 2021.
On the amendment generally, our concern is that we would legislate on this, but the impact on the overall business rates bill would be incredibly minimal given the relatively small floor space. On that basis, we do not think the clause is necessary or proportionate at this stage. I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his new clause.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those answers. On the point about increasing bureaucracy, I do not think it would be a huge increase. I also think areas might benefit from a bit more bureaucracy and professional interest. I accept the points on localism, which has been a theme of many of the amendments we have moved. I think when we seek to understand and configure the state here—and we can talk for hours about devolution—it is about local leadership and circumstance, but there also has to be something about the national environment setting. I felt that the clause had passed that test.
This issue is not going to go away. I hope the Minister will keep reflecting on it as she spends longer in her brief. There are many interesting stakeholders in this space, who I know will be keen to meet with her. I suggest that they get in touch. I do think this is an important issue, and I do not think the current circumstances reflect that, nor will they get better if left alone. At some point, we will have to enter this space, but it probably is not today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 63
Minimum carbon compliance standards for new homes
“(1) The Secretary of State must make Building Regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 providing that new homes in England must meet the full requirements of the Future Homes Standard from 1 January 2023.
(2) A local authority in England may choose to require and enforce minimum carbon compliance standards for new homes in its area which exceed the Future Homes Standard from that date.” —(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would bring forward from 2025 the date for which the Government’s Future Homes Standard for carbon compliance of new homes would apply. It would also give local authorities the option of imposing higher standards locally.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The crises we are going through at the moment—the political one in this place, the cost of living crisis, and even the appalling Russian-inspired war in Ukraine—are secondary compared to the threat of climate change to our species and way of life. The buildings we live, study and work in are the single biggest contributors to greenhouse gases in this country and in others. The role of central and local government in ensuring we minimise and reduce to zero carbon emissions from our buildings and in particular from our homes, existing and new, has to be an absolute imperative.
The Government’s failure to tackle this in any meaningful way over the last few years does not only have lasting and terrifying climate consequences; it also has consequences today, as people are feeling in their pockets the cost of paying for energy bills. The Government through programmes have sought to champion our existing building stock. The green homes grant, for instance, was meant to help 600,000 homes and would on today’s prices have saved £1,800 a year, but 600,000 homes were not helped—only 43,000 were. That lack of ambition in central Government’s plans to insulate the stock that already exists is matched by a lack of ambition out there in the country when it comes to new builds.
Most local authorities, certainly ours in Cumbria, are determined to ensure that new builds are built with zero-carbon specification, yet they are not allowed to. If they seek to enforce zero-carbon homes when it comes to insultation, heat pumps, solar panels or a variety of other mechanisms that will ensure there is literally a zero carbon footprint from that property, the developers can object if they think they will incur an unreasonable expense, and the council or planning authority are powerless to do anything about it. It is incredibly frustrating.
This new clause is significant, as it will genuinely empower local authorities to do the right things, which they desperately want to. It breaks the heart of councils of all political parties when they see what they need to do and are not allowed to enforce it. The clause will allow them to do the right things, and more importantly even, it will do something to reduce energy costs and make a meaningful contribution to the battle against climate change. This is a really important clause, so I will seek to push it to a vote, because I think the Government have had plenty of time to take action of their own initiative over the last few years. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining the new clause. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept it, so we will no doubt have a Division in a moment, although I ask him to consider not pushing it to a vote. If he wishes to do so, that is of course his right.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the least surprising development of this entire Committee, I will talk about electoral reform, which, on the day after the centenary of Lloyd George’s leaving office, seems like the entirely right and appropriate thing to do. If only he had done it when he had the chance.
This is a serious point about devolution. The reality is that we have been permitted over the past few years to have different electoral systems, such as the supplementary vote used for electing Mayors and police and crime commissioners. In Scotland, the single transferable vote operates successfully for local government, and Northern Ireland has its own separate arrangements. If we trust local people, and if the Bill is about devolving power to local communities, it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that the Government allow local authorities to choose from a range of reasonable options the system that they deploy—and to do nothing more than use the system that the Conservative party normally uses for electing its leader. I point out that I am moving the new clause only because the Government chose recently to remove the supplementary vote from the election of Mayors and police and crime commissioners.
Before I shut up and sit down, I wish to reflect on the fact that in the past couple of years the Government have demonstrated an interesting example of changing the electoral system without a referendum. That makes one think, does it not? If the party or parties who form the next Government have a commitment to electoral reform in their manifestos, there is no need for a referendum. It is a precedent that the Government may wish they had not set.
Dehenna Davison
If it is no surprise to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman brings up electoral reform, it will be no surprise to him that I stand to ask him kindly to withdraw his new clause, because the Government absolutely cannot accept it. We are all clear about the merits of first past the post as a robust and secure way to elect representatives. It is well understood by voters and provides for strong and clear local accountability, with a clear link between elected representatives and those who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not.
It is important that the voting system is clearly understood by electors and they have confidence in it. We have spoken a lot in Committee about local confidence in local politics. Ensuring confidence in the voting system is paramount. Having different systems for neighbouring areas risks confusion for electors. We are a very mobile population: we could work in one area and have family in another. That confusion could be a real risk and could weaken public confidence in the local electoral process.
There is also the risk of political manipulation. For example, the current controlling group on the council could seek to choose and implement a system that it believes would favour it. Although I accept that there could be various safeguards to mitigate that risk, I do not consider that it could be entirely removed.
Elections are the foundation of local democracy, which is central to our values and to our being a free society; we should protect and nurture it. I could talk about this all day, but I will not detain the Committee any further. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Tim Farron
I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I will comment on the irony of the Minister saying that parties should not support electoral systems that advantage them, and of suggesting that there is some kind of automatic stability and clarity about Governments that are elected via first past the post. It is all going swimmingly at the moment.
There is this idea that there may be confusion between different systems. As a Cumbrian, I can completely cope with the fact that the Scots, just over the border, have a totally different electoral system for local and parliamentary elections. My Conservative friends in Westmorland and Eden are perfectly capable of voting by alternative vote for their leader and by first past the post for their Member of Parliament or councillor. The arguments made by the Minister do not hold water, but I will not trouble the Committee by pushing the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 65
Review into business rates system
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review of the business rates system.
(2) The review must consider the extent to which the business rates system—
(a) is achieving its objectives,
(b) is conducive to the achievement of the levelling-up and regeneration objectives of this Act.
(3) The review must consider whether alternatives of local business taxation would be more likely to achieve the objectives in subsections (2)(a) and (b).
(4) The review must in particular consider the effects of business rates and alternative local business taxation systems on—
(a) high streets, and
(b) rural areas.
(5) The review must consider the merits of devolving more control over local business taxation to local authorities.
(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review before parliament before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the business rates system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Me again—sorry. The Government have made quite a thing recently about their investment zones, which are interesting. We talked about them earlier in Committee. One idea behind them is that they create a low-tax environment, which misses the major point that faces most of Britain and certainly the whole of the north of England: business rates are the high tax that destroys high streets, puts off entrepreneurs, snuffs out young and small businesses and damages local economies, rural and urban alike.
New clause 65 would require a review of the business rates system to ensure that business rates are reformed and, indeed, replaced. They are harmful to our economy. They directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than taxing the profit of a fixed stock of land. We should abolish the business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy, shifting the burden of taxation from tenant to landowners. That would benefit deprived communities in particular. In terms of business rates, the whole of the north is over-rated—I should be very careful: it is over-business rated. It is not over-rated; it is of course the best part of planet Earth.
Kendal, Windermere, Penrith and communities throughout Cumbria are thriving compared with many places—we are lucky to have so many independents—but the gaps that we have in our high street we have in large part because business rates are totally unfit for purpose. They are a drag on investment and snuff out entrepreneurial zeal. If the Government really wanted to create investment zones, they would create them on every high street in the country by scrapping or reforming business rates.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, about which we have all had local businesses, shop owners, shop workers and other constituents contact us. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government reported on the business rates review, which was published with the 2021 autumn Budget. We will respond to the ongoing technical consultation in due course. At the Budget we also set out a range of measures to reduce the burden of business rates on all firms, including freezing the business rates multiplier, new support for businesses that are improving and greening their properties and additional support for high street businesses. It was a package worth more than £7 billion to businesses over the next five years.
I will keep this relatively brief. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but I suggest that the provision is unnecessary. Should the Government wish to undertake a further review of business rates, we would not require legislation to do so. I fear that putting that requirement into primary legislation would be unduly restrictive, create unhelpful bureaucracy and actually slow the possible rate of change.
Tim Farron
The Government do not need legislation to do most of what is in the Bill—just get on with it. Levelling up is something they can just crack on with. Business rates are a massive drag on investment in our high streets. If I heard in what the Minister said any commitment to look at that seriously, so that the obvious burden was addressed, those with the wealth to pay business-related taxes pay more, and communities in the north of England as well as those struggling in the south paid a fairer and lower rate through a new system, I would be prepared to withdraw the motion. On the condition the Government are seriously looking at that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Disability accessibility standards for railway stations
“(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that railway stations in England—
(a) provide step-free access from street to train, and
(b) meet in full and as soon as possible the disability access standards in the Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations Code of Practice published by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland in March 2015.
(2) Any requirements made in conjunction with that duty may not make any exemptions or concessions for small or remote stations.
(3) In undertaking the duty in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may—
(a) make an application to the Office of Rail and Road under section 16A (provision, improvement and development of railway facilities) of the Railways Act 1993;
(b) revise the code of practice under section 71B (code of practice for protection of interests of rail users who are disabled) of the Railways Act 1993;
(c) amend the contractual conditions of any licenced railway operator;
(d) instruct Network Rail to take any action the Secretary of State considers necessary in connection to the duty.
(4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on performance against the duty.” —(Tim Farron.)
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that railway stations meet disability access standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the last provision of a suite from me, and it is really important to me as a person with members of their family who have disabilities and as someone who many years ago worked for Lancaster University in a role supporting students with a range of disabilities.
At the time that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force, one of the glaring errors was that many older buildings were allowed to continue to be thoroughly inaccessible. I am particularly concerned about railway stations, of which there are many in my community. We are blessed with the Settle to Carlisle line; the Lakes line; the Furness line; and, of course, the main line through Oxenholme to Penrith and beyond. I am deeply concerned that there are stations throughout our country, but particularly in my community, that are not just slightly inaccessible but totally inaccessible.
In particular, I am concerned about Staveley station, which is on the Lakes line from Oxenholme to Windermere. Staveley is the first village in the Lake district. It is a beautiful and vibrant place, with a young community. It is a community that, often, lives there but works elsewhere. There are 41 steps up to Staveley station. There is zero accessibility, not just for people with a disability but for people with pushchairs or anybody who has any baggage with them. That is outrageous.
Because Staveley is a relatively small station, the Government’s schemes and funds such as Access for All, as well as those of previous Governments, were never in a million years going to give it any money. In the end, it is outrageous that one of our railway stations—I could also mention Arnside in my constituency and Ulverston in the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—has serious accessibility problems. It is outrageous that just because these are not huge main line stations they are inaccessible for many people in our community.
New clause 66 seeks to prevent the kind of bidding game that we will always lose because the station is too small. It makes it compulsory for there to be direct decent access to railway stations for people with disabilities and other mobility issues.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I completely accept that access to railway stations—and his particular point about smaller railway stations—is hugely important, and over a long period of time we absolutely must seek to improve accessibility where we are able to do so.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we are approaching the end of this Committee’s life, I will take the opportunity to thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard reporters and House staff for facilitating our work over what I must say has felt—I do not disparage the Committee in saying this—like a lot longer than four months. We are, thankfully, near the end. This is a simple, straightforward and, I hope, unproblematic new clause for the Government, so I do not need to detain the Committee long in speaking to it.
Despite the strong arguments made by the Opposition at the time—I recall them personally because I served on the Bill Committee—the Government were determined to include within the Housing and Planning Act 2016 provisions requiring local authorities to sell higher-value council homes as they fell vacant, and to remit the income generated from such sales to the Treasury to fund the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants. The sections of that Act that required local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher-value council homes came into force on 12 May 2016, but the consequential determinations were never made.
Having, one assumes, finally appreciated the severe impracticalities of the measure, as well as, one hopes, the social consequences of further reducing England’s already depleted social housing stock, the Government announced in their 2018 social housing Green Paper that they would no longer require local authorities to make higher-value-asset payments. In the words of that Green Paper, the sale of high-value homes
“should be a decision to be made locally, not mandated through legislation”
as they had previously felt was necessary.
However, in addition to making it clear that the Government would not bring those provisions of the 2016 Act into effect, the 2018 Green Paper said that the Government would look to repeal the relevant legislation, “when parliamentary time allows”. Yet, with four years having passed, and all manner of legislation having been taken through the House during that time, the Government have still not repealed those provisions.
New clause 67 simply seeks to have the Government finally implement the decision that they made and outlined in the 2018 Green Paper, and thereby undo the mistake that they made six years ago.
Mr Hollobone, we both know that Ministers have been clearly told to resist all amendments to this Bill, however sensible they might be, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, might see, on this occasion, the soundness of the new clause. I do not think that there is any credible or justifiable reason why this Bill cannot be the legislative vehicle to undo the provision, which the Government have decided should not have been in the 2016 Act. However, if he will not do that, will he please tell us when and how the Government intend to do what they committed, in 2018, to do?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman anticipates, I will not be encouraging the Committee to accept this amendment, although I understand the points behind it, which the hon. Gentleman has already articulated. In the spirit of his brevity, I will seek to be so, too.
The Government have made a number of commitments previously and stand by those commitments. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the provisions laid out in chapter 2 of part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect, and there is no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, so there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future.
The Government remain of the view that legislation will be brought forward, but do not believe that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is the best vehicle for that, as it does not largely address social housing. We therefore wish to focus on the measures within this Bill, while recognising that there will be no change to the status quo—the reality for local authorities around the country—on this matter. We will bring forward further consideration of this point in due course.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this new clause, yet unsurprisingly we will be asking him to withdraw it, too. I understand the sentiments behind it. I think we would all agree that we want a planning system that works and is effective, efficient and expedited where possible, and that appropriate consideration should be given at local level to ensure that placemaking is at the heart of what it does, but this particular new clause is, in my view, too prescriptive. This almost takes me back to my pre-parliamentary days when we were doing organisational design within individual companies. The one thing that we had as a principle was that organisational design needed to be flexible between different organisations, depending on their needs and requirements at the time and the areas that they needed to focus on.
Of course planning should always be a focus, but it is another question whether we need to put formal lines between particular officers and the chief executive, if there even are chief executives in certain local authorities—there are not all the time—so there is a secondary level of conversation about whether it would be section 151 officers or would be dealt with elsewhere. But I do not want to get too lost in the weeds. Although I accept the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is proportionate to mandate these kinds of elements. I absolutely agree with him that local councils should discharge their responsibilities adequately, carefully and expeditiously. I hope that they will do that. We will continue to consider, in the Department, what we can do to ensure that that happens. But on this occasion, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the new clause, given that I do not think it is necessary.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I take on board and appreciate the point that he makes about proportionality and whether this new clause is too prescriptive in that regard. I hope that he at least sees the concern that we have tried to highlight with the new clause, which is not only, as I said, the general issue with skills capacity but the status of planning officers within local authorities as a whole and whether that has an impact on planning outcomes. I hope that, given what I have said, the Minister will go away and give the issue some further consideration, not least in terms of what we will come to shortly, which is the skills strategy that the Government are outlining, but I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 71
Comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Bill securing Royal Assent, publish a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector.
(2) The strategy published under subsection (1) must—
(a) include an assessment of the effectiveness of local planning authorities and statutory consultees in delivering upon their existing duties and functions,
(b) include an assessment of the additional resource required for local planning authorities and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by this Act,
(c) set out a funding strategy for a minimum five-year period that meets the assessed resource need under paragraph (2)(b),
(d) include an assessment of the skills and capability of the planning sector and statutory consultees to carry out new responsibilities and duties established by the Act, and
(e) explain how the Secretary of State intends to address the skills and capability needs of the planning sector as set out under paragraph (2)(d).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to publishing a comprehensive resources and skills strategy for the planning sector within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should include.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Me again, Mr Hollobone. New clause 71 is in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North and for Coventry North East. As I made clear just now, the Government have promised to bring forward a planning skills strategy for local planning authorities, and the commitment to do so is set out in the policy paper that accompanies the Bill. We believe that a strategy to address the skills gap is essential to improving the planning system and we support the Government’s efforts in this area. Not only is there an existing problem—as we have just discussed—when it comes to skills shortages within local authority planning departments, but, as we have discussed in many previous sittings, the Bill will require the implementation of entirely new processes; an increase in planning staff with specific specialist skills such as design; and improved capabilities, not least in terms of a mastery of digital and geospatial data and technologies. Therefore, additional pressures are coming down the line as a result of this legislation.
However, the commitment included in the policy paper accompanying the Bill refers only to a planning skills strategy rather than the
“comprehensive resources and skills strategy”
proposed in the 2020 “Planning for the future” White Paper. We believe that that is problematic. As we have debated on numerous occasions during this Committee’s proceedings, there is a clear need for additional resources for local planning authorities—a need that the many new burdens and duties provided for by the Bill will only serve to render more acute. We therefore believe that the Government were right in the 2020 White Paper to commit to a more comprehensive strategy that encompassed both skills and resources. New clause 71 would place a duty on the Government to publish that more comprehensive strategy within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent and would specify what such a strategy should contain. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lee Rowley
This is an interesting new clause but one that I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I think we share the underlying objective, which is to ensure that our planning system is well resourced, well managed and well executed, but there is the general question of whether we need to legislate for these things, and my view is that we do not need to legislate in the depth that he suggests. I hope he will take some assurance from the fact that this has been discussed several times in my short period in post, including as recently as yesterday, when I spoke to the chief planner on this matter. We continue to consider it in what I hope the hon. Gentleman would think is the detail it deserves. However, I hope he will withdraw the new clause, because I am of the view that the issue does not require legislation in order for the discussion to continue.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate the Minister’s response. The new clause was probing, as he will have seen, and I therefore do not intend to press it to a vote. I am reassured that he has already discussed the issue—several times, I think he said—in his short time in post. I hope he will take away the points that I made. We think we need a skills strategy, and I urge him to think about how planning departments in local authorities might be better resourced to do what they need to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 72
Local consent for onshore wind projects in England
“(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Bill securing Royal Assent remove from the National Planning Policy Framework the current restrictions on the circumstances in which proposed wind energy developments involving one or more turbines should be considered acceptable.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would commit the Secretary of State to revising the National Planning Policy Framework within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent to remove the onerous restrictions it currently places on the development of onshore wind projects by deleting footnote 54.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I tabled new clause 72 some time ago, with a view to pressing the Government to remove the de facto moratorium imposed for many years on the development of onshore wind. The growth plan, published late last month, committed the Government to doing just that, by bringing onshore wind planning policy into line with planning for other forms of infrastructure. As hon. Members know, most of the measures set out in that growth plan have been junked as part of the humiliating mini-Budget U-turn, but having seen no evidence to the contrary—the Minister might disappoint me again in this regard—we assume that the decision to remove onshore wind planning restrictions is one of the few to have survived the cull. Even if that is the case, it remains unclear how the Government intend to deliver on that commitment, so that this cheap form of renewable energy generation can be deployed more easily across England. New clause 82 probes the Government on that point.
Three categories of onshore wind project are needed in large numbers: first, projects that are larger than the 50 MW threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects; secondly, projects that are below that 50 MW threshold; and, thirdly, smaller community energy projects. Each is addressed specifically by new clause 82. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) would unpick the 2016 regulations that removed onshore wind in England from the nationally significant infrastructure projects process set out in the Planning Act 2008, meaning that proposed onshore over 50 MW could secure consent through the development consent order system. Subsections (3) and (4) would require the Government to set out in a written ministerial statement how national planning guidance will be amended quickly to enable local authorities to determine applications for onshore wind projects below 50 MW. Finally, subsections (5) and (6) would require the Government to bring forward a plan clarifying how smaller community energy projects will be supported.
To meet our emissions reduction targets and the predicted increase in demand for electricity in coming decades, as the decarbonisation of our economy advances, there is a pressing need to increase our onshore wind capacity rapidly. The Climate Change Committee recommended the installation of between 22 GW and 29 GW by the end of this decade. As Labour Members will continue to argue, doing that at pace would have the added benefit of reducing bills, creating good jobs and bolstering our energy security.
I hope that the Minister will engage thoughtfully with the new clauses, and perhaps provide the Committee with some answers as to how the Government intend to implement the decision set out in the growth plan in respect of onshore wind.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman has received some assurances since he tabled new clause 72. The Government have looked at the issue again, and I am grateful for his acknowledgment of that. I am afraid that I will disappointment him. I completely understand and accept the importance of the issue, while acknowledging that it is a sensitive one in certain parts of the country. I accept that the Committee has been in existence for many months, debating many important things, but given the salience and importance of this policy issue to our broader national discourse, I suggest that it be considered more broadly than simply in this Committee. We will bring forward further information about our continuing commitments and intentions in this area in due course. However, that is not something I can do in Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister is determined to disappoint me in our exchanges, but I accept that he feels unable to opine on the Government’s intentions regarding the onshore wind that they have committed to allowing via the planning system and the various routes that I have mentioned. I hope that the situation will be clarified at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 73
Duty with regard to climate change
“(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when preparing—
(a) national policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,
(b) a development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the PCPA 2004.
(2) The Secretary of State must aim to ensure consistency with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change when exercising a relevant function under a planning enactment.
(3) A relevant planning authority when—
(a) exercising a planning function must have special regard to, and aim to ensure consistency with, achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and
(b) making a planning decision must aim to ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant planning authority is as set out in section 81 (a) and (b) and (d) to (j).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) a relevant function is a function that relates to the development or use of land.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) a planning function is the preparation of—
(a) a spatial development strategy;
(b) a local plan;
(c) a minerals and waste plan;
(d) a supplementary plan; or
(e) any other policy or plan that will be used to inform a planning decision.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) a planning decision is a decision relating to—
(a) the development or use of land arising from an application for planning permission;
(b) the making of a development order; or
(c) an authorisation pursuant to a development order.
(8) In relation to neighbourhood planning, a qualifying body preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or development order must have special regard to achieving the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
(9) For the purposes of this section, achieving the mitigation of climate change shall include the achievement of—
(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(10) For the purposes of this section, achieving adaptation to climate change shall include the achievement of long-term resilience to climate-related risks, including—
(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would place an overarching duty on the Secretary of State, local planning authorities and those involved in neighbourhood plan-making to achieve the mitigation and adaptation of climate change when preparing plans and policies or exercising their functions in planning decision-making.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
I know it is a bit cheeky of me, but does the Minister have a long speech or a short one?
Lee Rowley
In the spirit of the brevity that you have requested, Mr Hollobone, let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the new clause, and I share his optimism about our ability to deal with climate change, but I also recognise that that it will take time, as we outlined in debate on previous clauses. Consequently, I will resist the new clause.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined in a number of ways that I will not repeat, there are already significant legal requirements on local authorities to consider climate change, as well as a national policy requiring local planning authorities to take a proactive approach to climate change. I cannot give any guarantees, but I will certainly consider his points, because that is an important part of the housing brief. On this occasion, however, the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister will appreciate that I find that response disappointing; there is a clear difference of opinion. We think that the existing duties, requirements and guidance are not having the intended effect that he outlined, and we feel strongly that there is a case for amending primary legislation to ensure that the planning system aligns fully with the Climate Change Act and other statutory frameworks.
I know that we are on the clock, Mr Hollobone, so I will not labour those points, which have been made before, but to drive home how important we feel the issue is, I will press the new clause to a Division.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty Seventh sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThursday 20th October 2022
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2022 - (20 Oct 2022)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I feel strongly about the new clause. It relates to the community power that we feel is missing in the legislation. I will make a big case for it, and am interested to hear the Minister’s views. It is an important new clause, which would strengthen the Bill and make a strong contribution to achieving the levelling-up mission, in particular to increase pride of place in every part of the UK by 2030.
A community right to buy, as set out in the new clause, would build on the existing community right to bid legislated for in the Localism Act 2011 and its statutory instruments, which gives communities the right of first refusal once buildings and spaces with significant community value come up for sale. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ own research shows, however, that the existing legislation is not quite doing the job: only 15 assets make it into community ownership for every 1,000 listed as an asset of community value.
Under a much stronger community right to buy, a community organisation or group that is able to raise the required funds when an asset of community value comes up for sale would be able to purchase it without competition. The new clause would extend the existing moratorium from six months to 12 months, because the process of not only raising capital but preparing and building a business plan takes time. Six months has clearly not been enough. This could be a transformative change for many community organisations and the places where we live, and the new clause is very compatible with high street rental auctions, which we discussed in part 8.
In too many places, we see shuttered-up shops and empty buildings blighting high streets and town centres. They are often left vacant by distant private landlords with little stake in places. Members will have stories about that from their constituencies, I have no doubt. Introducing a community right to buy would be a recognition that it is time for that to change. It would give communities new powers to take control of assets in their area and, where assets are in community ownership, we know that vacancy rates are lower, footfall is driven to other businesses, more money stays in the local economy and hiring is more diverse—certainly more than if they are unoccupied.
As I said, the rental auctions are a welcome provision, but the new clause goes further. There is an important point of distinction between the Government and the Opposition on this legislation. Whatever the politics of levelling up, the Bill is born out of a consistent message that we have heard from our communities for a number of years: they want a greater say in what happens in their communities. Having been promised devolution, however, what they will get from the Bill is a transfer of power from Whitehall to, generally, regional or sub-regional bodies. That is a good thing, and we support those provisions in the Bill, but it is an incomplete process; it needs to be accompanied by a transfer of power from town halls and sub-regional bodies to local communities to shape place. People expect that, but as yet do not have it in the Bill. The new clause is a good step to rectifying that. I hope to hear that the Minister is keen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the new clause and for talking us through it. We absolutely agree that the issue is significant and one that we need to get right. Buildings such as community centres and pubs are a hugely important part of our social fabric. I understand the intent behind his community right to buy proposal. We share the same sentiments about getting the process right and giving communities an appropriate and reasonable opportunity to see whether they can take action, while ensuring that the process is not too long or difficult to be feasible.
I absolutely accept the need to review the existing legal and policy frameworks underpinning community ownership. We have said already in the levelling-up White Paper that we will consider how the existing assets of community value framework could be enhanced, but we probably need more time to consider that and whether changes to the framework are workable in practice. It needs consultation and discussion with stakeholders, and we need to work through the implications in significant detail. Although I accept and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, I would prefer not to accept these proposals at this time. I will review them in more detail separately.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that the commitments in the levelling-up White Paper and those I have given just now are sufficient, notwithstanding other activities that may be happening elsewhere on this estate and beyond, and that he will withdraw the new clause.
Alex Norris
I am pleased to hear that, in concept, the Government agree with this proposal. That is good news, and those who are campaigning and active in this space will be very glad to hear that.
There is obviously a commitment to this in the White Paper, and the Minister has accepted that the Localism Act provisions will not do. There needs to be a change, so it needs to be looked at and amended, but the Minister said that the vehicle for that is not the Bill. That seems really strange to me; it seems exactly the moment to do it. I take the Minister at his word, as I always do, and we will continue to advocate very loudly for this change. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I are particularly keen on it. I hope there will be an opportunity in this Session to do that.
I do not intend to divide the Committee on the new clause. If I am entirely honest, I think the vote that will change the future of community power will be a general election, rather than a Division in this Committee, so I am happy to withdraw the new clause on that basis, but it will not go away. The public demand for it will only grow, and we as politicians have to demonstrate that we understand that people want this. We must deliver on it, even if it is not today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 75
Homes England Statutory Objects
“(1) Section 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1)(d), insert—
“(e) to ensure that spending decisions by Homes England are designed to deliver Levelling-up,
(f) to reduce regional inequality by delivering homes and stimulate related economic activity,
(g) to report to Parliament annually assessing the progress that has been made in reducing regional inequalities.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
That is precisely why I tabled the new clause. Writing that into the fibre of the being of Homes England would make a real difference in those areas, as my hon. Friend says. The Minister may be able to give us some clarity, but I understand that a revised strategic plan for the Department has been drafted. I will be keen to know from the Minister, if he is unable to tell us quite what is in that, when we might get to see it, and whether it is his view, as it was that of the then Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Harborough that levelling up will be reflected as a priority for the agency in the coming years.
Lee Rowley
The new clause seeks to introduce, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, a series of further statutory obligations on Homes England. Although I understand the sentiments behind those additional statutory obligations and we all, on both sides of the Committee, accept and wish to promote the underlying objectives of levelling up—even if we may disagree about how to describe it—I am not personally convinced that we require additional statutory objectives here.
Homes England is a delivery body. It is a body charged with undertaking the work that is effectively set by the Department. It is a very big delivery body and goes over numerous different areas. I am already working closely with it and look forward to doing so further. However, it is charged with delivery, and the delivery of something requires the Department to set what that is, so my preference remains that we do not legislate on something like this, but that the conversation and discussion continues between the Opposition and the Department and between the hon. Member for Nottingham North and me in order to confirm what the Opposition wish to see in this area and then what the Government wish to see. I think that that is an area, a discussion and a responsibility that should remain with the Department, and then the Department can inform the delivery body of what to do, rather than us mandating in legislation what the delivery body should do. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer. I am not particularly excited by how this happens; my wish is just that it does happen. But I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and his explanation of how he feels. I have absolutely no issue with it sitting as a departmental prerogative. I do not think the two things need to be in tension. The thing for me is that we will keep pushing on this point. I was not as clear, I have to say, from the hon. Gentleman’s answer as I have been from previous answers from previous Ministers that it remains the position of the Government. Perhaps that is something that will be followed up on in due course, because this is really important. The one thing we know about levelling up is that it takes active interventions and that if we leave things to the market or to how things currently are, that will not deliver, so there has to be something different in this regard. I think that this measure was something different, and improving. It has not been successful today and I will not push it to a Division, but we will, again, stay on this point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 76
Standards Board for England
“(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Standards Board for England (‘the Standards Board’).
(2) The Standards Board is to consist of not less than three members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) In exercising its functions the Standards Board must have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of local authorities in England.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make further provision about the Standards Board.
(5) Regulations under this section must provide for—
(a) a code of conduct of behaviour for members and co-opted members of local authorities in England,
(b) the making of complaints to the Standards Board a member or co-opted member has failed to comply with that code of conduct,
(c) the independent handling of such complaints in the first instance by the Standards Board,
(d) the functions of ethical standards officers,
(e) investigations and reports by such officers,
(f) the role of monitoring officers of local authorities in such complaints,
(g) the referral of cases to the adjudication panel for England for determination,
(h) about independent determination by the adjudication panel its issuing of sanctions,
(i) appeal by the complainant to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman,
(j) appeal by the member or co-opted member subject to the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and
(k) the governance of the Standards Board.
(6) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the content of Chapter II (investigations etc: England) of Part III (conduct of local government members and employees) of the Local Government Act 2000, prior to the repeal of that Chapter.
(7) The Standards Board–
(a) must appoint employees known as ethical standards officers,
(b) may issue guidance to local authorities in England on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities,
(c) may issue guidance to local authorities in England in relation to the qualifications or experience which monitoring officers should possess, and
(d) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public.”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause seeks to reinstate the Standards Board for England, which was abolished by the Localism Act 2011, but with the removal of referral to standards committees and the addition of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Murray, in this last sitting of the Committee. I know everyone in the room is incredibly saddened about that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for tabling this new clause. She is right that it truly is an honour for anyone in elected life to be able to serve their community. We all must do so with the highest regard for integrity and public service. However, we will not accept the new clause. I will outline a few reasons why.
The Standards Board for England, which was established under the Local Government Act 2000, was a flawed regime. It was a deliberate decision in the Localism Act 2011 to abolish it. During its short existence, the Standards Board for England allowed politically motivated and vexatious complaints, which had a chilling effect on free speech within local government. As a central Government quango, it was clearly incompatible with the principles of localism.
The Government’s position remains unchanged since then. That was recently restated in our response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards. The Government consider that it is the right of the electorate to determine who represents them and that local issues are best resolved locally. The abolition of the Standards Board restored power to local people. The new clause would effectively reinstate that flawed regime. All councillors are ultimately held to account via the ballot box. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that response. We could rehash all the arguments that were heard last time, but I will not detain the Committee for long. The Minister claims that there were politically motivated and vexatious complaints. The other argument is that there were some genuine complaints. Sanctions were put on councillors and it stopped them from acting in such a manner in the future. Of course the electorate can decide, but sometimes they cannot decide for four years, which is a long time if somebody is abusing public money and their position. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 78
Responsibility of executive councillors to answer questions
“(1) Chapter 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (executive arrangements) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 9DA (functions of an executive: further provision) insert—
‘(9DB) Responsibility to answer questions
A councillor who is a member of an executive must take all reasonable steps to give a timely answer any question about the executive, its functions or the local authority (including about standards of conduct) from any councillor of the local authority that is asked—
(a) in writing, or
(b) orally in a council meeting.’”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause would establish a legal requirement for executive councillors to answer written questions from fellow councillors and oral questions in council meetings.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. I will be brief; I sense that the mood of the Committee is that everyone would like us to finish as soon as possible. This new clause is in much the same spirit as new clause 76 and new clause 79, which we will consider later. Local government can be a mystery to many people. Anyone logging on to their council’s website or attending a meeting would testify to how confusing procedures can be. In this place, those who hold the position of Secretary of State or Minister are rightly asked questions in the Chamber, in the public domain. We may not always like the answers—in fact, I very rarely do—but the process allows a level of public accountability. In local councils, though, it is up to local councillors whether they answer questions from other members. I am aware that the executive members of many councils already do, but I have also witnessed the opposite approach, where every single question is dismissed, shut down or deferred for a written response. Surely those in senior elected positions, such as council leaders, or cabinet members who hold responsibility for a service and budgets, should answer questions from other members. To refuse to do so is to be unaccountable. New clause 79 seeks to positively enhance the public’s faith in their local government representatives. Once again, I look forward to the Minister’s views.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the new clause, which has a noble aim. I think we all believe that the transparency of any executive, national or local, is incredibly important. Accountability is equally important, particularly considering the point about trust in politicians and politics.
As the hon. Lady outlined, the new clause would put into statute a requirement for executive councillors to answer questions from other councillors. It is vital that back-bench councillors be able to hold the executive to account. In their published constitutions, many councils will already set out the procedure for both elected members and members of the public to ask questions at full meetings of the council, or at any other committee meeting. However, we firmly believe that the Government would be going beyond the role that they should play in local matters if they required in law that such councillors answer questions. Local authorities are already subject to checks and balances as part of the local government accountability framework. In addition, authorities with executive governance arrangements are required to have overview and scrutiny committees, governed by statutory guidance, to ensure that members of the authority who are not part of the executive can hold the executive to account. It would not be right for central Government to dictate the minute details of local authority arrangements, although I appreciate the noble aim behind the new clause. I kindly ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister, and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 79
No role for councillors in recruitment or duties of monitoring officers
“(1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (designation and reports of monitoring officer), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) No elected councillor of a relevant authority in England may have any role in—
(a) the recruitment or selection of the officer designated monitoring officer under subsection (1), or
(b) the performing by the monitoring officer of the functions imposed by this section and, where relevant, section 5A.’” —(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
This new clause would prohibit the involvement of elected councillors in the recruitment or duties of officers appointed to monitor lawbreaking, maladministration, failure and injustice within a local authority or its executive.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I appreciate that the majority of local authority appointments of chief officers such as chief executives or monitoring officers are made after a robust interview that has followed human resources processes. Those processes can involve senior elected members. However, I have witnessed, and am aware of local authorities that experience, inappropriate or partial influence being exerted when officers are conducting operational business. I recall once sitting with a chief executive and a leader, and the leader was demanding that something be done that the officer was deeply uncomfortable with. The leader shouted at the chief executive, “I hired you; I will fire you if you don’t do this.” I could go on, but I think the point is made.
It is clear why there should be no elected member involvement whatsoever in the appointment of any local authority monitoring officer. These officers work hard and are incredibly professional. They are already working in politically restricted, tightly governed senior roles. They should never be exposed to unacceptable scenarios, such as the one I just outlined. That is why new clause 79 is important. I hope the Minister agrees.
Dehenna Davison
I am sure the hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that we will not accept the new clause. First, I want to say that the example of terrible practice that she witnessed is not isolated. All examples of bad practice absolutely must be called out, but there is a strict framework already in place. The new clause appears to seek to protect the objectivity of monitoring officers, and their ability to speak truth to power—that is, to elected members. The new clause requires that elected councillors have no role in the selection or recruitment of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer. Of course, the monitoring officer is one of three crucial statutory officers that any principal local authority must have, the other two being the chief executive and the section 151 officer. Some councils may already have designated the responsibility for appointing the monitoring officer to the head of paid service, but we must remember that councils are independent, democratic bodies that have the freedom and flexibility to manage their workforce. If they choose to operate a member appointment panel, it would be neither appropriate nor consistent with the principles of localism to prevent them from doing so.
The new clause would also mean that elected councillors played no role in a monitoring officer’s performance of their duties. However, monitoring officers’ specific speak-truth-to-power role is already protected in their responsibilities under sections 2 and 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Those statutory responsibilities include reporting anything that they believe to be illegal or to amount to maladministration relating to the conduct of councillors and officers, or to the operation of the council’s constitution. On that basis, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary, and it is contradictory to the core principles of localism in which we so strongly believe. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that response. My new clause would have given an extra layer of protection. She has misunderstood how impossible an environment can make it to speak truth to power. The clause would have helped people who are stuck in that situation, but I am happy to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 80
Licensing scheme: holiday lets
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require each relevant local authority in England to introduce a local licensing scheme for holiday lets.
(2) Any local licensing scheme introduced pursuant to regulations made under subsection (1)(a) must require any owner of a holiday let to—
(a) obtain any fire, gas and electricity safety certificates as specified by the scheme;
(b) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations;
(c) secure a licence for the holiday let from the local authority prior to trading;
(d) obtain a licence and renew this licence—
(i) every three years,
(ii) when the property changes ownership, or
(iii) when there is a change in the person holding day to day responsibility for the property; and
(e) not let out a property without a valid licence.
(3) A local authority introducing a licensing scheme must—
(a) outline—
(i) the terms and conditions of the licence,
(ii) the application process for securing the licence, and
(iii) the licence renewal process;
(b) determine an annual licence fee for each licensed property;
(c) inspect any property prior to issuing a licence;
(d) require the owner of a short term holiday let to —
(i) apply for and hold a licence to operate for each property they let prior to trading,
(ii) pay a licence application fee and annual charge for the licence,
(iii) renew the licence as required by the local authority under their licensing scheme,
(iv) pay any fines associated with breaches of a licence as laid out in the local licensing scheme,
(v) ensure that the holiday let complies with any health and safety regulations specified by the scheme, including the completion of any risk assessments required by those regulations, and
(vi) provide up to date property details including details of who will hold responsibility for the day to day management of the property;
(e) maintain an up to date list of all licensed short term holiday let properties within the local authority area to include—
(i) the address of the property,
(ii) whether this is a shared property occupied by the owner or a separate let,
(iii) how many people are eligible to stay at the property, and
(iv) how many days of the year that the property will be advertised for letting and be let;
(f) inspect the property following a report from the public of an issue of concern relating to the property or to any other property owned by the same person;
(g) monitor compliance with the licensing scheme;
(h) publish an annual report on the number and location of licences including the number and location of licences in each ward and their impact on local residential housing supply and details of any breaches reported and fines issued; and
(i) provide residents adjacent to the short term holiday let contact details of their enforcement officer should they experience any issue at the property.
(4) A licensing scheme must allow the local authority to—
(a) set out details of any area where the granting or renewal of licences will be banned, suspended or limited;
(b) set limits and or thresholds on the level of the licencing permitted in any area;
(c) require property owners to renew their licences every three years, or when a property changes in ownership;
(d) issue fines or remove a licence of a property if—
(i) fire, health and safety conditions are breached,
(ii) criminal activity occurs at the property, or
(iii) excess noise and nuisance or anti-social behaviour rules as set out in the licensing conditions are repeatedly breached, or
(iv) the registered owner or the person listed as holding responsibility for the property has had licences on other properties removed; and
(e) issue penalties or licensing bans on those renting properties without a licence.
(5) In this section—
An ‘area’ may be—
(a) a polling district;
(b) a ward; or
(c) the whole local authority area;
‘holiday let’ means—
(a) a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday, or
(b) any part of a dwelling-house let for the purpose of conferring on the tenant to occupy that part of the house for a holiday;
‘relevant local authority’ means—
(a) a district council in England;
(b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council;
(c) a London borough council;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause provides for the introduction of a licensing scheme for holiday lets.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I want to say a big thank you for your role in chairing many sittings of this Committee, Mrs Murray. I also thank the Clerks, who have supported you and all of us.
Earlier this week, we offered Government Members the opportunity to vote to enable local authorities to compel developers to build only affordable housing for a period of time, and they rejected that. Now, the hon. Member for York Central has put forward a very reasonable and timely suggestion about how we might do something about the stock that we have. If they will not do one or other, what is meant to happen to our housing stock? The reality for communities such as mine in Cumbria is that the evaporation of the long-term housing rental market has led to enormous hardship. It is a catastrophe.
It was a problem before the pandemic, but the combination of the stamp duty cut, introduced by the last Chancellor but three at the beginning of the pandemic, and a failure to acknowledge the consequences of the staycation boom, meant an absolute avalanche of full-time residential property going into either the second home market or the short-term rental market. That has had absolutely devastating consequences.
The fact that the Government have not kept their manifesto promise to scrap section 21 evictions means that there is literally an open door for any landlord to get rid of the people they have in those homes, and those homes then go into short-term holiday let usage. In South Lakeland, in my constituency, in one year we saw a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets. As hon. Members can image, South Lakeland had tonnes to start off with, so that is a vast number. Where did they come from? They were not new build properties, but existing homes that were lived in by families and others who have now been evicted, not just from those homes but from those communities.
I do not want to make any assumptions, but I imagine that in a community such as yours, Mrs Murray, the situation is similar and you have lost some of the full-time population. What then happens to the working-age population? I can think of successful primary schools that have lost 20% to 40% of their pupils for that reason in the last two years.
Cumbria Tourism undertook a survey of its member organisations and businesses, which work throughout the lakes, dales and other parts of Cumbria, and found that some 63% could not work at capacity over the last year because they did not have the staff to do the job. The lack of affordable housing kills economies as well as ruining family life and undoing the fabric of our communities, including schools, churches, pubs, businesses and bus services, the demand for which dries up.
The situation is catastrophic. If the Government will not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York Central, the amendment I proposed or any of the other amendments that have been proposed, what are they going to do about the crisis in our existing housing stock in communities such as those in York, Cumbria and many other areas of the country? They might nod and show their concern, but they must act. This is an absolute emergency, so act. This is something they could do, so why would they not do it?
Dehenna Davison
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for raising the issue so passionately. I know she is deeply concerned about it and has been campaigning incredibly hard on it throughout her time in Parliament. I note she mentioned her private Member’s Bill. I have already offered to engage with her on issues that we have discussed previously in Committee, and I am happy to engage with her on that as well.
Online platforms have enabled greater choice in accommodation for holidaymakers and have brought benefits to the tourism sector. On the one hand, it is an incredible compliment to a place to see a lot of Airbnb rental properties popping up, as the area becomes a tourism hotspot and a lot of people want to visit incredible places such as York and Cumbria, but unfortunately we know the issues that can come with that as well.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned local school numbers declining and local shops and pubs seeing their year-round trade turning to seasonal trade, which is not something they necessarily expected or planned for. Many hon. Members from across the House are familiar with such arguments and have raised them in debates. I have had particular representations from hon. Members from Cornwall and Devon, who I know face similar issues.
The hon. Member for York Central mentioned illegal activity and gave examples from her constituency. That is another area where it is crucial that we get our policy right. That is why DCMS launched the call for evidence on this topic, which she made reference to, as an important first step in understanding how we can continue to reap the benefits of short-term lets, while also protecting holidaymakers and local interests.
The Government are now carefully analysing over 4,000 responses to this exercise. What local people and affected stakeholders have said will help to inform the development of evidence-based and proportionate policy proposals. Accepting this amendment before we have analysed those responses would pre-empt the necessary policy development needed. We plan to publish our response to the consultation in the usual way. We want to make sure we get the policy right because we recognise that there are so many issues related to it.
Rachael Maskell
I have two points. First, could the Minister set out a timeline? This is so urgent because of the pace of change, so we really need to understand what the timeline is. There has been a lot of talk and debate in this place; many colleagues from across the House have articulated the pain this issue is causing their communities. Secondly, would the Minister be willing to hold a cross-party roundtable to enable Members to get a full understanding of those experiences? The most acute problems are essentially occurring in holiday destinations and places that people come to visit, so it would be important to ensure a combination of coastal, rural and urban. That could help to move the debate forward and land the legislation in the right place, so that it pays heed not just to what are seen as the benefits of the short-term holiday let industry, but to our communities.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive way she is approaching this important debate. As I say, this is a DCMS consultation, so I cannot provide a timeline today, but I will write to her to follow up and try to provide as much clarity as I can on that point. I would certainly be happy to hold a roundtable, but this specific policy does not actually sit within my brief. However, I will endeavour to write to the relevant Ministers and encourage them to take this up. As I say, I will follow up in writing on those points.
Rachael Maskell
If I may, I seek the indulgence of the Committee a little longer. The Minister has raised a real issue here: the matter now needs to move into the Levelling Up Department. The impact on housing is enormous. Although I appreciate that it started in DCMS, it now needs to move, because this is essentially a housing issue. It is about how the housing sector is working, rather than about the tourism sector. The industry has grown and become far more professionalised; it now clearly needs to move Departments in order to bring forward the legislation.
Dehenna Davison
On that point, I have heard from my colleague sitting beside me, the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, that he is happy to meet with the hon. Lady to discuss the matter in further detail.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to both Ministers for that, and I welcome that opportunity. I am quite relaxed about other colleagues also bringing their experiences to that meeting. It is important that we get this nailed now and get it right for all our communities. It is far too important. Time is of the essence. I will most certainly take up that offer.
I will not push the new clause to a vote today, although I will bring it back on Report. I cannot wait around—people in my community are exiting at such an alarming rate that I need to get this addressed. However, I thank the Ministers for being able to debate this matter this afternoon and to have a bit more time on it. It is of real importance for all of us and we have to get it right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 81
Cycling, walking and rights of way plans: incorporation in development plans
“(1) A local planning authority must ensure that the development plan incorporates, so far as relevant to the use or development of land in the local planning authority’s area, the policies and proposals set out in—
(a) any local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans prepared by a local transport authority;
(b) any rights of way improvement plan.
(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the local planning authority shall also have regard to any policies or proposals contained within a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans and any rights of way improvement plan which have not been included as part of the development plan, so far as material to the application.
(3) In this section—
(a) ‘local planning authority’ has the same meaning as in section 15LF of PCPA 2004;
(b) ‘local transport authority’ has the same meaning as in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000;
(c) ‘local highway authority’ has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;
(d) a ‘rights of way improvement plan’ is a plan published by a local highway authority under section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”—(Rachael Maskell.)
This new clause would require development plans to incorporate policies and proposals for cycling and walking infrastructure plans and rights of way improvement plans. Local planning authorities would be required to have regard to any such policies and proposals where they have not been incorporated in a development plan.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief in speaking to new clause 81. Cycling and walking are the future. Ensuring that walking and cycling infrastructure plans are hardwired into the planning system is not before its time. That infrastructure may vary from charging points for electric bikes and parking spaces for bikes to wider transport planning and planning for cycling, walking and wheeling routes. We must also think about wheelchair users and people who use other accessible forms of transport, who also need safe, accessible routes. That is essential in any new build area of housing across the country. Rights of way have to be determined and we have to ensure that all routes facilitate greater take-up of active travel. We need to see a real transition from the dependency on cars, which so many communities have, into a new era.
They were talking on the news today about the shortfall in available raw materials, which is preventing the escalation of electric vehicle production. A good public transport system sitting alongside active travel will help to facilitate that. Infrastructure can often deter people from participating in cycling and walking, yet in places such as Holland, where there has been significant investment, that is the main mode of transport for short distances. With the advent of electric scooters and electric bikes, people can make journeys over longer distances. Good, safe infrastructure makes a real difference. Holland has had a 40-year campaign to reach its current standard, and we know that other communities across the world are raising their standards. I draw the Minister’s attention to Ghent, which has made a real pivot in its active travel offer. It is time that we really look at ensuring cycling, walking and wheeling rights of way plans are hardwired into development plans.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Member for her amendment on this important matter, and for recognising the importance of walking and cycling and the important role that the planning system plays. I understand the sentiment behind the new clause, and I accept the challenge that she gives, rightly, to the system and the Government as a whole, but I am not convinced that it is necessarily proportionate to hardwire, as she says, this level of detail in legislation.
My preference is for these matters to continue to be dealt with at national planning policy level. There is already a requirement for local authorities to consider such issues when preparing a development plan; they are also material considerations in planning decisions. Local authorities have tools already. I do not think the Bill changes that in any way, and it will perhaps even strengthen the importance of national policies when they relate to such decision making.
My preference is to remain with the existing NPPF on transport issues, particularly around the promotion of walking and cycling, with the recognition that these can be material considerations in dealing with planning applications already. Given that the decision maker must take into account all material considerations, I am not convinced that this additional provision is necessary in law at this stage, although I understand the underlying point. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the new clause.
Rachael Maskell
We as a nation creep forward. This afternoon, we have seen why it is a creep, rather than the change we see in other jurisdictions. We need to do far more on enabling and facilitating active travel. I will not press the new clause this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister takes the proposal back and looks again at how we can escalate, within the national planning framework, getting good-quality infrastructure built for cycling, walking and wheeling. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 83
Review of public health and poverty effects of Act
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”—(Rachel Maskell.)
This new clause would require the Government to report on the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of the Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hear a cheer in the room as I rise to my feet for a final time. I thank you, Mrs Murray, for your chairing of the Committee. I also thank your colleagues, the Clerks and Hansard. We have had a lot of really important debates.
New clause 83 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Reviewing our public health policy is really important. Understanding its context and impact on poverty is at the heart of what levelling up is all about. The new clause would ensure a real focus on the data that is required and a proper review of public health policies, which is vital, with a report being laid before Parliament within six months of the passing of the Bill. That would ensure that Parliament’s eyes are on the issue.
The new clause focuses on relative and absolute poverty, and putting forward the data that has often been debated and disputed in the House, so that we can see what is happening from an authoritative source. We ultimately have to measure what is happening. Levelling up cannot be just about the infrastructure and the pounds spent; it has to be about the outcomes that really impact people. When poverty is such an issue in our country, we have to look at the inequality and disparities that we see. Having data to properly manage the system and drive inputs and outcomes is really important.
The new clause also looks at the socioeconomic inequalities and population groups with protected characteristics. We all know that black, Asian and minority ethnic, LGBT, elderly, young and disabled people experience disparity when it comes to so many issues within the levelling-up missions. It is important to look at ensuring that people with protected characteristics have the necessary assessment to ensure that they, too, are levelling up and not being left behind. Covid was a real example of why that is so necessary; we saw it for whole swathes of communities, particularly those from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community, who faced the worst impact because of their socioeconomic status.
Life expectancy, and healthy life expectancy, is really important for planning an economy for the future. We need to understand its impact, particularly on excess deaths due to poverty, to ensure that we are monitoring what is happening among those communities. In my constituency there is a 10-year disparity in life expectancy between the poorest and the richest communities. That is a really serious issue within levelling up. I appreciate that there is a debate within that about extent of life versus quality of life, but those with shorter lives also do not have a good quality of life on many occasions. We have to drive down inequality in that area.
The new clause also looks at funding for public health provision. We know that there is a real deficit in areas of deprivation, and we need to ensure a proper matrix for health spending as we move forward. The new clause is about providing the good, solid data that is required to analyse what is happening with the levelling-up agenda, and putting that before Parliament and Ministers to ensure that the right policy decisions are being made to level up our country.
Dehenna Davison
I thank the hon. Member for York Central for these proposals, which speak to an objective that I think we all share of reducing the entrenched spatial inequalities across the UK. That is fundamentally what levelling up is all about.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, the specific mechanisms proposed may not be the best way to add value in this area for a couple of reasons. First, there are robust and long-standing mechanisms in place to assess trends in public health and poverty already, including through the public health outcomes frameworks, relevant statistics for which are regularly updated and published by the Office for National Statistics. Additionally, the Bill will create a statutory responsibility on the Government to define and report against long-term levelling-up missions to address spatial disparities. The missions in the levelling-up White Paper, for example, include living standards, pay and productivity, and healthy life expectancy. Those are particularly relevant in addressing the themes and concerns that the hon. Member raised.
The Government have established cross-departmental structures to measure long-term progress against their levelling-up missions and to assess how their policies and programmes are contributing to making progress towards those missions. I refer the hon. Member to comments that I have already made about the spatial data unit, and the role it can play in helping on that assessment. The measures in the Bill will not operate in isolation but as part of a much wider range of both legislative and non-legislative measures, which will in turn shape outcomes on the ground. It is right that we should pursue our policy objectives through the more systemic frameworks that I have outlined rather than what could be seen as more fragmented reports and reviews, as called for in the new clause.
The hon. Member will be aware of the well-established mechanisms overseen by His Majesty’s Treasury and highlighted in “Managing Public Money” and elsewhere to assess the impact of policy interventions on the public finances and to allow Parliament to hold the Government to account on their expenditure. As such, we do not feel that an additional specific assessment of the impact of measures in the Bill would add value as we pursue our aim to level up the country. I hope that I have provided enough reassurance for her to withdraw the motion.
Alex Norris
I want to put on record for myself and on behalf of my colleagues our thanks to you, Mrs Murray, and your colleagues in the Chair; to the world-class Clerks for all their assistance; to the Doorkeepers and the Hansard Reporters for all their work; and to Government colleagues, both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, for the discussions and debates. I know that they have been lengthy, but that is because the Bill is important, and we appreciate the spirit in which that has been done. I extend that to the Government’s officials, as well as our own staff. I am very grateful. Thank you.
Dehenna Davison
For fear of this sounding like an Oscars acceptance speech, I have an awful lot of thank yous to say. First, I express my sincere thanks to the shadow Ministers. This is my first Bill Committee as a Minister. Hopefully it will not be my last, but given today, who knows? I thank them for the very constructive and warm way in which they have engaged with me, and with my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, on the Bill. There are some incredibly important debates to have. We have had some of them, and I know that many more happened before I took over as the Minister in this area. The fact that they have all been conducted in such a constructive and jovial way is something that I am certainly very grateful for.
I am also incredibly grateful to the officials who got us briefed on the Bill and got us through it, and to the Clerks and all Chairs of the Committee, including you, Mrs Murray. I am very grateful to members of the Committee of all colours for the spirit in which we have conducted it today, and to Whips past and present, Parliamentary Private Secretaries past and present, and Doorkeepers. I think I have pretty much everyone covered. A huge thank you from me. I am delighted to see the Bill through to the end of Committee stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Wednesday 23rd November 2022
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberLevelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2022 - (23 Nov 2022)
17:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 281 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 62—Functions in respect of key route network roads.
Government new clause 65—Participation of police and crime commissioners at certain local authority committees.
New clause 1—Power to provide for an elected mayor—
(1) Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 9K insert—
“9KA Power to provide for an elected mayor
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for there to be a mayor of a local authority.
(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a report which contains—
(a) an assessment of why it is in the interests of economy, efficiency, effectiveness or public safety for the regulations to be made, and
(b) a description of any public consultation the Secretary of State has carried out on the proposal for the regulations to be made.””
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to provide for there to be a mayor of any local authority if they deem appropriate.
New clause 2—Resignation requirements for MPs serving as elected mayors—
“(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended in accordance with subsection.
(2) In section 67 (Disqualification of person holding office as police and crime commissioner), leave out paragraph (a).
(3) Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(4) In Part 3 (Other Disqualifying Offices), at the appropriate place insert—
‘Mayor who is to exercise the functions of police and crime commissioner’”.
This new clause would allow an MP who is elected as a mayor who is to exercise the functions of a police and crime commissioner to remain as an MP until the next parliamentary election.
New clause 4—Housing Act 1985—
“In section 618 of the Housing Act 1985 (The Common Council of the City of London), omit subsections (3) and (4).”
This new clause would correct a disparity which applies uniquely to Members of the City of London’s Common Council in relation to their ability to discuss or vote on local authority matters relating to land, for example housing, by removing a prohibition on participating on such matters.
New clause 7—Council tax: properties of multiple occupancy—
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (meaning of “dwelling”), after subsection (4A), insert—
‘(4B) Subject to subsection (6) below, the following property is not a dwelling—
(a) a room or bedroom subject to a tenancy agreement that does not contain bathroom and cooking facilities within its physical curtilage;
(b) a room or bedroom subject to a tenancy agreement which includes bathroom facilities but does not include cooking facilities within its physical curtilage;
(c) any rooms or bedrooms within a licensed House of Multiple Occupancy; and
(d) any room which is not in law a self-contained unit regardless of any clause, term or condition of any contract, license of agreement conferring a right to occupy that room.’”
This new clause is intended to prevent the imposition of Council Tax individually on tenants of a room in a house with shared facilities, or in a licensed House of Multiple Occupancy.
New clause 41—Duty to provide sufficient resources to Combined Authorities and Combined County Authorities—
“(1) This section applies where the Government has committed funding to a Combined Authority or a Combined County Authority in order to deliver a specific project.
(2) The Secretary of State must provide commensurate financial resources to a Combined Authority or a Combined County Authority to enable the delivery of the project mentioned in subsection (1) as agreed in full.
(3) The Secretary of States must, by regulations, amend the value of this funding to reflect inflation.”
This new clause would commit the Government to fully funding combined authority and combined county authority projects they have committed to in the case that costs rise due to inflation.
New clause 45—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.”
This new clause would enable local authorities to choose what voting system they use for local elections.
New clause 46—Review into business rates system—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review of the business rates system.
(2) The review must consider the extent to which the business rates system—
(a) is achieving its objectives,
(b) is conducive to the achievement of the levelling-up and regeneration objectives of this Act.
(3) The review must consider whether alternatives of local business taxation would be more likely to achieve the objectives in subsections (2)(a) and (b).
(4) The review must in particular consider the effects of business rates and alternative local business taxation systems on—
(a) high streets, and
(b) rural areas.
(5) The review must consider the merits of devolving more control over local business taxation to local authorities.
(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review before parliament before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the business rates system.
New clause 70—Duties in connection with the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities—
“(1) The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In section 16 (Power to transfer etc public authority functions to certain local authorities), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In deciding how and whether to exercise his power under section 16(1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the existence, within a local authority area, of a national minority as defined by the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.’”
New clause 71—Extending level 3 devolution deals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for local authorities to be granted a Level 3 devolution deal, without the requirement for a directly-elected leader across the entire authority.
(2) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the benefits of such a devolution arrangement given any existence, within a local authority area, of a national minority, as defined by the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.”
New clause 34—Review of compulsory purchase powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether the powers of compulsory purchase available to—
(a) local authorities, and
(b) the Secretary of State
are adequate to meet the objectives of this Act.
(2) In undertaking the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider—
(a) whether existing statutory time limits for compulsory purchase action are appropriate,
(b) other means of accelerating compulsory purchase action with particular reference to properties to which subsection (3) applies, and
(c) the adequacy of compulsory purchase powers in relation to properties to which subsection (3) applies.
(3) This subsection applies to—
(a) properties that have been unoccupied for a prolonged period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), and
(b) buildings of local public importance such as hotels and high street properties.”
This new clause would require the Government to review powers of compulsory purchase and whether they are adequate to meet its levelling-up and regeneration objectives.
New clause 74—Commencement of Section 81 of the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Act—
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, bring into force the provisions in Section 81 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 no later than 31st December 2022”
New clause 75—Review of the effectiveness of the Housing First Scheme—
(1) The Secretary of State must establish an annual review of His Majesty’s Government’s progress on reducing homelessness.
(2) The review must include an assessment of—
(a) whether the Housing First scheme is achieving its objectives,
(b) the support provided to local authorities to meet their homelessness duties,
(c) the merits of ensuring that local authorities have at least one provider of the Housing First model, and
(d) the Government’s progress towards ending rough sleeping.
(3) The Secretary of State must prepare reports on these reviews in accordance with this section.
(4) The first report under subsection (3) must be laid before each House of Parliament before the end of a period of one year beginning on the day when this Act was passed.
(5) After a report has been laid before Parliament under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must publish it as soon as is reasonably practicable.”
New clause 76—Publication of the Consultation on the Vagrancy Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of 2022, publish a report setting out the results of the Review of the Vagrancy Act: consultation on effective replacement.
(2) he report under subsection (1) must, in particular, set out—
(a) how to replace the offences in the Vagrancy Act which prohibit begging and rough sleeping in an appropriate way that prioritises getting individuals into support, and
(b) the Government’s legislative plan to support these changes.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 82—Standards Board for England—
“(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Standards Board for England (“the Standards Board”).
(2) The Standards Board is to consist of not less than three members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) In exercising its functions the Standards Board must have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of local authorities in England.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make further provision about the Standards Board.
(5) Regulations under this section must provide for—
(a) a code of conduct of behaviour for members and co-opted members of local authorities in England,
(b) the making of complaints to the Standards Board a member or co-opted member has failed to comply with that code of conduct,
(c) the independent handling of such complaints in the first instance by the Standards Board,
(d) the functions of ethical standards officers,
(e) investigations and reports by such officers,
(f) the role of monitoring officers of local authorities in such complaints,
(g) the referral of cases to the adjudication panel for England for determination,
(h) about independent determination by the adjudication panel its issuing of sanctions,
(i) appeal by the complainant to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman,
(j) appeal by the member or co-opted member subject to the complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and
(k) the governance of the Standards Board.
(6) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the content of Chapter II (investigations etc: England) of Part III (conduct of local government members and employees) of the Local Government Act 2000, prior to the repeal of that Chapter.
(7) The Standards Board—
(a) must appoint employees known as ethical standards officers,
(b) may issue guidance to local authorities in England on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities,
(c) may issue guidance to local authorities in England in relation to the qualifications or experience which monitoring officers should possess, and
(d) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public.”
This new clause seeks to reinstate the Standards Board for England, which was abolished by the Localism Act 2011, but with the removal of referral to standards committees and the addition of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman.
New clause 84—Levelling-up mission: adult literacy—
“(1) Each statement of levelling-up missions must include an objective relating to reducing geographical disparities in adult literacy.
(2) In pursuance of the objective in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must, during each mission period, review adult literacy levels in the UK, to inform measures with the purpose of reducing geographical disparities in adult literacy and eradicating illiteracy in adults.
(3) The findings of any review under this section must be published in a report, which must be laid before Parliament.
(4) When a report under this section is laid before Parliament, the government must also publish a strategy setting out steps it intends to take to improve levels of adult literacy and eradicate illiteracy in the UK.”
This new clause would require the government to include the reducing of geographical disparities in adult literacy as one of its levelling up missions, and it would require them, during each mission period, to review levels of adult literacy in the UK, publish the findings of that review and set out a strategy to improve levels of adult literacy and eradicate illiteracy in the UK.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) the independent body that His Majesty’s Government proposes to use to evaluate progress in delivering those levelling-up missions (‘the independent evaluating body’).”
This amendment would place a responsibility on the Government to commission an independent body to scrutinise their progress against levelling-up missions.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) the resources made available by His Majesty’s Government to nations, regions, sub-regions and local areas in order to level-up.”
This amendment would place a responsibility on the Government to publish the resources made available to communities in order to level-up.
Amendment 71, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) details of how His Majesty’s Government will ensure that the levelling-up missions are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.”
This amendment would require that levelling-up missions align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to end hunger and ensure access by all people to safe and nutritious food.
Amendment 69, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The first statement of levelling-up missions must include a requirement that by 2030 the number of people successfully completing high-quality skills training will have significantly increased in every area of the UK.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), ‘high-quality skills training’ must include training for the purpose of proactively supporting workers in high-carbon industries wishing to transition to careers in the green energy sector, with cross-sector recognition of skills and regardless of their current contract status.”
Amendment 70, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The first statement of levelling-up missions must include a mission to expand public access to waterways, woodlands, Green Belt and grasslands and reduce geographical inequalities in access to open access land.
(2B) In this section, “waterways” includes any river, stream, lake, pond, canal or other waterway physically capable of navigation, and any such river banks or land adjacent as necessary for the act of navigation and for other purposes incidental to navigation or to bathe.
(2C) A levelling-up mission under this section must be accompanied by a statement of the Government’s legislative plan to support the mission, including proposals to amend the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
Amendment 72, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(3A) The mission progress methodology and metrics must include the following indicators—
(a) prevalence of undernourishment in the population, and
(b) prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES).”
This amendment would require that the mission progress methodology and metrics include the prevalence of under-nourishment and the prevalence of food insecurity in the population.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) A statement of levelling-up missions must be accompanied by an action plan which sets out details of how His Majesty’s Government intends to deliver these missions by the target date.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish an action plan alongside a statement of levelling-up missions which sets out how they will deliver the missions.
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 3, line 7, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to discontinue a levelling-up mission.
Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, leave out “120” and insert “30”.
This amendment would reduce the period of time by which a report under section 2 must be laid before each House of Parliament to 30 days.
Amendment 13, page 3, line 32, leave out “120” and insert “30”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12
Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, leave out clause 4.
This amendment would remove the provision allowing a Minister to make changes to mission progress methodology and metrics or target dates.
Amendment 64, in clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out from “which” to end of line 19 and insert—
“both conditions in subsection (4) have been met.
(4) The conditions are that—
(a) the House of Commons,
(b) the House of Lords
have passed a Motion in the form in subsection (5).
(5) The form of the Motion is—
That this House approves the revisions to the levelling-up mission progress methodology and metrics or target date made under section 4 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 and laid before Parliament on [date].”
Amendment 15, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
“(ca) state whether the independent evaluating body considers that pursuing the levelling-up missions in that statement is effectively contributing to the reduction of geographical disparities in the United Kingdom,”
This amendment would require the report on a review of statements of levelling-up missions to include the assessment of the independent evaluating body.
Amendment 16, page 6, line 5, leave out from “which” to end of subsection (11) and insert—
“both conditions in subsection (12) have been met.
(12) The conditions are that—
(a) the House of Commons, and
(b) the House of Lords
has passed a Motion of the form in subsection (13).
(13) The form of the Motion is—
That this House approves the revisions to the statement of levelling-up missions made under section 5 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 and laid before Parliament on [date].”
This amendment would require both Houses of Parliament to approve revisions to the statement of levelling-up missions to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they have effect.
Amendment 17, page 12, line 24, leave out clause 16.
Government amendments 29, 45 and 46.
Amendment 18, in clause 52, page 45, line 16, leave out “may” and insert—
“must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on the establishment and operation of CCAs within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
Amendment 19, page 50, line 24, leave out clause 58.
This amendment would remove Clause 58, which allows an elected mayor to assume policing responsibilities without the consent of the combined authority.
Government amendments 47, 40 to 44, 1, 60, 51, 61 and 62.
Dehenna Davison
It is a pleasure to be here for the next stage of this vital Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently set out his guiding principles for the Bill: beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhoods—or, for acronym fans, BIDEN. We want to ensure that people across the country have the opportunity to live and work in beautiful places, supported by the right infrastructure, with strong locally accountable leadership and with better access to an improved environment, all rooted in thriving neighbourhoods of which they can be proud. Regrettably, though, there are areas of the country that are long neglected and that will require a concerted effort from us all. We have to put an end to the shameful waste of potential that has held so many of our constituents and our country back for so long.
This is why the ambitions set out in the levelling up White Paper are so crucial. If we are going to achieve our ambitions, we have to be focused. That is why the first part of the Bill creates a self-renewing national focus on this endeavour, through the setting of and reporting on missions to level up. These missions, with their clear, measurable objectives, will drive the action needed to reduce geographic disparities. One such mission is our vision for devolution across England. This is why the Bill creates a new model for devolution: the combined county authority. It also improves existing models thought the combined authority and county deal models, making devolution easier to achieve, extend and deepen.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
One of the disappointments with this Bill is that, although it extends the principle of combined authorities to county areas, it does not actually transfer any new powers to local government as a whole that are not currently available in some authorities. Could the Minister point out one place in the Bill where a new power that is currently not devolved to local government will be devolved after the Bill is passed?
Dehenna Davison
The Chair of the Select Committee is a passionate campaigner on these issues. He will know that the Government are incredibly keen on empowering local areas to take on their own devolution deals, and that is why we are in the process of negotiating a large number of deals, including trailblazer deals with Greater Manchester and with the West Midlands, which I know Members right across the House are incredibly passionate about. We are looking at new powers and new funding to ensure that those devolution deals deliver for local people.
We are making it easier to achieve, to extend and to deepen devolution. At the same time, the Bill is making it easier for local authorities to regenerate their areas by providing them with new and improved tools for that purpose, including a new locally led model for urban development corporations, changes to ensure that any former development corporation can have conferred on it the functions most useful to its purpose, and improvement to the compulsory system to remove barriers so that authorities can assemble land, including brownfield land.
Mr Betts
Often, when compulsory purchase powers are used by local authorities, the value of the site they are purchasing is enhanced because they are using those powers and the owner of the site gets a “hope value” addition to what they receive. Would the Minister consider ensuring that, where a CPO has been put in place, no extra value is generated for the owner because the CPO itself is operated or because it is part of a regeneration site as a whole?
Dehenna Davison
I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member in further detail following the debate today. It is certainly something that we are exploring behind the scenes with a view to taking action at a later date.
We are also looking at introducing discretion for local authorities to increase council tax on second homes and long-term empty homes, together with innovative high street rental auctions to tackle the damage that the gradual erosion of high street occupancy can cause.
Hon. Members will recall that the Government have already made provision for the full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. As the Secretary of State has said, the Vagrancy Act is outdated and has to go. This Bill was introduced initially with a placeholder clause, allowing for a replacement to the Act to be added. During the passage of the Bill, however, we have listened to the depth of feeling from Members across the House, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has campaigned passionately on this issue. After working with Members across the House and having reflected on the right approach to the replacement legislation, I have tabled amendments to remove the placeholder clause. I can commit to the House that the Government will not bring forward any amendments to the Bill on this subject. We will, though, be working with the Home Office to make sure that the police and others have the tools they need to protect communities and ensure that people feel safe.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I absolutely welcome the Government’s action on this. Does the Minister agree that the best way to deal with the street population is through proper outreach and not through criminalising their behaviour?
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with that sentiment. Any new legislation that may be introduced at a future date will not be looking to criminalise anyone for just being homeless. That is a firm commitment that I can make here today. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us look at the Government’s rough sleeping strategy as an example, and at the other ways we can outreach to ensure that those who find themselves homeless, often through no fault of their own, find the support they need to get back on their feet.
On vagrancy, my colleagues and I look forward to continuing to work with Members across the House on our goal of ending rough sleeping and ensuring that people in need receive appropriate support to help them move away from life on the streets for good.
Strengthening our communities also means strengthening local leadership. We all know from our constituencies that Whitehall, however well intentioned, cannot always understand a community as well as the local people who live and work within it, so our ambition is for local areas to determine their own futures, allowing local leaders to take charge and enable their communities to thrive. We therefore want to offer the option of a devolution deal with a directly elected leader to every part of England that wants one by 2030, creating clear local leadership and greater accountability for any new powers conferred on them.
Members will recall that the Bill puts in place a framework to achieve this by creating a new model of combined authority—a combined county authority—which is more suitable for areas outside urban centres. This means that areas and communities everywhere, not just in major cities, can benefit from bespoke devolution deals that work for them. Providing these opportunities for all communities across England will increase innovation and enhance local accountability. This in turn will lead to more co-ordinated decision making with greater flexibility over funding, all of which will empower areas to attract more inward investment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been grateful for the support that our reforms have attracted in our discussions with hon. Members and local areas, and Members will be aware that our devolution negotiations and conversations are continuing at pace. In the summer, we announced new devolution deals with York and North Yorkshire, and with parts of the east midlands: Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. There are more deals to be signed soon. Implementation of the east midlands deal is dependent on provisions in this Bill gaining Royal Assent and coming into effect, but they will of course be subject to statutory processes, including parliamentary approval of secondary legislation on creating new institutions with the devolved powers. The invaluable feedback from our discussions so far has allowed us to table three amendments today to put some matters beyond doubt.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Minister is talking a lot about those areas where there is devolution already or where there is the potential for devolution, but what about those areas where there seems to be an absence of any discussions?
Dehenna Davison
As I say, we have discussions under way at the moment and we are looking ahead to which new devolution deals we can start exploring. I am certainly happy to work with my hon. Friend to see if this is something we can deliver in his local area in Cumbria, too.
Our first amendment relates to clause 16, which allows the conferral of local authority functions, including those of county councils, unitary councils and district councils, on to a combined county authority, or CCA.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because this is of seminal importance to all second-tier councils around the country. I therefore welcome Government amendment 29. Can she confirm, for the avoidance of any doubt, that this means, as the explanatory statement suggests, that there is no question of the functions of a district council in a two-tier area being handled by a combined county authority and that, although it says
“a CCA may make provision”,
a CCA cannot make provision where there is a second-tier council?
Dehenna Davison
I can confirm that, and my hon. Friend pre-empts the next bit of my speech, which will hopefully provide some reassurance.
Clause 16 is essential to enable CCAs to be conferred with, for example, the economic development and regeneration functions of a council so that it can deliver them over a wider area, thus driving growth. Although it was never the Government’s intention, we have heard concerns from colleagues on both sides of the House, as well as from local authorities and the District Councils Network, that the clause could be used for the purpose of upward devolution. So there can be absolutely no doubt, we are explicitly precluding the conferral of two-tier district council functions on to a combined county authority. This amendment reflects the Government’s commitment that devolution legislation will not be used to reallocate functions between tiers of local government.
Government amendment 29 will still allow for combined county authorities to exercise functions with district councils concurrently or jointly, facilitating joint working on important issues where there is a local wish to do so. I hope that addresses the concern embodied in amendment 17, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who is not currently in the Chamber.
Our second amendment provides for the effective co-ordination of highways infrastructure, to enable key route networks to operate effectively. Improving key route networks across towns and cities is a Government priority, and we want to facilitate the improvement of transport links as much as possible. The co-ordination of transport across the area of a combined authority or combined county authority is a tool that local leaders across the country have told us is valuable. We therefore propose an amendment to meet the commitment in the levelling-up White Paper to provide a new power of direction for Mayors and combined county authorities, to increase Mayors’ control over key route networks. This will enable them to better co-ordinate the delivery of highways infrastructure, which is needed for effective key route networks across the whole of their authority area.
Our third amendment is a small amendment to improve the partnership between police and crime commissioners and local leaders by clarifying legislation to ensure that PCCs can participate in local government committee meetings. Stronger partnership working between local leaders is central to the Government’s priority of ensuring that local voices are heard on important issues and that decision making is informed by a variety of perspectives in order to deliver our ambitions.
These three amendments add to the strong foundations the Bill already provides for devolution, by going further to solve the specific issues that areas face. In that spirit, I can announce that we will shortly be consulting on how houses in multiple occupation are valued for council tax purposes. The consultation, to be launched by January, will look at situations where individual tenants can, in certain circumstances, be landed with their own council tax bill and will consider whether the valuation process needs to change. Our clear intention is for HMOs to be classed as single dwellings, other than in exceptional circumstances.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is important to look at the balance of council tax attributions for HMOs, but will the Minister confirm that any local authority that has such HMOs will have its council tax settlements adjusted, should a decision result in it making a net loss in such a situation?
Dehenna Davison
We will be consulting on this as a matter of urgency, and I am happy to take this away and to work with my hon. Friend to make sure we find a settled solution that works for local authorities.
If regulation is required, the measure will allow that regulation to be in place before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) for their campaign highlighting this issue, which I know affects other MPs. The Secretary of State and I look forward to meeting their local businessman, Mr Brewer, in the coming days.
Separately, I can confirm that, during the Bill’s passage in the other place, we intend to table amendments addressing circumstances in which authorities have to pay hope value when they compulsorily purchase land in an effort to regenerate their area.
Finally, we have also tabled amendments to make minor corrections and clarifications in support of high street rental auctions and compulsory purchase reforms. These amendments will ensure the policy objectives of these measures can be achieved in full.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I thank her and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team for listening so carefully to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House. What she says about new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is incredibly reassuring for people who are renting in HMOs. The ability to fine tune legislation is so precious.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his incredibly kind words.
I thank Members on both sides of the House for the constructive way in which they have engaged with this important Bill. I look forward to hearing their contributions to today’s debate, and I commend our amendments to the House.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings.
The Public Bill Committee had 27 sittings over four months. The Government enjoyed it so much that they sent seven Ministers and three Whips to share the joy of line-by-line scrutiny. Which was my favourite? How could I choose between those 27 glorious sittings? They were very good debates, as the Minister said.
When it comes to levelling up, we have been clear from the outset that we feel the Bill is a missed opportunity. It ought to have been a chance for the Government finally to set out what their levelling-up agenda really is and what it means for the country. It was a chance to turn the rhetoric and all the press releases into reality. Instead of translating three years of promises into genuinely transformative change, we do not feel the Bill takes as much further forward. After the White Paper and now this Bill, we are still searching for the big, bold change for which the country is crying out and that the Government promised. The Bill has squandered that opportunity, and it seems those premises will be broken.
Levelling up is supposedly the defining mission of this Government but, after all the talk and all the promises, all they could muster was bolting a few clauses on to the front of a planning Bill. It serves no one to pretend that that is not the reality. Where is the plan to tackle entrenched regional inequalities? Where is the plan to unleash the wasted potential of our nations and regions? And where is the plan to get power out of Whitehall and into our towns, villages and communities?
Part 1 of the Bill establishes the levelling-up missions and the rules for reporting progress made against them. The missions are an area of consensus. Who in this House does not want to see a reduction in the disparities in healthy life expectancy, regional investment and educational outcomes? The problem is that, although the Government set out their supposed policy programme to deliver on these missions in their White Paper, it is in reality a mishmash of activity, much of which is already happening. We seek to improve this with amendment 10, as the missions should be accompanied by a full action plan setting out the activity taking place and how it will contribute to delivering the missions. I would hope that the Government already have such action plans, if levelling up really is such a totemic priority, but I fear they do not, because levelling up is not a priority.