Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and fellow Peers for our productive discussions on the Bill in recent weeks. I was honoured to sponsor it in our House, following the efforts of my colleague, the honourable Member for Bath, Wera Hobhouse, who introduced this important piece of legislation in the other place. Like me, she is deeply concerned about the scourge of workplace sexual harassment, which we know is a persistent and prevalent problem across the United Kingdom.

The Government Equalities Office’s own survey into sexual harassment in the workplace in 2020 found that nearly one-third of all employees surveyed—this is slightly different to the figure of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but it is what I found—had experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or work-related environment. That is one in three members of staff. The Bill sought to address this problem by protecting workers, specifically from workplace harassment. It would have amended the Equality Act 2010 to strengthen the legislative protections against workplace sexual harassment and harassment committed by third parties.

While I still firmly believe that the provisions of the Bill would have gone a long way towards tackling workplace harassment, I understand that several noble Lords have reservations about how it is drafted, specifically the entirety of Clause 1 and the word “all”, as in “all reasonable steps”, in Clause 2. Clause 1 would have instated protections for workers against harassment by third parties such as customers by introducing employer liability for such conduct. The Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, against Clause 1 standing part means that incidents of third party harassment will continue not to be covered by law, other than in extreme cases resulting in demonstrable personal injury or where a criminal offence has been committed. None of the existing legal routes will provide an effective alternative to the ability to bring harassment claims against third parties in the employment tribunal. For example, circumstances such as the reported harassment of hostesses by customers at the Presidents Club will still not be covered.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in Clause 2 will narrow the concept of “all reasonable steps” to simply “reasonable steps”. I have listened carefully to her comments on this issue, and her understanding of it is somewhat different from mine. The Equality Act 2010 already contains a statutory defence that requires an employment tribunal assessment to say whether an employer took all reasonable steps to determine legal liability. The amendment will not change the Act’s existing statutory defence but will create a different test for the new duty on employers. That could be considered as setting a different and lower bar than “all reasonable steps”, and as such could be considered to be a watering down of provisions.

The amendments proposed today will change and ultimately attenuate the provisions of the Bill, but I am a firm believer in not allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. While it is disappointing that the Bill as sent to us will be changed by these amendments, I recognise the need for compromise in order to retain its core purpose, while allowing it to progress and reach the statute book. Noble Lords and I have reached an understanding whereby we can assure the passage of the preventative duty in respect of sexual harassment in exchange for accepting the amendments we are discussing today.

I am therefore happy that we have reached a consensus on a pragmatic way forward. As we in this Chamber all know, it is vital that we send a clear signal to prevent this behaviour. I am glad that, even in the Bill’s amended form, that remains the case.

I thank the Minister again for her ongoing engagement and steadfast resolve in seeking a way forward that the House Could agree on. I hope she will be able to confirm that the Government are also willing to accept the proposed amendments.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising the risks to free speech and the potential impact on burdens for business that the Bill could bring by introducing employer liability for third-party harassment and requiring all reasonable steps.

I thank my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for the constructive discussions we have had on the Bill. The pragmatism shown by all to ensure that a version of the Bill can progress with support across the House, while respecting the strongly held views that noble Lords hold, is most welcome. I therefore assure my noble friends that we hear the level of concern that has been expressed about the reintroduction of third-party harassment. While the Government believe it important that workers be protected against this form of harassment, having heard the debate, I recognise the strongly held views of those who have spoken.

I will answer a few of the questions raised today by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Leicester asked about sending staff on an external training course. I can assure him that employers are not currently liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties. Following the removal of Clause 1 from the Bill, that will continue to be the case, meaning that the employer in question would not be liable for harassment of their staff by such a trainer.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

34: Schedule 2, page 286, line 39, at end insert—
“(5A) The requirements in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) may be satisfied by things done before the coming into force of this paragraph.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the consultation and recommendation requirements relating to regulations made under paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 to the Bill (conduct and questioning of elections for the return of mayors) to be met by steps taken before those provisions come into force on Royal Assent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”

and in sub-paragraph (5) that

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, most of these amendments are technical and non-controversial, so I would love to have repeated the famous 10-word speech given by my noble friend Lady Hayman on Tuesday and simply agreed with them. However, we share with others on these Benches some concerns with government Amendment 34. The Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the conduct of mayoral elections, such as regulations relating to the registration of electors and election expenses. While we do not oppose this power and see it as an inevitable part of the process for mayoral elections, the Government should absolutely involve the Electoral Commission as part of this.

We therefore welcome that sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) state that before making these regulations

“the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”.

It was widely assumed that such consultations would take place following Royal Assent, but Amendment 34 means that the consultation can begin prior to commencement. Can the Minister explain why this is necessary and confirm that it will not reduce the Electoral Commission’s vital role in this process, as rightly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock?

It would also be helpful if the Minister could make clear exactly how the Secretary of State intends to exercise these powers. I hope she will understand the concerns that the expedited process is being introduced to facilitate a certain mayoral election—I am not referring to the east Midlands. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their input on these government amendments. These amendments, particularly Amendments 34 and 306, will ensure that those tasks we are planning for in running the May 2024 election for the east Midlands combined county authority mayor have real early clarity as to the rules for the conduct of the election.

The Government are absolutely clear about the role of the Electoral Commission. It has an important role in scrutinising all draft electoral legislation. It is therefore essential that it has sufficient time to undertake this role without causing unnecessary delay to the legislation itself. I will make it very clear: consultation with the Electoral Commission will still take place in full, and will still bind the regulation making. This amendment is just changing the timings for that.

Amendment 34 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for outlining her rationale for tabling Amendment 36: to clarify the relationship between PCCs and mayors, and their respective roles and responsibilities. She asked if the Government want to phase out PCCs. There is no intention to do so. The intention is to allow mayors only in some areas to exercise PCC functions. Some areas will never have mayors who do so because only in coterminous areas can mayors take those functions.

The levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspirations for—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The noble Baroness said that you could have a combined police and crime commissioner and mayor only where there is coterminosity. If combined authorities are now able to expand, will that undo that requirement?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. I hate to bring up the West Midlands—I know the noble Lord opposite will be very pleased that I am—but the Mayor of the West Midlands has a choice: he can either agree to pursue the expansion to include Warwickshire, which has its own PCC, so he could no longer take the PCC role, or he can take the PCC role and therefore not Warwickshire. That is the reality of what we are doing. I hope I have explained that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I think that is right, because you cannot be PCC over two police forces; I fully understand that. What I would say is that if I were in Warwickshire, I would think, “At some point, they will merge West Midlands Police with Warwickshire”. That is just an option for the future, but the Minister is absolutely right about the fact that the mayor cannot oversee two forces.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I hope I have clarified that point. What happens in the future happens in the future; we are talking about this Bill, and the Bill does not change that at all. As I said, the levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspiration for, where policing and combined authority boundaries align, combined authority mayors to take the lead on public safety and take on the role of the PCC—and to take steps to remove the barriers to more CA mayors taking on PCC functions.

In an area where a devolution deal is agreed and the policing and CA boundaries are not coterminous, the Government wish to encourage close co-operation between the combined authority mayor and the PCC. While it is important for the area to shape exactly what strong partnership looks like in practice, one way of achieving this would be to use the non-constituent or associate membership model being established via provisions in the Bill. This could allow the PCC a seat at the table and allow the combined authority to confer voting rights on the PCC on matters relevant to public safety. The information and clarifications sought by this amendment are, we believe, already available, and we do not agree that there is any need for a further statement.

I turn to Amendment 54. Clause 59 amends the existing provisions concerning the local consent requirements for the combined authority mayors to take on the functions of a PCC. This reflects that this transfer is merely a process whereby functions are transferred from one directly elected person to another, without any implications for the local authorities in the area. Clause 59 maintains the triple-lock model for conferring functions. That triple lock is that any transfer or conferral of powers needs local consent, the agreement of the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament.

The change which Clause 59 makes is that in future, local consent will be given simply by the mayor, who is democratically accountable across the whole area. The transfer of PCC functions to a mayor in no way diminishes the role of local government in community safety. The local authority’s role in community safety partnerships remains the same and the police and crime panel will still exist, being responsible for scrutinising the mayor as the PCC in the same way it scrutinised the PCC.

A mayor having PCC functions will, we believe, be able more successfully to pursue their other ambitions and secure better overall outcomes for their community. A deputy mayor for policing and crime is appointed who can take on certain day-to-day responsibilities for this role, ensuring that the mayor can continue to focus on all their other priorities. The Government are clear that we expect mayors to discuss any proposal seeking a transfer of a PCC function with their combined authority in advance of submitting a request for such a transfer to government. This is in line with the existing expectation that mayors seek the views of the relevant PCC, whose consent is not required in legislation.

There is evidence of the considerable benefits that a mayor having PCC functions brings. For example, in Greater Manchester, following Greater Manchester Police’s escalation to “Engage” by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, and the resignation of its former chief constable, the mayor appointed a new chief constable to develop and lead the force’s transformation programme, the result of which has been to ensure that the force focuses on getting the basics right and improving outcomes for the region. Under the leadership of the chief constable and with oversight and support from the mayor, Greater Manchester Police is now responding faster to emergency calls, and the number of open investigations has halved since 2021, and the inspectorate released the force from “Engage” in October 2022 on the strength of the confidence in its improvement trajectory. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was clear that he, as the PCC for Greater Manchester, was accountable if things did not improve and that he should be held to account at the ballot box.

And finally, my Lords—although I think that says it all—government Amendment 307 provides for early commencement of Clause 59, which would allow for the statutory requirements that enable a transfer of PCC functions to CA mayors to be undertaken from the date of Royal Assent. This will enable the timely implementation of secondary legislation required for PCC function transfers to mayors to take place in time for the May 2024 elections.

The Government’s intention is to align as far as possible with the Gould principle relating to electoral management, which would suggest that any statutory instruments transferring PCC functions to mayors for May 2024 should be laid six months ahead of the elections in early November to provide notice to candidates, the electorate and the electoral administrations of any changes. It is for these reasons that the Government are unable to accept Amendment 307A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It would time out any PCC transfers in time for mayoral combined authority elections in 2024 where there is a local desire for this.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the early commencement amendment for Clause 59 and that, following these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

40: Clause 43, page 39, line 27, leave out subsection (9)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes Clause 43(9) on the basis that it overlaps with the power in Clause 231(1)(c) for regulations under the Bill to make consequential etc provision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

41: Clause 44, page 40, line 23, leave out “Part” and insert “Chapter”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the definition of “local government area” in Clause 44(6) has effect for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 2 rather than Part 2 as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

42: Clause 45, page 41, line 28, leave out subsection (10)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes Clause 45(10) on the basis that it overlaps with the power in Clause 231(1)(c) for regulations under the Bill to make consequential etc provision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

44: Schedule 4, page 296, line 6, leave out “(1)” and insert “(1F)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendments corrects a cross-reference in the amendment to insert subsection (1G) into section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

55: Clause 65, page 63, leave out lines 4 and 5
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 65 in the Minister’s name which provides for any regulations made under section 104C(1) or (4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (as inserted by Clause 61 of the Bill) to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. I will not repeat the arguments that she has laid out before your Lordships.

I have not spoken before, so I apologise to your Lordships, but I have been motivated to do so by what I believe is potentially an unfair subsidy to one of the wealthiest landowners in the country, the Church of England, with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, outlined, assets that are currently valued at £23 billion. I also believe it is discriminatory. If we are going to do this for churches, can we equally support mosques, the rather beautiful Buddhist temples around the country, the amazing synagogues and, equally, the Quaker meeting rooms? What applies to one should apply throughout.

If, as we have heard and has been accounted through the recent census, church attendance has diminished severely and churches are not being used, the parishes should be conserved as local hubs and the churches handed over to local authorities. There is a really good model that I know personally: St Matthias, the oldest church in Poplar, east London. It was deconsecrated and handed over to the local community. I am a trustee. Neighbours in Poplar and others have turned it into a thriving hub that serves those of all religions and none. That is a really good model, and it is why I am speaking against government Amendment 60. This is a potentially unfair subsidy that discriminates, and there should be no place for that in a Bill that is about levelling up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to allow parish councils to pay allowances for dependants’ care costs to their councillors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue again, and I recognise the admirable aim of her amendment.

It is important that local communities are properly represented by their local authorities at all levels, including parish councils. Giving parish councils the option of paying these allowances, though, would create an expectation that they would be available to all their members, and that would place an unknown, unfunded and potentially significant burden on the modest finances of parish councils. It is not the policy of the Government to place such burdens on local authorities at any level, and we believe it would be irresponsible to do so.

We do not have, and have not been provided with, any evidence of the scale of the demand for care allowances by parish councillors, nor of the likely costs to their councils, and we cannot be confident that the benefits here would outweigh the costs to the local taxpayer. We have a responsibility to ensure that we take action that could increase council tax further, and put extra pressures on residents, only where absolutely necessary. But I am happy to have further discussions with any noble Lords or noble Baronesses and to consider any evidence that they may have at a later date. However, until we understand this issue better, the Government cannot support the amendment.

Weymouth was brought up. Weymouth council came to the Government, as was said, but there was insufficient information for Ministers to make an informed and substantive decision at the time. Our concerns about the impact on parish councils’ finances remain, and we will respond shortly to Weymouth town council’s proposal.

Moving to government Amendments 60 and 308, we have listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed in Committee that some parish councils believe that they are prohibited from providing funding to churches —to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cashman—and other religious buildings. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this issue to the House’s attention. I am pleased to say that the Government wish to move this amendment to clarify that there is no such prohibition.

We have heard that stakeholders’ confusion comes from the Local Government Act 1894. That Act set out a clear separation of powers between the newly created civil parishes, which exercised secular functions, and what are now parochial church councils, which exercise ecclesiastical functions. In setting out the scope of the powers conferred on civil parishes, the Act gave parish councils powers over

“parish property, not being property related to the affairs of the church or being held for an ecclesiastical charity”.

Some stakeholders appear to see this wording as a general prohibition which prevents parish councils doing anything in relation to church or religious property, even under their powers in other legislation. The Government did not agree with this interpretation. Their view was that this wording simply sets out what is and is not a parish property for the purposes of the powers of the 1894 Act. This is supported by the Hansard record for 1 February 1894, when the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London explained why he had proposed including this wording by way of amendment.

The Government do not think that there is any general or specific provision in the 1894 Act which prohibits parish councils funding the maintenance and upkeep of churches and other religious buildings. Therefore, this amendment does not seek to make any substantive changes to the existing legal provision. Instead, it clarifies that the 1894 Act does not affect the powers, duties or liabilities of parish councils in England under any other legislation. This will give councils the comfort that, even if they disagree with the Government’s interpretation of the 1894 Act, it cannot prohibit them using their other powers to fund repairs or improvements to local places of worship, if they choose to do so. Government Amendment 308 makes provision for this new clause to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. In reality, this is going to allow something that in many areas is happening already, and we have heard examples of that. In churches and other religious buildings across this country many community activities are taking place, from coffee mornings to luncheon clubs, knitting circles and toddler groups. I think it is correct that we make it very clear as a Government that parish and town councils are legally able to support those sorts of activities and can help such facilities along a bit—often the only community facility is the church or another religious building—if the parish council or the town council agrees that it is the right thing to do on behalf of that community.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her considered response. However, it saddens me that the Government feel that this is not a decision that a parish council can make for itself. I will be blunt and say that it is stunningly patronising. It has been dressed up as an overwhelming regard for a parish council’s budget when, on a daily and weekly basis, the Government take decisions that increase council tax. That is another debate for another day. We are just asking for parish councils to have the power to make their own decisions.

What evidence do the Government feel would be acceptable? Lots of parish councillors might say, “We can’t get people unless we do this”, or, “Actually, there’s only one or two that ever need this but they’re really good people and we’d like to be able to give it to them”. Can I reverse that and ask the Government what evidence they feel would be needed? The bottom line is this: why can parish councils not make the decision for themselves? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

60: After Clause 78, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of parish councilsAfter section 19 of the Local Government Act 1894 (provisions as to small parishes), insert—“19A Powers under other enactments(1) Nothing in this Part affects any powers, duties or liabilities conferred on a parish council by or under any other enactment (whenever passed or made).(2) This section does not apply in relation to community councils (see section 179(4) of the Local Government Act 1972).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new section into the Local Government Act 1894 to clarify that the powers conferred on parish councils under Part 1 of that Act do not affect any powers, duties or liabilities of parish councils conferred by or under any other enactment (whenever passed or made).

Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the regulations that we are considering today were laid in draft before this House on Wednesday 7 June under Section 23(6) of the Business and Planning Act 2020 for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. If approved and made, these regulations will extend the temporary pavement licence provisions for 12 months to 30 September 2024 and will come into effect the day after they are made.

These pavement licence provisions create a faster, cheaper and more streamlined consenting regime for the placement of removable furniture, including tables and chairs, on pavements outside premises such as cafés, bars, restaurants and pubs. These measures have been successful in supporting businesses, making it easier for businesses such as pubs, restaurants and cafés to facilitate al fresco dining with outside seating.

We know that the hospitality sector was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic, and the economic effects of that period persist today. It is therefore vital that we extend these provisions for 12 months to continue to support its recovery from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and to avoid unnecessary confusion while we seek to make the streamlined process permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

I will briefly remind the Committee of the background to these regulations. Part VIIA of the Highways Act 1980 sets out a permanent local authority licensing regime for the placement of furniture such as tables and chairs on the highway. However, the process involves a legal minimum of 28 days’ consultation. That is problematic because many local authorities take much longer to determine applications, and there is no statutory cap on the fee that local authorities may charge.

Therefore, with effect from 22 July 2020, temporary pavement licence provisions were introduced in the Business and Planning Act 2020 to support the hospitality sector in response to the coronavirus pandemic. These proposed regulations use enabling powers in the Business and Planning Act 2020 that allow the Secretary of State, where they consider it reasonable to do so, to mitigate an effect of coronavirus to extend the temporary provisions subject to parliamentary approval.

I turn to the detail of the regulations. The sole purpose of the regulations is to change the four references to the expiry date of these temporary pavement licence provisions in the legislation, amended from 30 September 2023 to 30 September 2024. The regulations do not change any other part of the temporary placement licence provisions. Subject to the regulations being approved and made, businesses will be able to apply for a licence under the process set out in the pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for the extended period until 30 September 2024. The regulations do not automatically extend licences that have already been granted under the current provisions, so businesses will need to apply for a new licence should they wish to have one in place during the extended period.

Local authorities are encouraged by the guidance to take a pragmatic approach in applying the relevant provisions, so that it is as convenient as possible for businesses to apply for a licence during the extended period. I will briefly remind noble Lords of this process.

All licence applications are subject to a seven-day public consultation period, starting the day after that on which the application is made, and then a further seven-day determination period, during which the local authority is expected to either grant a licence or reject the application. If the local authority does not determine the application before the end of the determination period, the licence will automatically be deemed to have been granted in the form in which the application was made, and the business can place the proposed removable furniture within the area set out in the application for the purposes proposed.

Licence application fees will be set locally but capped at a maximum of £100. All licences will be subject to a national non-obstruction condition and smoke-free seating condition, as well as any local conditions set by local authorities.

The granting of a pavement licence covers only the placing of removable furniture on the highway. A pavement licence does not negate the need to obtain approvals under other regulatory frameworks, such as alcohol licensing. Once a licence is granted or deemed granted, the applicant will also benefit from deemed planning permission to use the highway land for anything done pursuant to the licence while the licence is valid, such as using furniture to sell or serve food or drink supplied from or in connection with the relevant use of the premises.

The regulations will enable cafés and restaurants to continue to obtain quickly and cheaply a licence to place furniture on the highway outside their premises. If these regulations are not introduced, there is a real risk of undermining the steps that hospitality businesses have taken to recover from the economic impacts they have suffered as a result of the pandemic.

We are seeking to make the streamlined approval process permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Failure to extend this measure would result in a gap in service and a return to the process under the Highways Act 1980, which would be confusing and costly for businesses and local authorities alike.

All of us in government have seen the positive impact of al fresco dining on the vibrancy of many of our high streets. I express my gratitude to local authorities for the huge effort they have made in this matter and for their hard work to enable businesses to thrive while building vibrant high streets, leading to the success of these measures. The draft regulations will allow al fresco dining to remain a reality for these businesses and provide much-needed continuity for another year while we seek to update the permanent measures through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly support these regulations and congratulate my noble friend on bringing them forward. My only concern is about the ability to reach out and consult organisations representing the disabled, which I will come to in a moment.

In her introductory remarks, my noble friend mentioned what this will mean for the hospitality sector, and I warmly support that for the reasons she gave. The sector suffered heavy losses during the Covid pandemic, and it is gratifying that tourists are now returning to areas such as London—and North Yorkshire, to a certain extent—in waves that we have not seen since the pre-pandemic days of 2019. That is very welcome.

I had the good fortune and honour to chair the ad hoc Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 and, similarly, the follow-up committee. I was delighted that the Liaison Committee allowed us to conduct a further, follow-up inquiry. One of the issues that struck us during that inquiry was how to reach out to interested affected groups, such as organisations and groups representing the disabled, and how best to catch their attention if there was a licensing application that may be of interest or concern to them.

Can my noble friend put my mind at rest in that regard? I think she said that each individual licence is subject to a seven-day consultation, so I would like to know what mechanism local authorities use in that regard.

I note that paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the regulations says:

“No formal consultation has taken place on this measure”.


Perhaps one would not have expected a consultation for the reasons that my noble friend gave, that this is a continuation and a renewal. This is my main concern here. We all know disabled people and partially sighted people—they are represented in both Houses of Parliament. One error of these regulations, or any licensing application applied under them, would be if those people were not reached out to under each individual licensing application.

On a lighter note—this is not really about a pavement application—when coming back down St Martin’s Lane in the daytime today, I passed Stringfellows, which is a well-known restaurant establishment, and I was rather struck by an orange leaflet that had great prominence on two of its doors. It has applied for a renewal of a sex establishment licence as a sexual entertainment venue. I realise that this is without the remit of today’s debate, but I will write to my noble friend with a copy of the notice. We spent hours looking line by line through the Licencing Act 2003; I like to think that I am fairly interested in licensing, but it was news to me that we have any sexual entertainment venue licensed in London or any other part of this country.

I look forward to my noble friend’s response on the consultation, not just of these regulations but of each individual licence application under the regulations before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about Stringfellows. I understand—only from posters on the Underground, believe me—that it is known for its Magic Mike performances. The idea of these being subject to pavement licences is a bit mind-blowing, but you never know what will happen in London.

This SI is the third extension to the regulations permitting the rapid application process for businesses to obtain pavement licences. We understand that this is a temporary provision pending the introduction of permanent changes in the levelling-up Bill. The introduction of this power during Covid undoubtedly had a very positive effect for the small businesses it was intended to support—in fact, it probably saved quite a lot of them from extinction. It has also created a vibrant outdoor eating and drinking culture in many of our high streets—including where I live—which has enlivened and invigorated them very positively. We therefore will not be objecting to this SI.

However, I have a few questions for the Minister, which I shall put to her as briefly as possible. First, during the debates on the pavement licence section of the levelling-up Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly raised the issue of ensuring that our pavements are accessible to all. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, both commented on this. The noble Lord said:

“I simply wish to reassert the primary purpose of the pavement. It is not a place for excessive A-boards, advertisements, marketing materials or sprawling seating. It is a place to connect people. It is a place where we can meet on our streets. Yet, all too often, we experience inaccessibility, obstacles and problems when we are simply trying to go about our daily business. This is bad enough for anybody, but for those of us who use guide dogs or wheelchairs it can often be an impossibility”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 646.]


He also raised the issue of e-scooters being littered across pavements.

I understand from previous answers from the Minister that local authorities will be encouraged to take the needs of all users into account when considering licence applications. I hope that she will be sympathetic to amendments to the levelling-up Bill in this regard. It might really help if we could approach an organisation such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People to get some guidance about what would help people with visual impairments to cope with this kind of street trading.

Secondly, the issue of cost was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. While I appreciate that the Government and all of us want to give small businesses every chance to recover from Covid without imposing any further costs on them, it does not seem fair that local authorities, which are also recovering from the financial burdens of Covid, should take these costs on themselves. The Minister will be very aware that the Local Government Association has long held the view that councils should be able determine such costs relating to the full cost recovery of issuing licences. I can see that in the short term we would not want to impose any further financial burdens on small businesses, but will the Government give further consideration to this when the measures become permanent as part of the Bill?

I would like to ask the Minister about the seven-day application process. Most applications will be by a delegated authority for licensing officers to consider. Should there be a contested application, for example, local authorities have to by law give seven days’ notice of a meeting. That is a bit tricky if the licence has to be considered within seven days. I wonder how that is going to be dealt with.

Finally, when debating this issue in the other place my honourable friend Sarah Owen, the MP for Luton North, rightly raised the support that could be provided to small businesses through the non-domestic rating system. As we are currently in the process of that Bill going through your Lordships’ House, is the Minister able to give the same small businesses being supported by pavement licences any reassurance about how the Government intend to support them further by provisions in that Bill?

We have no hesitation in supporting this SI. We all want those small businesses which have been helped by it to continue to thrive.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these draft regulations. As I previously outlined, these regulations continue our support for the hospitality sector’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and give support to businesses in uncertain times with global inflation. As we have heard, this extension will give businesses extra support for another year. I thank noble Lords for their support for that across the Committee.

A number of points were raised, and I will go through them. Accessibility was quite rightly bought up by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This is very important. I have met my noble friend Lord Holmes more than once about this issue. I continue to talk to him. Of course, pavements must always be accessible to everyone, regardless of their mobility needs. As such, this condition applies to all temporary pavement licences issued by councils. If the conditions are not met, the licences can be revoked.

The pavement licence guidance says that in most circumstances a minimum of 1.5 metres of space should be kept clear between an obstacle and the edge of the footpath. That is for everyone, whether it be wheelchairs, buggies or just people who need a little more space to walk safely around our town. This will continue to apply under the extended provisions. We work with disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. This guidance has always been refined even further after speaking to them, to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of all people when setting conditions and making decisions.

In terms of local particularities, because areas differ, local authorities may also wish to review any local conditions they have set in relation to access and safety. That is really important. Local people know best about their towns and villages. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about automatic rollover. I can understand the reasoning behind this, but we want to ensure that the community continues to have a say. We know that in communities some people may say that it is fine, but I think we should ask, so we need an annual consultation just to check that everything is going right, and that people are happy with what is being delivered.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, brought up the issue of income for local authorities. There is always a balance between money for the council and the cost to businesses. The £100 is a cap. Some local authorities do not charge anything; I was hearing of one such the other day. They may be much wealthier councils than others so can afford to do that, or they may prioritise small businesses at a particularly difficult time, but it is a cap. Looking further towards the future, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that is going through the House looks at higher levels of cost to businesses. Again, though, they will be caps; they will not be required to be charged. It is important that local authorities have the flexibility to do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned visible barriers. I will take this issue back and we will have another discussion about it. I certainly know from personal experience that al fresco dining is wonderful; it makes our streets look so much more interesting at times, and it is lovely to sit out. However, the ones with the barriers around them seem much more sensible to me. I will take that back to the department. I will not forget; I will come back to her.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for doing that. My worry is that I think that was initially included in the first set of regulations, and I wonder why it has somehow been taken out. But I will wait for an answer.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am interested in the answer as well, so I will definitely come back to the noble Baroness on that.

As I say, the measure also refers to the issue of non-domestic rates, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Non-domestic rates are important revenue for local authorities. Again, it is about balance: if you lower them for businesses, that is good for businesses, but then we have to make that up in some way for local authorities.

I think I have answered everything. I will check Hansard tomorrow, and obviously I will send a letter if necessary. Did I miss something?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the non-domestic rates issue, we have raised the point during the course of the Bill, which my noble friend Lady Hayman has been dealing with, about the fact that there is disparity in treatment between online businesses and the kind of small businesses that we are talking about that operate on our high streets. As we go through the process of further consideration of the Bill, we need to think about that because it would be a way of giving more support to those small businesses and perhaps getting online businesses to pay a bit more of their fair share towards the tax cost in this country.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I know that will be an issue as the Bill comes back on Report.

I shall conclude. We believe that extending the temporary pavement licence provisions through these regulations is necessary to support food and drink hospitality businesses. That is particularly important when we consider how badly affected they were by the pandemic. These temporary pavement licence measures have already been very successful in supporting that sector in its economic recovery and getting it out of the pandemic. They will enable that success to continue and provide much-needed certainty to businesses in their planning for the coming years. I thank noble Lords for taking part, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Small and Medium-sized Housebuilders

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the letter to the Prime Minister from housebuilding firms on 6 July, what steps they are taking to strengthen the viability of small and medium-sized housebuilders.

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

SMEs are an indispensable part of our housebuilding sector, and we are committed to strengthening their viability. We are providing financial support through our £1.5 billion levelling-up home building fund, which will help SMEs build around 42,000 homes. Through the £1 billion ENABLE Build guarantee scheme and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill changes to the planning system, we will further support SMEs in making the planning process easier to navigate, faster and more predictable.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her genuinely helpful Answer. With planning permissions at an all-time low and taking longer, the Home Builders Federation says that SME builders are going out of business now, while 145,000 desperately needed homes are on hold due to, to quote its letter to the Prime Minister, the Government’s “anti-development policies”. Does the Minister agree that this is largely a result of policy conflicts and mixed messages from the Government, as reported even today in the Times? It might be helpful to SMEs if they knew what the Government were doing about the 48 local authorities that have paused or withdrawn their local plans and the 74 that are affected by Natural England’s nutrient neutrality building moratorium. SMEs in these areas need urgent action; they cannot just pack up and go elsewhere.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have explained how we are supporting them financially, but we are aware that the planning system, for example, is not as user-friendly as it should be to SME builders. That is why we are making changes in the LUR Bill, but we are also trying to ensure that the planning system is now better funded, so any time now we will see an increase in planning fees, for example, by 35% for major applications and 25% for other applications. All this investment should make sure that SMEs find the system simpler and easier to use, and that therefore they can access it and build more houses for us.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the letter to the Prime Minister refers not to an anti-development policy but to an anti-development environment. I submit that the anti-development environment is in part caused by the fact that people are fed up with the large-volume housebuilders building identikit housing estates up and down the country, and that the people more likely to reflect the desires and wishes of local communities are the smaller, SME housebuilders.

The problem is also in design. We have had the Royal Fine Art Commission, which gave way to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which in turn has given way to the Design Council, but none of these bodies has really had teeth. What more can we do to ensure that there is greater control over the sort of properties we are building in the country, to give more training to local planning officers and to increase not only their quantity but their quality?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think we need both types. We need the large developers building large numbers of houses; we also need to support our SMEs across this country. My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why we see quite a lot in the LUR Bill about beautiful homes for people in this country. Therefore, local authorities will in future have to produce design codes for their areas.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, one way of helping small and medium-sized housebuilders would be finally to end the pernicious practice of retentions. Many small construction firms, often with very low profit margins, are crippled by having up to 5% of the funds owed to them withheld, and sometimes never paid at all. Roofing firms alone are currently owned £300 million. This prevents them investing in growth through skills or technology, and may even force them into insolvency. There were over 4,000 construction insolvencies in the year to March 2023. What specific progress are the Government making to deliver their long-standing goal of ending retentions by 2025, and specifically in removing retentions from all public contracts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord brings up a really important issue. I understand that other government departments apart from DLUHC are meeting the sector and working on this issue. We will deliver for the sector as soon as we possibly can.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, securing planning permission is the major barrier to growth, according to 93% of SME builders. The Minister has mentioned the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill a couple of times. In order to make a real difference quickly and promote the use of SMEs in local authority tenders, will she accept our Amendment 244, which asks local authorities to consider SMEs when granting planning permissions?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can tell the noble Baroness that I will look at her amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Swire’s excellent question, the number of sites with planning consent for fewer than 100 dwellings has fallen by 38% over the past five years. These are the sites most used by small and medium-sized builders. Is there not a case for the planning system to promote much more effectively the use of smaller sites, not just to help smaller builders but to strengthen and diversify the construction industry and accelerate the delivery of new homes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right. That is why the NPPF includes policies to support SMEs; for example, it sets out that local planning authorities should identify land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirements on sites no larger than one hectare. That might seem large, but we also make it clear in the framework that local planning authorities should work with developers to look at subdivisions in those areas where we could help speed up the delivery of homes, particularly by SMEs delivering those homes.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the brickmaker Forterra has shut its Howley Park brickmaking plant because of a 31% decline in demand for bricks in the past 12 months. That coincides with news that, in this last financial year, the Minister’s department has sent back to the Treasury £225 million unspent on affordable housing. Is it not time that there was some connection inside the department to make sure that the available money is spent on affordable housing, possibly affordable social housing as a countercyclical measure at a time when the private sector is under such pressure?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware, but we have been through quite a lot of economic volatility, which has obviously led to developers’ slowdown. Therefore, the amount of money mentioned in the Guardian article that I believe the noble Lord is referring to, about money going back to the Treasury, is not quite correct. It is actually being put into projects of more than one year, so it will be forward spent. As the economy strengthens, as it is doing now in the housing sector, that money will be available to build affordable and other housing.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, the steep decline in SME builders is deeply disturbing. Their market share has dropped from 40% to 10% in the past 35 years. How does increasing the market dominance of a small number of big players square with the Government’s often-mentioned mission to drive economic growth through innovation and competition?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I said in answer to a previous question, we need both. We need everybody, including small builders, local authorities and larger builders, to make sure that we build the houses that this country urgently needs. I am aware that the SME sector is currently struggling with challenges, particularly with the macroeconomic climate. We will continue to prioritise supporting the industry and local areas and delivering the safe, high-quality homes that this country needs.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the House often discusses problems of labour and skills shortages. Yesterday the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships, of which I declare that I am an officer, put out a report, one focus of which was the difficulties that small and medium enterprises, including builders, are encountering in being able to take on apprenticeships and see them through. What are the Government doing to deal with that pressing issue?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pressing issue. The interesting thing is that we recognise that the SMEs play a crucial role in promoting skills in the construction industry and are responsible for many of the training programmes, particularly for new entrants into the sector. We are supporting construction skills through the Construction Industry Training Board, which last year spent nearly £150 million on training grants and apprenticeships across the sector. It is important that we continue to support them, because we need these skills in the sector and we need to grow it.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Report be now received.

Relevant documents: 24th and 39th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.

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

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, before we begin Report, I want to make some points to draw the House’s attention to our concerns about the Government’s approach to the proper and timely legislative scrutiny of this Bill.

First, when we received the Bill into this House and prepared for Second Reading back in January, I and others were surprised to see that it contained three chapters that had not been scrutinised in the other place but had been added in after it had moved on to here. Then, following our debate in Committee, ahead of Report and with no prior warning, the Government added in a whole new schedule—nine pages in length—along with further amendments on childminding provisions, and altered the Long Title to reflect this.

I know that the Minister understands my concerns, and I thank her for arranging a meeting at short notice last week to discuss this. Can she now confirm, as we agreed in that meeting, that Committee rules will be used for the debate on the childcare amendments and any amendments to them on Report, and that, if deemed necessary, amendments will be accepted at Third Reading on this part of the Bill alone?

Finally, on Friday evening I had an email from the department apologising for the late tabling of further amendments, apparently to allow substantive discussions with the devolved Administrations prior to tabling as they relate to the devolution settlement and securing legislative consent for the Bill. Late discussions with the devolved Administrations unfortunately seem to have become a regular occurrence, but it would have been helpful if we had been made aware and alerted to any impact on timings in advance.

To be quite clear, I hold the Minister in the highest regard, I am not complaining about her as a Minister and we very much appreciated her apology. However, it greatly concerns me that the department has shown a lack of respect for the need to have proper legislative scrutiny from both Houses if we are to secure legislation of the expected highest standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government have proposed a number of changes to this Bill ahead of Lords Report and that they deserve proper debate. Our amendments were tabled a week in advance of this stage commencing, as is usual, apart from the limited changes arising directly from our discussions with the devolved Administrations, where it was important to let negotiations conclude.

I have been very willing to meet noble Lords—I thank the noble Baroness opposite for accepting and appreciating that—from all sides of the House to discuss any aspects of the Bill, as have my officials, and I am grateful for the many conversations which we have had over the past week and previously. With a Bill of this complexity, we may not always get our engagement completely right, but our genuine intent has been to keep noble Lords well informed of our proposals, and I apologise once again to the House for any shortcomings in that.

The amendments we have proposed should also be seen in the context of the overall size of the Bill. A number of changes are being made in response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Where substantive additions to the Bill are proposed, principally on childcare, it is only right that we allow time for them to be discussed fully, and I assure the noble Baronesses that we will do that.

Report received.

Clause 1: Statement of levelling-up missions

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down: I have listened carefully to what she has said, and I think that what she has been explaining is that the Government are already committed to achieving the purposes of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Are there any disadvantages, in that case, of accepting the amendment?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The disadvantage is that we are already doing it, so we would not want to duplicate it. We have listened to the earlier rounds and we are looking at the simplification of funding streams to local government to deliver levelling up and to connect that to the missions. There is no point in duplicating that, as it is already in the Bill.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Prompted by the noble Lord’s intervention, I do not think that Amendment 1 is consistent with the Bill as it stands, because Part 1 comes into force, according to the commencement provision, two months after enactment, whereas Amendment 1 requires the statement to be laid one month after enactment—so the two are inconsistent, and Amendment 1 is probably not effective.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank her for what she said about the Isles of Scilly and my Amendment 11. I am grateful that she is happy to arrange a meeting with colleagues in the Department for Transport but, if it seems appropriate to have an amendment to the levelling-up Bill, would that be possible at Third Reading if she and the other Minister agree?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think the House prefers not to have any amendments at Third Reading.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, and the Minister for her, as always, very thorough response. However, I do not think that she has been able to demonstrate categorically that any future funding rounds are going to be properly tied to the delivery of the missions. The Government seem to have taken a bit of a scattergun approach to this, if I can put it like that. As I have already said, the Government’s approach is categorised by one-off, short-term initiatives which are insufficient if the geographic, economic, social and health inequalities are to be reduced and ultimately overcome, which is what the Bill aims to do.

To me, as I said before, getting the funding allocations correct, getting the analysis of the results of previous allocations of funding correct, and having that information and data at our fingertips to be able to properly target the funding to ensure that we get the outcomes we want, is critical to the success of the Bill. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but I have been informed by the clerks that my Amendment 17 is consequential on my Amendment 1. So I thank the Minister, but I am not satisfied with the Government’s future approach, so I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to be brief, but it appears to those of us who live in far-flung parts of England that the further away you are from London and the south-east, the more acutely the disparities occur. Living in the north-east, as I and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, do, we have a double whammy. We have the north/south divide, which is still a major concern, and the rural/urban divide. There is a double impact in terms of rural proofing that needs to be addressed. Only through well documented rural proofing and the proper engagement of different departments of government will we be able to identify what actions need to be taken to address these disparities. It is only through that evidence base that we will be able to successfully apply levelling up in rural areas. I support these amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, would require a Minister to withdraw the statement if either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it. The statements of levelling-up missions, the annual report, the revisions to the missions and revisions to the metrics supporting missions will already be laid before both Houses of Parliament. This already provides numerous opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise the activity of the Government on levelling up. Going further in this way could take up significant parliamentary time and giving a veto to Parliament on a statement of government policy, which is fundamentally different from legislation or guidance, would not in our opinion be appropriate. Of course, as my noble friend said in Committee, Parliament can at any time put a Motion for debate on any issue. That is always possible for both Houses to do.

Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would require the Government to publish an assessment of geographical disparity, with reference to defined criteria, alongside the statement of missions. But as set out in the levelling up White Paper, the missions are already supported by a range of clear metrics to assess different aspects of geographical disparities and measure progress in addressing these. These metrics take account of a wide range of inputs, outputs and outcomes and, in the vast majority of cases, they draw upon publicly available datasets. An additional assessment of geographical disparities risks being duplicative.

Further, as with the missions themselves, specifying reporting metrics in legislation would make reporting far too rigid. While disparities exist at regional, local authority, ward and even street level, the appropriate unit of comparison will vary depending on the mission or policy area. Governments must be able to adapt reporting to reflect changing contexts, without cumbersome revisions to primary legislation. The statement of levelling-up missions is intended as a statement of government policy, which will set out those admissions and metrics, while the annual report will report against those metrics. Having requirements to assess disparities according to specific criteria in the statement would pre-empt that annual report.

Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, would require the Government to publish a rural-proofing report alongside the first statement of levelling-up missions. The noble Lord is right to highlight the challenges facing rural communities, as are the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle and Lord Carrington, but the annual rural-proofing report is the key tool in highlighting this work. The second of those reports, Delivering for Rural England, is out. It sets out further details on the Government’s approach to levelling up rural areas.

In addition, last month the Government published an action plan detailing their ongoing work and future plans to support rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, mentioned that, coming out of that, we are providing £378 million in ring-fenced grants for rural areas, to fund energy-efficiency and clean heating upgrades for low-income households living off the gas grid in England. We also announced a £2.5 million fund to boost the supply of new affordable housing to rent or buy in rural areas, by creating a network of new rural housing enablers. As noble Lords said, we are also supporting community ownership of vital rural assets, such as pubs and shops, through the £150 million community ownership fund. These are areas across government where we are supporting the rural economy and rural England, and this will come out of those rural- proofing issues. I will mention more of this in a minute.

Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seeks the publication of a report by an independent advisory body on progress against the levelling-up missions. Through the provisions we seek to put in statute in the Bill, we are committed to enabling Parliament, the public and experts to scrutinise our progress against our missions and in reducing geographic disparities, and to hold the Government to account. Many think tanks and academics are already scrutinising our performance on levelling up. Through my department’s spatial data unit, we are embracing and seeking to build on this engagement, including through work to improve the way in which government collates and reports on spending and outcomes and considers geographical disparities in its policy-making. That is not just in my department but across government.

As noble Lords will know, we also established the independent Levelling Up Advisory Council, chaired by Andy Haldane. The council, which provides very candid advice to Ministers and conducts independent research for the levelling-up agenda, has met nine times already. I am confident that these provisions and commitments will ensure transparency, scrutiny and accountability on the levelling-up missions, and on the way in which geographical disparities are defined, measured and addressed, without adding any unnecessary proliferation of public bodies.

Amendment 14, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, would oblige the Government to publish a report that considers establishing a task force to help increase the effective use of robotics and automation and to consider the impact on regional disparities. The Government are hugely committed to reducing barriers to innovation, which is why we committed almost £200 million in funding to manufacturers through the Made Smarter programme, and we are already convening a Robotics Growth Partnership with leaders across academia and industry. The Levelling Up Advisory Council is considering how to improve the uptake of productivity-enhancing technologies. Given the work that is ongoing already, we do not believe that a task force is necessary. Should government find it desirable to establish a task force in the future, I assure my noble friend that it will not be necessary to legislate to establish one.

Amendment 303, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would require a rural-proofing report on how

“the measures contained within the Act will address the needs of rural communities”.

As I highlighted, the Government already have extensive rural-proofing mechanisms which ensure that the unique challenges of rural communities are considered in all our policy-making. The Government undertake robust impact assessment processes when introducing any new policy. The Bill is subject to the same scrutiny and therefore has been assessed accordingly to ensure that all communities, including rural ones, are sufficiently considered. Given the existing mechanisms in place, we do not believe it is necessary to impose a further condition on the provisions of the Bill.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance for my noble friend Lord Lansley to withdraw his amendment and for the other amendments to not be moved.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she might explain a little further about the Levelling Up Advisory Council. I think I heard her say that is has now met nine times. Is the advisory council publishing its papers and the minutes of its meetings? I am led to believe that it has not been doing so. Is that the case and, if so, would it not be better if the papers and minutes of its meetings were published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am not aware that the advisory council is publishing papers, because it is advisory to the Government. I will make further inquiries and come back to the noble Lord and others in the Chamber.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

To save the House time later, I remind the Minister that rural-proofing is not about giving a list of good things you have done in rural areas. To quote the Government’s own document:

“Rural proofing aims to understand the intended outcomes of government policy intervention in a rural context and to ensure fair and equitable policy outcomes for rural areas”.


If the Minister is correct that this legislation has been rural-proofed, will she commit to publishing the specific report for this Bill, which would achieve what my two amendments are seeking to do?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, a number of proofings have been done on the Bill. I will ask for those and make sure that they are brought forward. It is not about giving money; it is about knowing where money is required in rural areas to make life better for people, as well as making sure that policies are rural-proofed. If we find out through that rural-proofing that some policies are not delivering as well as they could for rural areas, we have to do something about it, and that is what the Government are doing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, if the policies have been rural-proofed, what happened to the metrics? Clearly, they have not been rural-proofed. I raised public transport, which I think needs looking at.

--- Later in debate ---

When the Procurement Bill comes back, we will have fun reminding the Cabinet Office of the Front Bench’s objection in principle to Parliament debating the policy statement of Ministers and to Ministers being required to withdraw it if Parliament objects. That is precisely what is in the Procurement Bill in another place, as put in the Bill by Ministers themselves. I am afraid that my noble friend’s argument of principle against my amendment does not hold much water beyond this convenient moment. None the less, I take her point. I have explained the flaws in my amendment and, on that basis, I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have an update for the House: I have been advised that the independent advisory board has a public blog that noble Lords might like to look at.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, as I am still a serving councillor in both Stevenage and Hertfordshire.

It is always a huge privilege to follow Members of your Lordships’ House with such great expertise and passion for their subjects as my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Benjamin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I shall speak to their amendments in a moment.

First, I have tabled Amendment 5 to highlight a number of missed opportunities in the Bill. Some of the many issues we have raised relate to the deficiency of the Bill in clearly setting out a definition of what levelling up actually means to the Government and, as importantly, how it will reach every area—we have a later set of amendments on regional disparities—how it will be funded, how it will measure outcomes rather than outputs, and how in key areas it will start to turn the agenda from acute interventions, which are expensive and complex, to preventive work, which will be more effective and save costs in the long run. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for setting out so clearly our concerns around funding; I will not comment any further on that subject.

It seems to us that the levelling-up missions are nowhere near ambitious enough to take this country forward in the wake of Brexit, the pandemic and climate change, and with economic changes that need a clear strategic approach to ensure that the United Kingdom keeps pace with scientific development, tackles productivity challenges and is a place where everyone has the opportunity and encouragement to play their part in growing the economy.

What we see in the levelling-up Bill is, too often, the sticking-plaster politics of the last few years, which will do little to tackle the long-term challenges. Our missions indicate our ambition and determination that our country will face those long-term challenges that really matter to citizens and society; keep focused on them in spite of day-to-day pressures; ensure that everyone—business and trade unions, private and public sector, and government departments—works together; and, key to the consideration of this Bill, make sure that local and national government work together in partnership to ensure that action happens at the right level and combines national strategy with local knowledge and expertise. Strong missions must be focused on tackling the long-term and complex problems that need long-term thinking and recognise that there is no silver bullet to solve them, only key partnerships worked at and sustained over time.

We must be more ambitious, like our mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, which is aimed at tackling the consistent underperformance in our economy that sees Britain still trailing behind our partners rather than powering ahead. ONS statistics show that the UK’s GDP growth between the final quarters of 2019 and 2022 was the lowest in the G7, which means that the UK is the only G7 country in which the economy remains smaller than it was before the pandemic. Being as ambitious for our economy as the people in our country are for their families must surely be the launch pad of levelling up.

There can be no levelling up while people and communities still feel unsafe in the places they live, work or spend their leisure time. There can be no levelling up while we treat the challenge of producing clean energy with a lack of ambition. We need a mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, creating jobs, cutting bills and dealing with the crisis in energy security.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, clearly set out the reasons why tackling health inequalities, which have beleaguered the UK for generations, must be part of the mission to level up our country in order to break the cycle. My local area is home to some of the most exciting cell and gene therapy developments in the world, so it is ironic that if you live in parts of my borough, you will live 10 years less than if you live in St Albans, 12 miles away.

In the United Kingdom we have 7 million people languishing on NHS waiting lists, waiting for surgery or procedures that could be life changing, never mind life saving. We must include in the missions for this country a stated aim to harness the life sciences to reduce preventable illness, speed up access to treatments and cut health inequalities. For that reason, if the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, chooses to test the opinion of the House on this subject, she will have our support.

Lastly, I come to the powerful words of my noble friend Lady Lister, who has been such a strong advocate for children, particularly disadvantaged children, in your Lordships’ House. It is a shameful indictment of this Government that the situation relating to child poverty has gone backwards since 2010. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, it should be central to levelling up. The Child Poverty Action Group figure of 4.2 million children living in poverty, which has been widely cited in the debate, is a shameful indictment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, the situation is far worse for black and ethnic-minority children, and working is not the answer for everyone, with 71% of children in poverty living in a home where at least one person works. The figure cited that between 1998 and 2003 the number of children living in poverty fell by 600,000 shows that it can be done, but the figures are now climbing rapidly again.

The combination of low pay, poor housing and steep rises in the costs of food and energy is taking a terrible toll on the life chances of too many children and young people across our country. We heard recently from the National Housing Federation that too many children are in poor accommodation where they still have to share beds with their parents well into their teenage years. The generational change needed here requires breaking down the barriers to opportunity at every stage, for every child. That needs reform of the childcare and education systems to raise standards and prepare young people for work and life.

None of this can happen unless we all—across the political spectrum and society—make it our ambition to drive out the child poverty that blights lives, drains self-confidence, squashes opportunity and ambition, and continues the cycle that sees so many of our young people unable to make their full contribution to our country. It is unthinkable that we will see any long-term levelling up in our country without tackling child poverty. Indeed, the in-depth study on child poverty carried out by the University of Newcastle put at the top of its list of priority actions

“putting tackling child poverty at the heart of future devolution deals”.

That is a clear example of why it is entirely appropriate to have a statement of intent at national level—a mission—to drive bespoke action at local level. If my noble friend Lady Lister decides to test the opinion of the House on whether this must be included as a mission, she will have our strong support.

We would, of course, like to see Labour’s missions at the heart of the Bill, but even an optimist like me realises that this might be a little premature. However, the amendments on health inequalities and child poverty deal with aims that surely we all share and issues without close attention to which levelling up just cannot happen or be successful. I reiterate our support for them and urge all noble Lords to support those amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, would require the Government to set out a levelling-up mission to reduce child poverty. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would compel the Government to relate their missions to the Labour Party’s five priorities. What I am interested in is why child poverty is not in her amendment. Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would require the Government to set out a mission on health disparities and healthy life expectancy. Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require the Government to include the missions and headline metrics from the levelling up White Paper in their first statement of levelling-up missions.

I have made our approach to levelling-up missions extremely clear in this House. They are subject to debate in Parliament, but the specifics of the missions are not written into law. Missions may need to evolve over time—including to make them more stretching as goals are met and to adapt to policy relevant to the day. We will not put any missions in the Bill. Missions are intended to anchor government policy and decision-making necessary to level up the United Kingdom. Missions should not, however, be set in stone. As the economy adapts, so will the missions reflect the changing environment and lessons learned from past interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

13: Clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“(5A) In the course of preparing a report on the delivery of the levelling-up missions, a Minister of the Crown must carry out such consultation as the Minister considers appropriate with the devolved authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister to consult the devolved authorities in the course of preparing a report on the delivery of the levelling-up missions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

15: Clause 4, page 4, line 19, at end insert—
“(4) Before making any revisions under subsection (2), a Minister of the Crown must— (a) have regard to any role of the devolved legislatures and devolved authorities in connection with the levelling-up mission to which the revision relates, and (b) carry out such consultation as the Minister considers appropriate with the devolved authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister, before making a revision to mission progress methodology and metrics or a target date, to have regard to any role of the devolved legislatures or devolved authorities in connection with the mission to which the revision relates and to consult the devolved authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

16: Clause 5, page 5, line 5, at end insert—
“(5A) In the course of carrying out a review under this section, a Minister of the Crown must—(a) have regard to any role of the devolved legislatures and devolved authorities in connection with the levelling-up missions in the statement, and(b) carry out such consultation as the Minister considers appropriate with the devolved authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister, in the course of carrying out a review under Clause 5, to have regard to the role of the devolved legislatures and devolved authorities in connection with the levelling-up missions and to consult the devolved authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 is a new probing amendment, because we all assumed that, if the Government are committed to levelling up and understand, as they will, that it is dependent on long-term capital investment, that would therefore be available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, quoted the Financial Times, and I too did a bit of research on what capital was around. The Financial Times raised this issue earlier this year, reporting that John Glen, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—perhaps he still is—has

“now stepped in to prevent DLUHC from signing off spending on any new capital projects, because of concerns about whether the department is delivering value for money. Such interventions are typically reserved for departments about which the Treasury has particular financial concerns”.

The Financial Times report went on to say:

“The decision to rein in Gove’s expenditure, taken last week, means that any new capital spending decision ‘however small, must now be referred to HMT before approval and the department is not allowed to make any decisions itself’”.


It is a fairly damning indictment of the spending already undertaken by DLUHC if that is the Treasury’s view of its value for money. As I said at the start, levelling up depends on capital investment. It is difficult to interpret the Government’s—the Treasury’s—decision to have tight controls on capital spending as anything other than putting a big brake on levelling-up funding, to the detriment of communities that are desperate for investment.

A House of Commons Select Committee also reported on levelling-up funds, which we referred to in debates on earlier groups today. It made the salient point that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is apparently not able to demonstrate how the funding fulfils the aims of the White Paper for sustained investment to tackle long-standing inequality—these are the points that I have made today and throughout the debates on the Bill. That was a cross-party committee. The National Audit Office also published a report, making a similar, stark plea to the department to urgently increase the capacity to assess and manage levelling-up funds.

So here we are, with a significant Bill carrying one of the Government’s key objectives, set out in a detailed report, and before it has really got going the Treasury is saying, “Well, you can’t spend anything without us first checking and signing it off”. We also have researched reports from the House of Commons Select Committee and the National Audit Office, both pointing to funding not being spent in perhaps the best possible way.

So the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has posed an important question. We ought to hear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to continue to invest significant sums in levelling up because, without that, levelling up will not occur. You can tell that from the White Paper, which I keep pointing to—it has done its job. Unless there is investment, levelling up will not happen. If the Treasury is putting a big brake on it, how are we going to level up? Perhaps the Minister can give us some pointers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to officials publishing an assessment of the impact of the requirement that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities seeks consent from His Majesty’s Treasury for all capital spending on the delivery of Part 1 of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Noble Lords will be aware that the department is working within a new delegation approach, which involves Treasury sign-off on new capital spend. However, there has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and no change to our policy objectives. It is reported that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities requires approval from His Majesty’s Treasury for new capital projects, but this will not impact the levelling-up agenda. The recent change relates only to new projects; there is no change to the decision-making framework for existing capital programmes and no change to the department’s budgets. Moreover, noble Lords will be aware that, in the usual course of departmental business, the majority of programmes would require HMT approval in any case, so there is little change with this new capital spending approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what implications the new spending control would have on the levelling-up agenda. The amendment to capital delegations referred to in press coverage has absolutely no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. The Government’s central mission remains to level up every part of the UK by spreading opportunity, empowering local leaders and improving public services. There has been no dilution of levelling up. There have been no changes to the size of DLUHC budgets, both capital and revenue, or to its policy objectives; neither does this impact how large programmes already agreed are being delivered—for example, the towns fund or the levelling-up fund.

I hope this gives the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, enough reassurance that she will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments in this debate and the Minister for her response. Although I am not absolutely and entirely convinced by everything she said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her answers. Once again, she gave the figures for the support the Government are offering. I am sure that people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis were grateful for that, but of course, they have had another massive hit recently with the rapidly increasing mortgage rate. As people come to the end of their fixed-term mortgages, they are suddenly getting the awful shock of seeing their mortgages go up. Along with a drop in the support the Government are giving on such things as energy costs, that will be an awful combination to really hit people’s budgets once again.

I welcome the Government’s assurance that there will be a great deal of scrutiny of the levelling up data; that is welcome and we look forward to seeing how it works out over time. I particularly welcome the focus on granularity of data. There is a tendency to focus always on what is sometimes described as the north/south divide, but of course, it is never as straightforward as that. There are areas right across this country with serious poverty and deprivation, and we need to make sure that we look at those and provide appropriate support. I am very pleased to hear about the local area neighbourhood analysis now coming forward from the unit, and I am therefore happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

21: Clause 6, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
““devolved authorities” means—(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Welsh Ministers, and(c) the Northern Ireland departments;“devolved legislatures” means—(a) the Scottish Parliament,(b) Senedd Cymru, and(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines the devolved authorities and devolved legislatures for the purposes of Part 1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

23: Clause 6, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
““His Majesty’s Government” means His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that references to His Majesty’s Government in Part 1 are to His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Governor-General of the West Midlands—there, my Lords, is a thought. We are now starting to laugh, and I think there is a danger here that the general public will just not understand what all these titles are for. I would immediately say a school governor, a prison governor or the governor of a US state. We can think of various possibilities, but a governor of a combined county? I really do not think that fits with the structure of local and subregional government that we are talking about.

Under Clause 40(2)(c) the title could be “elected leader”. This is very strange, because councils have leaders and those leaders are elected—so I am not clear what the difference is between the “elected leader” of a CCA and the leader of a council. The constituency may be different: that is, it is the whole electorate for the mayor, but for the leader it is the councillors of that council who have to vote to elect that person as the leader of the council as well as leader of the group. This is getting too confusing.

The next thing could well be that if a mayoral CCA is entitled to call its mayor something else, can other combined authorities that have been in existence for a number of years change the title of their mayor? I just do not know why we are going down this road at all. I just say all that to the Minister. There may be something that I have not thought of that she can alleviate my concerns with, but I just wish that this clause and the associated clauses would just go away. It is not something that I want a vote on; I just hope that I will not have to stand up when the statutory instrument comes through for the creation of a CCA and ask why it is that the name has altered to something like a “county commissioner”, which the general public do not comprehend.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 25, 27, 35 and 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, regard the boundaries and memberships of CCAs and combined authorities. The Bill includes our intended criteria for establishing and changing boundaries of CCAs and CAs in Clauses 44, 46, 62 and 63.

Proposals to change the area of a combined county area are generated locally in line with our principle of locally led devolution. The process to propose a boundary change must include a public consultation being undertaken. The Secretary of State has to assess any such proposals, including the results of the consultation, against a set of statutory tests and will consent to making the requisite secondary legislation only if they are content that the statutory tests are met. The legislation is therefore subject to a triple lock of agreement from the Secretary of State, the consent of the local area and parliamentary approval. I think it is important that we look at that as a triple lock.

Any proposal from the local area has to demonstrate that it will improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of the people who live and work in the area, suitably reflecting their identities and the interests of local communities, and will deliver effective and convenient local government. As such, the expansion of a CCA or CA cannot be pursued for political advantage. It must benefit the local area.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I want to ask for clarification. The test is to carry out a consultation. When the Secretary of State takes that consultation with the local community into account, can he make a decision against what the majority of that community voted for?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is more complex than that. It is not a referendum but a consultation. Therefore, there will be many views for, against, in the middle and all over the place, but he will obviously have to take account of views. If everyone said they did not want something, I am sure the Secretary of State would take note of that; it is part of those tests.

The main focus of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which the noble Baroness brought up, is a rolling programme of electoral reviews of local authorities; this is where its skills and experience mainly lie. It would not be appropriate to consult it on the proposed boundaries of CCAs and CAs. The requirement for public consultation and statutory tests for regulations provide, we believe, sufficient protection that further consultation is unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

Amendments 37 to 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to remove Clauses 40 to 42, which set out the process to allow the mayor of a CCA to change to a locally appropriate title that resonates with local stakeholders. Some areas are reluctant to adopt a mayor governance model as they feel the word “mayor” would be confusing and inappropriate for their area, preventing access to a strong devolution deal.

We had this discussion in Committee. There are many areas in this country where every town in a county, or even a district, will have a local mayor. That has been an issue for some authorities when they look into a CCA for the future. The noble Lord talked about directly elected leaders. Some authorities have said to us that they would prefer to call the person who leads—doing the same job as a mayor in a county authority—a “directly elected leader”. It is just a name; the job itself is the same.

To minimise confusion, the clauses include the protection of a shortlist of possible titles—it does not have to be used; it just gives some ideas—as well as a mechanism for areas to use any other title they choose, providing they have regard to other public officeholders’ titles in the area of that authority. We are trying to give as much local flexibility as possible to allow for local circumstances, so that the name of the directly elected person to lead that combined authority is the best name to use in that area.

Amendment 52, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, regarding the timing of an order changing a combined authority’s area, would add further inflexibility to the process. An MCA can be expanded only at the time of a mayoral election, for reasons of democratic accountability; those affected by the mayor’s decisions will have had the opportunity to take part in that mayor’s election. Consequently, it can already be several years between an area expressing an interest in joining an MCA and such expansion coming into force. Introducing additional inflexibility would impede and potentially further delay—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not delay the House for long but, with the greatest respect, this was a twinkle in the eye of Mayor Street a few months ago when the Wolverhampton Express & Star reported it. People in Warwickshire were innocently going about their own business, then along came Mr Gove to put pressure on them to make this application. The Minister is indulging in a fantasy that this is somehow driven by Warwickshire people desperate to join the West Midlands.

I joke about Wiltshire but the Minister will know about the sensitivities of shire counties and their relationship with urban metropolitan districts, which I well understand. My noble friend Lady Anderson’s Staffordshire would be another case in point; it would not wish to be ruled, in a sense, from Birmingham. It really is too much: the rules are being changed to allow for one gerrymander, in a foolish attempt to save Mr Street’s political career. That really will not do.

I am not going to go on because we have two other groups. In the next—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as we have said before, there are clear regulations that the Secretary of State will look at when he considers any bid. We have made it clear that they have to be geographically sensible economic areas, so I cannot think of anything growing and growing, because it will not. But it will be local people who put forward the bid; the Government will not be saying to any local area, “You have to join”. These are locally led bids for areas that local people think are the right economic areas to do business in and to deliver for them. How big will they be, realistically? They will not be what the noble Baroness suggests, of course, because those would be too big to be really good economic areas, but it is up to local people to do this, as I keep saying.

One of the principles that underpin our devolution agenda is that devolution deals are agreed and implemented over a sensible geography. We want to remove any barriers to neighbouring local authorities joining a combined authority where there is a strong economic, social and environmental rationale for doing so. The new local consent arrangements under Clause 57 mean that the decision would be given to the mayor and council wishing to join the CA. The mayor is democratically accountable to the whole existing CA area, so it is right that they should be the decision-taker for decisions on changes to that whole area.

The arrangements proposed in this amendment could mean that an expansion of a CA area that evidence shows would be likely to improve outcomes for the proposed whole new area could end up being vetoed by just one existing constituent council if the CA’s local constituency requires unanimous agreement from its members on this matter. This has been an issue in the past. This potential impediment to furthering devolution cannot be right; one small authority cannot stop a larger area that wants to grow to be more economically viable.

In his explanatory statement for Amendment 53A, the noble Lord references

“reports that areas may be added to the West Midlands Combined Authority prior to the 2024 Mayoral Election”.

Warwickshire County Council’s plans are part of a local process for the area—county and district councils—and it is up to it to apply to join the WMCA. If Warwickshire decides to pursue this, it will undertake a public consultation, following which it may submit its proposals to the Government. The Government will carefully consider any such proposals, as statute provides. No decisions have been taken by the Government. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to not move his amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to quite a charged debate. I thought I was quite good on the geography of the West Midlands, but I learned a bit tonight. We are not entirely satisfied with where the Bill is on this issue at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, I feel sure that we will return to this.

Homelessness: Vagrancy Act 1824

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government are clear that the Vagrancy Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose and that people should not be criminalised for simply having nowhere to live. When we committed to repeal the Act, we said that we would do so once suitable replacement legislation was brought forward. We set out our plans in the Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan to ensure that local authorities and the police have appropriate tools to keep people safe, and that vulnerable people can access health and services. LURB is a large Bill already. Vagrancy is a complex policy that requires careful consideration and scrutiny, and we will table legislation at the right opportunity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in March 2022, the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who I am pleased to see in his place, committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act within 18 months. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley noted in May this year that this Act, which refers to the homeless as “idle and disorderly Persons” deemed to be

“Rogues and Vagabonds … committed to the House of Correction”

is still being used to criminalise 1,000 homeless people a year. A quick check on the College of Policing website shows over 15 pieces of legislation which give police and councils the powers they need to tackle anti-social behaviour and aggressive begging. Why will the Government not use the levelling-up Bill to confine the Vagrancy Act to history, where it belongs, before its 200th birthday?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Vagrancy Act, as I have said, is an outdated piece of legislation; I agree with the noble Baroness that it needs repealing. However, the House rules on admissibility of amendments are set out in the Companion; amendments we have consulted on that were related to repealing the vagrancy offences have not been considered admissible to the levelling-up Bill. We would not normally discuss the clerks’ advice in the Chamber, but I am sure that they will be very happy to discuss it in the usual way with her.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, an amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the police and crime Bill to enable abolition to take place, and the consultation to see what, if anything, needed to be carried forward ended in May last year. Against all the commitments that have been given, are we really going to have the Vagrancy Act 1824 still on the statute book in 1924? Oh, I mean 2024.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right. We did consult when the Vagrancy Act was within DLUHC, and the Home Office is holding further discussions particularly with those stakeholders who are important in local authorities, such as the police. However, the anti-social behaviour plan, which was published last March, outlined further details of our plans to introduce new powers for local authorities and police to respond to begging and rough sleeping, coupling this with improved multiagency working between local partners so that vulnerable individuals receive the support they need. This is a complex issue, and further details will be set out in future legislation at the earliest possible parliamentary opportunity.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather disheartening to the way in which we operate when the correct processes are followed—an amendment is carried in this House by a large majority, it goes back to the House of Commons for a second thought, the House of Commons decides to support us, Parliament then passes legislation to repeal the Vagrancy Act—and then nothing happens?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said, this is a really complex issue. We need to get this right and to be talking to people. The noble Lord is right that we have committed to repeal the Vagrancy Act as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. We have started the consultation, we are discussing with stakeholders but, as I have said, we will look for the proper place in legislation, and the proper piece of legislation is not LURB.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to hear the formula about the right place and the right time. My experience of working with homeless people is that there is only one right time, and it is now. In view of the fact that so much has already happened in the recent past—so many exchanges, so many decisions—do the Government not feel that the right time and the right place is as near now as possible?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is exactly what I have just said—the right time is now, and we are making our final consultations and will look for the right piece of legislation as soon as possible. My department will work very closely with the Home Office so that this new legislation ensures that vulnerable individuals are always directed to the most appropriate support. It is not just about getting rid of an old-fashioned law.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

While we are at it, can we do something about no-fault evictions at the same time? They are driving people into homelessness on the streets—including my brother.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord should know that we have the private renters’ Bill starting in the Commons shortly, which will include the repeal of Section 21.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, surely these consultations have gone on long enough. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham got the date slightly wrong, but can my noble friend Lady Scott confirm that this will be well off the statute book by 2124?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the House realises that I cannot possibly confirm that as I cannot pre-empt anything that might be in the King’s Speech.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has mentioned a number of times that she will bring this forward in suitable legislation. She must have some legislation in mind. What is it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I never said that I would bring it forward—I said that the Government would. It is now in the hands of the Home Office, which is dealing with this.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, rough sleepers are just the thin end of the wedge, as the noble Baroness knows. Part of the long-term solution to homelessness must be to build many more homes for social rent and, in particular, to increase the public sector’s role in building them. Given the additional financial pressures there are on social housing providers, as we both know—not least the decent homes standard, net-zero homes, fire safety and increased construction costs—will the Government commit to a minimum 10-year rent deal for these landlords to allow a longer period of annual rent increases and long-term certainty so that they can plan to build more much-needed social homes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need more homes in this country—more affordable homes and more homes for social rent. That is why we are putting £11.5 billion into the affordable homes programme and, importantly, working with local authorities to ensure that they look at every possible way of using the £500 million we are giving them to keep people in their homes in the first place, rather than becoming homeless.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend said that this is incredibly complicated and that replacement legislation for the Vagrancy Act must be considered. Can she share with us what laws have to be replaced, as many noble Lords feel that it should be very simple to abolish it now?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not prepared to say what legislation might go. Part of this is not about what legislation goes but how much support we can give those individuals in trying to get them off the streets and into homes.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, in answering a number of questions, the noble Baroness has referred to stakeholders in the consultation. Who has a stake in retaining the Vagrancy Act?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Nobody has a stake in retaining it, but many organisations have a stake in what would replace it—the police, local authorities, the third sector, faith communities and all those people involved in not only changing the law but giving support to those very vulnerable people who may need our help.

Recall Petitions: Voter ID

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether voter ID will be required for a recall petition.

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

My Lords, the Answer is, yes, it is set out in legislation that voter identification is required in order for an elector to sign the signing sheet in person at an MP recall petition.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, at least 14,000 people without ID were not able to vote in local elections, even on a date known to them in advance, so they had time to get ID if they did not have a passport. But recall petitions are sudden, unexpected and speedy, with no national awareness campaign. There is a petition in Scotland with just 40 days to obtain that photo ID, if you do not have a passport, and then to sign in person, as the Minister said. Three Tory recall petitions could have happened; two were saved by the MPs resigning, but one may still be to come. Given that 10% of voters are needed to trigger a by-election, anyone being unable to obtain voter ID in time makes recall less possible. How convenient for the Government. So will the Minister agree that a review is urgently needed if the recall procedure is to work as the Government first intended?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but I cannot agree that we should look at this again; it was not long ago that we looked at all this in the now enacted Elections Bill. On the 40 days, I assure the noble Baroness that the election department has been working on the voter identification process where anyone needs a VAC. It also wrote to all the electorate about the process, giving clear instructions that people would require voter ID, and instructions on what voter ID was available for them to use and, if they could not, where they could get a VAC.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Electoral Commission report clearly demonstrates that all the fuss about the effect of voter ID has proved to be an exaggeration? We are talking about less than a percentage point. Does my noble friend further agree that, given that it is part of our voting system, it would now make some sense to re-examine the qualifications for voter ID, particularly among the young? Will she keep those categories constantly under review?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right. We are very encouraged by the first interim report from the Electoral Commission, but there is a lot more work to be done. It was only an interim analysis; the final analysis will be published in the autumn. The Government are looking both qualitatively and quantitatively at the May elections, and the report will be out by the end of November. When we get those reviews, we need to see if any changes need to be made, including on voter ID and young people.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, many constituencies have several hundred overseas voters; some have over 1,000. The extension of overseas voting rights would increase those numbers very considerably. What arrangements do the Government have in hand to make sure that, in the event of a recall petition in a constituency, its overseas voters are informed in a timely fashion so that they can participate?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, there will be a lot of changes in respect of overseas voters. I will have to write to the noble Lord on recall petitions.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I lived in Brussels for 40 years and voted in Belgium. I had a voter ID card throughout that time, and it was never an issue with any of the parties there. Is this not a bit of a false debate?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right. We have had this debate over and over again, and it is clear that many countries, including Northern Ireland, have voter ID. It works very well, and the people of Northern Ireland are very happy with it. We agreed to do this in our manifesto and will continue to do so. We look forward to it working as well here as it does in many other countries.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, talked about the initial report from the Electoral Commission. Our concern is that it showed that many thousands of people were turned away, many of whom did not return. We do not know the impact on those who were put off going in the first place, so the Government should not be complacent about that. It concerns me that we have by-elections and elections for recall petitions coming up, but the Government will not act on any of the recommendations and the final report is not coming out until September. Why will the Government not pause the process until they can be more confident about the outcomes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are confident about the outcomes. The initial evidence shows that it was a very successful first step. We are pleased to see the Electoral Commission’s report, according to which there were continually high levels of satisfaction with our voting system; 89% of polling station voters said that they were fairly or very satisfied. That is good, and a higher figure than during similar elections in 2019.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I was one of the earliest proponents of this recall mechanism, in 2008. The then leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, liked the idea and put it in the 2010 manifesto—but then the rats got at it. Instead of it being a mechanism through which ordinary constituents could demand a recall, we had to have an initial procedure whereby the Privileges Committee, in effect, picked out which of its numbers from the other place it did not want. Will my noble friend the Minister look again at returning to the principle of diffusing power from Parliament to the electorate, rather than concentrating it in the hands of parliamentary committees, so that we return to the idea that only the voters determine the composition of another House?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point. The Government have no plans to look back at the way in which recall petitions are done, but I am more than happy to talk to him further on this issue and take it back to the department.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has repeated that, in the Government’s view, 14,000 people being turned away from the polling station represents a success. Could she tell us what a failure would be?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, there are many reasons why those people did not vote at that time. The Electoral Commission made clear in its interim report that it was satisfied, and it said that it needed further time for further evidence. Let us wait until November, as we said in legislation that we would, when we will get both the qualitative and the quantitative evidence.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I do not agree on this occasion with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her comments about recall petitions. As I understand the law, there is a requirement that 10% of the electorate sign the petition, but the petition stays open ad infinitum until the conclusion of the period, despite the fact that the 10% threshold may have been met after five, six or seven days. Is there not a need to review the recall petition legislation in order to avoid unnecessary cost and duration of this process?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, my Lords, I think my noble friend is wrong in this case. The Government feel that recall petitions should remain open even when the 10% threshold has been reached, mainly because if somebody gets a letter saying that they have a right to sign a petition, it should not be closed until the time given in that letter, and they should have their right to sign.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will take steps to make a record of electors who go to sign their name at a recall petition and are refused for lack of voter identification?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have made it very clear that they will look at all the data from any petition or election, as they did in May this year.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in my part of the United Kingdom we have had voter identification for decades now, and in fact, we have some of the highest turnouts at elections anywhere in the United Kingdom. I am sure the electoral commission of Northern Ireland and indeed the Electoral Office will be more than happy to share what they have learned about voter identification over many years, and the Minister may wish to avail herself of that advice and assistance.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. We have already availed ourselves of the electoral officers in Northern Ireland, where this has been such a success. It will be in this country as well.

Homelessness: Homewards Initiative

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

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

We welcome the Prince of Wales’s Homewards initiative and his interest and support in tackling homelessness. The Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping. In September 2022 we published our cross-government strategy, setting out how we were investing £2 billion over three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for that helpful response. Sheffield is one of six places where the Homewards initiative is being piloted, and in South Yorkshire it seems to us that two things make this new venture distinctive and highly promising. The first is that funding is secure over the medium term, and the second is a partnership approach which encourages local agencies to co-produce solutions with built-in flexibility to allow for ongoing learning. Does the Minister think that this longer-term and partnership approach is one from which the Government might learn in their own support for homeless people?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate is right; Sheffield City Council has been allocated over £4 million through the rough sleeping initiatives, which will run from 2022 to 2025, to help end rough sleeping in the city. It has also been allocated £2.4 million through the rough sleeping accommodation programme, again until 2025. So these are not annual nor short-term amounts of money. The right reverend Prelate is right; these things cannot be done by government alone. We know that individual local authority areas have specific problems and that is why we are asking them to deal with these issues. I will also say that the third sector, in particular churches and community groups, are absolutely necessary in a city such as Sheffield.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

During Covid, there was a massive reduction in the number of homeless people on the streets. Why does the Minister think that this has been reversed?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think that over Covid, the issue was that people were frightened, scared and did not want to stay out. Since Covid, we have gone into a further economic downturn, particularly because of the dreadful war in Ukraine—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No; it has affected the economic stability of the whole world. We are working continually to try to get back to those Covid levels.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I very much welcome the commitment of the Prince of Wales to help end homelessness, particularly as the numbers of those sleeping rough are beginning to creep up again, having been reduced to near zero during Covid. I particularly welcome the commitment to make Duchy of Cornwall land available for affordable homes. Is this not an example that could be followed by government departments and other public bodies that have surplus land available?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I welcome the Prince of Wales’s initiative. Maybe other larger landowners across this country could also look at those initiatives, as well as government. We have been working to release public land for new houses through the Public Land for Housing programme which ran from 2011 to 2020. By March 2020 over 60,000 homes had been brought on to the market on surplus government land. In October 2022 the Cabinet Office published the Government Property Strategy, which intends to drive efficiency in departments’ estates to look at surplus land that can be used for housing, particularly affordable housing.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is great that the Prince of Wales has turned the spotlight on this very important issue. Pilots are all well and good but is it not a damning indictment of this Government’s failure to tackle the housing crisis that between July and October last year, 1,210 homeless families spent longer than the six-week legal limit in hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation—the highest figure in six years? How will the Government respond to this growing crisis across the country and the impact it is having on children’s development?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are responding by offering support through initiatives such as spending £500 million on rough sleeping initiatives between now and 2025. Under the ending rough sleeping for good initiatives, £2 billion is going to local authorities over three years to look at their issues. Your Lordships need to understand that the increasing numbers are only in 5% of local authorities in this country. We need to target and help those local authorities, both with support and with money, which is what we are doing.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, last year, 129,000 young people facing homelessness, aged between 16 and 24, tipped up at their local council asking for support—which is undoubtedly an underestimate. Currently, universal credit levels for young people living independently are more than a quarter lower than for those aged over 25. Can the Minister say by what logic we financially penalise young people, whose bills, including rent and essentials, cost exactly the same regardless of their age, and does she agree that this shortfall will make them even more susceptible to eviction and homelessness?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right, which is why, in the Government’s strategy Ending Rough Sleeping for Good, which was backed by £2 billion last year, we recognise the particular challenges facing young people with regard to homelessness. We have a single homelessness accommodation programme, which will have delivered nearly 2,500 homes by March 2025. There is also the £2.4 million for rough sleeping initiatives going towards youth services in local areas that have an issue with youth homelessness.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a very high proportion of hidden homelessness—hidden but none the less very real—among Gypsies and Travellers, who do not have enough authorised sites to camp on. What are the Government doing about encouraging local authorities to fulfil their obligations to assess the lack of sites and to act on that to provide enough?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that—I know her passion for that particularly vulnerable community. Local authorities do have a responsibility to find those sites; we will continue to ensure that they do so. However, I will look at the latest figures and let the noble Baroness have them, and will let her know what we are doing extra to make sure that they are being delivered.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, in April, 8,000 Afghans were still living in hotels, 18 months after they were evacuated from Afghanistan. They have now been told that they have to leave that hotel accommodation and find private rented accommodation. If they are unable to find rented accommodation, will they be homeless, and if so, what are the Government going to do about them?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have announced £35 million of new funding to enable local authorities to provide an increased amount of support for Afghan households and to move them from hotels into settled accommodation. At the same time, we have announced a local authority housing fund of £750 million, which will provide capital funding to councils in England to allow them to look at creative ways of getting more housing stock in, which will help the Ukrainian and Afghan arrivals. Together, therefore, we hope that we can get Afghanis into proper suitable accommodation as soon as we possibly can.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a welcome initiative. Has the Minister suggested to the Prince of Wales that he should allocate some of his extensive landholding to help this initiative, and possibly a little of his £24 million-a-year income?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Prince of Wales announced at the same time that he would undertake to make some of the Duchy of Cornwall land available for affordable housing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13, Schedule 1, Clauses 14 to 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 54, Schedule 4, Clauses 55 to 78, Schedule 5, Clause 129, Schedule 12, Clauses 130 to 157, Clauses 161 to 163, Schedule 14, Clauses 164 to 167, Schedule 15, Clauses 168 to 173, Schedule 16, Clause 174, Schedule 17, Clauses 175 to 191, Schedule 18, Clauses 192 to 196, Schedule 19, Clauses 197 to 217, Clauses 79 to 87, Schedule 6, Clauses 88 to 91, Schedule 7, Clauses 92 to 95, Schedule 8, Clauses 96 to 100, Schedule 9, Clauses 101 to 103, Schedule 10, Clauses 104 to 106, Schedule 11, Clauses 107 to 128, Clauses 158 and 159, Schedule 13, Clause 160, Clauses 218 and 219, Schedule 20, Clauses 220 to 235, Title.

Motion agreed.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the outset of the debate I remind the Committee that I have relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This group of amendments is significant because it focuses our attention on energy efficiency and on how the business rates system could be adjusted to encourage more businesses to improve the energy efficiency of their premises. Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is important in that regard. As he said, an earlier Bill on non-domestic rating focused on relief for energy generation and storage, but not energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the non-glamorous side of getting to net zero. It is about improving the general energy efficiency of buildings through loft and cavity wall insulation, putting in more efficient heating systems and so on.

I have a high regard for Amendment 1 for the reason that the noble Lord outlined, which is that the payback period for energy-efficiency improvements can be very long. Therefore, giving just one year’s relief is a drop in the ocean. If we want to encourage businesses to make these improvements and to invest in their property by improving their energy efficiency, there must be relief on business rates. This is a positive amendment and, if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, wants to pursue it on Report, I am sure that we will give it positive consideration.

The other amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggest five years of relief. That is another way forward. I think that we will have to debate five years of relief or unlimited relief. If we are really concerned about getting to net zero, there has to be a real incentive to do so.

I co-signed Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about heat networks because I thought that it was important in itself. The Government have a scheme—the heat network efficiency scheme—which gives grant funding to communal heat networks or district heating schemes. This amendment matches well with that. If the Government are giving with the one hand but taking with the other, that seems a negative approach to encouraging heat network schemes. That is why I very much support Amendment 5 in particular.

Maybe when we get to Report the amendment will not say “2050” but will be unlimited, matching the other amendments in this group, which are making a positive push towards getting businesses, via the relief through the business rates system, to become more energy efficient. These are all good, probing amendments. I know that the Minister is supportive of energy-efficiency schemes and moving towards net zero, so I look forward to her positive response to this group of amendments.

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

My Lords, I start by welcoming our new Deputy Chairman of Committees on his first outing today. I think that I am allowed to say that—anyway, I have said it.

These amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, concern the two new business rate reliefs introduced by the Bill: the new improvement relief and a relief for low-carbon heat networks.

First, on the improvement relief, during the review of business rates a key ask from ratepayers was support for those businesses looking to improve their property. Clause 1 delivers on that ask by introducing the improvement relief. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about the definitions of “improvement” and “relief”. These definitions are in the draft regulations, on which we are consulting. We will consider those matters following consultation.

Clause 1 will ensure that from 1 April 2024 no business will face higher business rates bills as a result of qualifying improvements it makes to a property it occupies, in the 12 months following those improvements. When a ratepayer makes improvements to the rateable part of their property, that is likely to increase its rateable value and, therefore, the rates bill. To deliver the relief, Clause 1 will ensure that, where that happens and the qualifying conditions for improvement relief have been met, that increase in the rateable value will be delayed for 12 months. Clause 3 does the same for the central rating list.

As is common for business rate reliefs, the detailed rules will be in regulations made under the powers in these clauses. My department has published those regulations in draft so that the House may see during the passage of the Bill how we intend to use these powers.

The amendments we are considering in relation to improvement relief, from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, seek to extend the period of relief from one year to five years and to allow unlimited relief for energy-efficiency improvements.

Of course, I understand the concerns we have heard and why some consider that the relief should be extended. It is a question we face when we come to consider and review all the reliefs in the business rates system. We recognise the importance of energy-efficiency improvements to properties. We have already ensured that eligible plant and machinery used in onsite renewable energy generation and storage, such as rooftop solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage, are exempt from business rates from 1 April 2022 until 31 March 2035. Onsite storage used with electric vehicle charging points is also exempt. We have done this using existing powers.

However, as with all tax breaks, we must balance the need for support with the need to fund the vital public services that those taxes support. In the case of improvement relief, we considered these matters at length during our review and, following extensive engagement with business groups, settled on a 12-month relief.

Under the current system, as one would expect for a tax based on the value of property, businesses may see an immediate increase in their rates bill for improvements they make to their property, where those improvements increase the value of the property, but they may see a lag in the return or income that flows from that investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will continue. The 12-month relief will provide a breathing space for the investment to start to generate returns before business rates have to be paid. I know that some feel that 12 months is not long enough to incentivise the types of major refurbishment and improvement often made to properties by landlords and developers. However, as I explained to the House at Second Reading, this relief is designed to help occupiers make improvements to their existing premises rather than subsidising general commercial property development.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what “occupied” meant. We already have a current discretionary heat network scheme that we have worked up with full guidance in partnership with the heat network sector and local government. That guidance is already published. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we intend to translate that guidance into regulations and to make those in good time to ensure a seamless transition between the current discretionary scheme and the new mandatory scheme. I suggest that noble Lords look now at the guidance as it will make it clear what will go forward. In the meantime, we will work with the heat network sector on the regulations in case they need any tweaking.

Nevertheless, as this is a new relief, it is right that the Government evaluate whether it is working and delivers value for money. Therefore, the Bill as currently drafted includes powers to extend the duration of the improvement relief and in 2028 the Government will review the scheme. That will be the appropriate time to consider whether to continue with the scheme and how effectively the relief is operating. As part of that review, we will consider whether 12 months remains the correct duration for the relief. We have, however, allowed for a longer period of relief for low-carbon heat networks, given the particular role that they play in reducing our dependence on natural gas. That relief runs until 2035. Amendment 5, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, would extend that to 2050. As with improvement relief, we have to balance the need for support with maintaining the services funded from the tax, as I have said. The end date in the Bill aligns with our ambition to phase out new natural gas boilers by 2035. By that date, new low-carbon heat networks will no longer have to compete with natural gas alternatives. Under those circumstances, we hope that the relief will no longer be necessary and, therefore, 2035 will be the right time to end the relief. However, as with the improvement relief, we will keep this under review and the Bill includes powers for us to extend the 2035 date, if it is necessary at the time.

I hope I have given noble Lords the explanations and assurances that they were seeking and that the noble Lord is able to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

The Minister mentioned regulations following Royal Assent and I am happy with that, but could she confirm that this will have a consultation process attached to it? She also referred to something that I interpreted as a post-legislative review. What is the framework for that in this instance?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

On the regulations, we are consulting at the moment and that will be discussed afterwards. If noble Lords want to put anything in, I suggest they look on GOV.UK. I shall sit down so that the noble Earl can ask his second question because I did not quite pick it up.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

It was about the post-legislative review and its framework, in so far as it would apply to the workings of the Bill once it gets Royal Assent.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As far as I know, we do not have a framework yet, but as soon as we have—I assume it will go out to some sort of consultation—I shall make sure that noble Lords are aware of when it is issued.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a compelling argument for a general extension of improvement relief, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, for extending heat network relief. For me, this is all about joining the dots across the legislation, so that we have a coherent picture. As the Minister said, we already have a permanent exemption for renewable energy and storage. All these factors feed into our overall strategic targets, so we need a coherent picture across the legislation. The Minister rightly talked about fiscal responsibility and the need to bear it in mind.

The other side of the picture, to counter that, are all the benefits to increasing private investment—in the case of energy efficiency, lower bills—and the benefits from overall economic growth that would flow from that. I look forward to further discussions with the Minister leading up to Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing this group with Amendment 7, which seeks to change the Bill so that lists must be produced every two years instead of three. Today’s discussion has demonstrated that noble Lords think that this needs to be revisited and that perhaps three years is too long.

I am quite interested in Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which would allow SIs to be introduced to change it to one or two years. Bringing in flexibility to adopt a shorter cycle without that kind of prescription is a really interesting idea and approach. In principle, we would support that; my only concern is that the SI procedure has not exactly gone entirely smoothly in recent years. To get our full support to move in that direction, we would need to ensure that SIs are managed better than they have been recently.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made some important points about the need for business confidence regarding valuations. That is incredibly important, particularly given the uncertainty resulting from inflation, various costs—of energy, for example—going through the roof, the challenges following the pandemic, the business rate holidays that have moved or not moved, and the differences resulting from where in the country you may be. None of that helps with certainty for businesses, particularly those that have retail in different parts of the country.

Another really good point was made about the fact that a small but perfect group is taking part in these discussions. Here we have noble Lords with real and practical experience and knowledge, which I hope will be helpful as we move through Committee.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has agreed that moving initially to three-year revaluations would provide a balance between the administrative costs and the need for regular revaluation to reflect the economic conditions of business. But it also said that, given the rapidity of changes in business and shopping practices, the Government should consider a phased approach to achieving more frequent revaluations, and that this should remain under evaluation. Given the different amendments we have today and the discussions that we have had, will the Minister consider taking back to her department the introduction of a phased approach? I know that in the letter to noble Lords following Second Reading, she said that the Government will

“carefully consider the case for even greater frequency of revaluations once the new system changes have bedded in”.

That brings us to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who suggested that waiting for that three-year cycle to bed in might be very helpful. He made the point that we need to listen to the experts and advisory groups and make sure that we get this right, because anything over two years goes out of date very quickly. The Labour Party position is that we should have more frequent valuations. We have talked about them being annual, but of course this has to be right, and it has to work for business.

Finally, on Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the abolition of downward caps, it is concerning that the downward caps can prevent savings being passed on to businesses and could mean that they unnecessarily pay more in business rates. It is an important amendment, and I would be interested to hear what reassurances the Minister can give the noble Earl.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments takes us to the heart of the Bill; namely, our commitment to modernise the business rates system through more frequent revaluations. Amendments 7 to 13, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Thurlow, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, are concerned with the frequency of revaluations. They provide for either the revaluation cycle to move to every two years or for the Government to adopt a two-year cycle by order. The Government fully understand the desire to keep business rates as accurate and responsive as possible. That is why the frequency of revaluations was a key part of our review.

Regular revaluations update rateable values, and so rates bills, to reflect changes in the property market. During the business rates review, we heard from businesses that they overwhelmingly favoured more frequent revaluations. Interestingly, a majority of respondents to the review supported a three-year revaluation cycle. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned countries that had annual revaluations, but it is not straightforward or accurate to simply compare our revaluation cycles with places such as the Netherlands. Evidently, a single property tax there covers both residential and commercial properties, so it is a very different system from the one in this country. We also considered annual revaluations, but some stakeholders raised concerns about an annual cycle, such as the increased volatility of bills and potential impacts on valuation accuracy. We therefore concluded that we should move to a three-year cycle of revaluations, and the Bill provides for that, with the next one to take place on 1 April 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I shall try to pick up from where I left off. I may or may not have heard the Minister aright so this is just to check. The very good Library briefing on the Bill references the Treasury review into business rates. I shall refer to the Library briefing, then the Minister can say whether or not I have misunderstood. It says:

“On the longer-term proposals, most respondents stated that … revaluations should happen more often”—


we agree with that. But then it says that

“the gap between when the revaluations were assessed and when they came into force should be shorter than the current two years”,

which was one of the points that I was trying to make.

I may have misheard the Minister—if I have, I apologise—but the point that the review was making was to say yes to a shorter gap than five years, and the Government have pitched on to three. At the same time, the assessment year should be shorter than the two years that it currently is—that is what I think the review was saying, and I was trying to say that part of the argument for reducing the gap between the assessment year and the revaluation year is to make it narrower.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The response was three years, because of the reasons that I put forward—but, yes, we have aspirations to squeeze that to two years. That is the issue that we are discussing, and it is absolutely right that we are trying to do that. It is where we would like to get to, but it will take the changes that we are making to the Valuation Office Agency to do that—and then there is the digital aspect, and things like that, which we have already talked about.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have just heard, I have Amendment 28 in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support for my amendment. We tabled this because we are concerned that the VOA may not be sufficiently resourced, particularly as the Bill gives the agency additional responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has clearly expressed many of the concerns behind the amendment.

I looked at some recent data about the number of staff employed by the agency. The latest figures that I could find showed that it has a full-time equivalent of 3,698 staff, which is not huge, to be honest, particularly as a large number of new responsibilities is being brought its way. The global property consultancy, Colliers International, has described the Government’s plan to reduce the number of VOA offices from 56 to 26 as “a shambles”, and said that it will be a

“nightmare for businesses wanting to appeal their business rates”.

That is another reason why I was concerned enough to table this amendment.

We also know that there have been problems with the VOA managing the number of appeals and the time taken for resolution. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said in his excellent introduction to this debate, about the importance of transparency. He also talked about the number of challenges—30%—resulting in reduction. Clearly, that is too high and needs to be addressed—and the VOA needs sufficient resources to be able to do so.

We also know that, often, the number of challenges and the time taken for resolution relate to the number of rogue agents, many of which want to make a fast buck out of this. That is why we support Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which looks to address this. Again, we had discussions about it at Second Reading. We support his amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in this group. In the letter that the Minister sent to noble Lords after Second Reading, she acknowledged that rogue agents need to be looked at and that this would be part of a government consultation. I hope that the Government will take this seriously enough to consider action on this following the consultation, because it seems genuinely to be a problem.

We very much support what Amendments 15 and 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, are trying to do to increase transparency in the revaluation process. We hope that that transparency would also reduce the number of appeals, as the noble Lord so eloquently said. Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would also increase transparency, and we would be happy to support it. Clearly, increasing transparency is important, but we have to be careful that amendments we put down on transparency do not have the unintended consequence of adding to the valuation office’s workload without it having sufficient resources—this comes back full circle to what I said at the beginning.

There is also the risk of a major bottleneck in the system, through the new online portal. It would be good to have reassurances from the Minister about how that will be resourced and managed. It is human nature that a large proportion of ratepayers will put in requests for their rental evidence soon after the 1 April date, when the new rating system is published. It would be helpful if the Minister could give assurances that the VOA will be able to respond in time to allow ratepayers and their agents to construct and submit challenges by 30 September—the six-month deadline—because that six-month window for a challenge is a fundamental change to the rating system. We need greater clarity and certainty about exactly how that window will operate, particularly in relation to new tenants and the changes in the list that occur during and after the six-month window. Where is that flexibility?

The Bill states that a ratepayer must provide “annual confirmation” that they have, first, provided “all notifiable information required” or, secondly, that they are “not required to provide” any such notifiable information. Is this confirmation likely to be digital, to fit in with the online system? Will accessible formats be reduced, and will any mitigating circumstances be considered, if a person is unable to complete that confirmation?

As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described it, his Amendments 18 to 20 remove the requirements for the annual return. He talked about duplication and unnecessary returns, and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarification on that, because a number of changes to how this is done are coming in, and it is important that it works smoothly from the start.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 3 concerns information sharing between the Valuation Office Agency and ratepayers, the performance and capacity of the VOA, and the behaviour of some of our rating agents. Central to this part of the Bill is our commitment to move to more frequent revaluations, delivered by Clause 5. As we have discussed, sustainably delivering this important goal is contingent on increasing the timeliness and quality of the information received by the VOA.

To ensure that the VOA has that timely and complete flow of information, Clause 13 introduces a duty on ratepayers to provide notifiable information to the VOA and to confirm each year that they have met their obligations under that duty. In return, Clause 10 provides the means for ratepayers to access an analysis of evidence used to set the rateable value for their property, which should reduce the need for ratepayers to make a challenge. Ratepayers will be able to access guidance from the VOA, provide information on their property and request evidence on their own valuations, all through an online service. This will be the same online portal through which ratepayers will also be able to provide their taxpayer reference number to meet the other duty introduced by Clause 13.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about information if you have more than one property. The VOA will seek to enable ratepayers with multiple properties to provide information about their properties at the same time every 30 days, to limit their administrative burden. We have listened to requests from stakeholders for this functionality, and we recognise that there is also a benefit for the VOA from receiving information in this way. We will work with businesses, agents and software suppliers to rebuild a robust and effective system for ratepayers. The deadline for notification of the underlying changes will remain at the now-increased 60 days, and the same deadline will apply to all, regardless of the means of notification.

I turn to Amendments 18 to 20. As I have set out, Clause 13 includes a requirement on the ratepayers to confirm once a year that they have provided the information required of them—this will be digitally, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—under the VOA duty. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would remove that requirement. I shall explain why this part of the duty is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I think that I have listened very carefully but, on the digitisation of business rates, which I support, did the Minister explain the arrangements that could be made for businesses in remote locations where there is little or no mobile signal and where broadband has yet to reach them, despite what I accept are the Government’s best intentions that that should be the case? I live in the upper Pennines region, where there are businesses and remote farming communities. So far, they do not have either. Ditto in the Yorkshire Dales; I know of businesses there with neither a mobile signal—one that works, anyway—or a broadband connection. What arrangements will be made for such businesses?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am told that there will be a non-digital availability. I will get all the details for the noble Baroness and I will write a letter, which will also go to the Library.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I would like to tease out a little more information following the Minister’s response on Amendment 17. What happens, in effect, is that the evidence is part of an adjudication process. In my professional line of business, there are various stipulations about surveyors acting as expert witnesses and the way in which these things are to be handled. Amendment 17 is particularly important because, when one gets into a situation where there is an appeal pending, there is this little thing about equality of arms. If one party is able to use information that is held confidentially, to the exclusion of the other party, I do not think that equality—that transparency standard—is met. We are talking about what is ultimately something that leads to an appeal before the valuation tribunal.

Can the Minister say whether I have got it right that the VOA can have a protected category of evidence, as it were, that it is not prepared to share? This is something that has come up on my radar when looking at some of the blogs that have come out of the rating surveying world. It is a matter of fundamental importance in terms of the administration of any sort of justice system and adjudication, which is what this is. I would therefore like to pin down the Minister a little more on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think we made it very clear that the information that can be shared is the information that does not affect the data protection. Therefore, there will be information that cannot be shared because it will affect data protection. Because this is quite a legal issue, I will offer noble Lords a further, in-depth meeting, with lawyers there. If we are to get to the bottom of this, it is better to do that with a lawyer with us talking about the data protection law. Would the noble Earl be happy with that?

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I thank the Minister; that would be very helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We will be in touch.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this group. I thought that the reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to a timely VOA response was particularly apt, and I was grateful for his support just now on Amendment 17 on confidentiality. I thank the Minister for the offer to follow up.

The comment from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the amendments in this group are simple common sense was one of the most powerful pieces of oratory that I have heard this afternoon, and I hope that it materialises very soon. I admired his well-made comments about the rogue agents, and once again I thank the Minister for her comments in that regard, as to how the Government intend to protect the public. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for identifying a number of concerns over the VOA’s resourcing, which tie in directly.

--- Later in debate ---

with the extent of the information required depending on the nature of the property. So, unless the use of the building is relatively restricted, and therefore its future use is apparent—a storage unit, for example—the intended use could span a number of different uses. So the question is what would the consequences be if the intended and actual use differed in relation to the terms of the penalties? I can see someone frowning—I hope I am being clear. Perhaps we can pick this up at a later date if I am not being completely clear about this. It is just in case there is a difference between what you say you will use it for and then, ultimately, what you do use it for.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Group 4 consists of Amendments 22 to 26, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. They are concerned with the application of penalties for non-compliance with the VOA duty. As we have said, we will not initiate the VOA duty until we are satisfied that all ratepayers can reasonably and efficiently comply. There will be a soft launch of the duty, during which time no penalties for non-compliance will be issued and the VOA will raise awareness and expand its engagement with sector bodies and businesses of all sizes. As was said, issuing penalties will be the last resort. The VOA and HMRC will ensure that the new online service is simple to use and will take multiple steps to encourage ratepayers to comply, through reminders and warnings, before issuing a penalty.

Amendment 22 seeks to prevent the imposition of penalties where ratepayers’ errors or omissions are the result of reasonable reliance on VOA guidance. However, it is already the case that the VOA is able to apply penalties only where the ratepayer could reasonably be expected to know that the information would assist the VOA. All ratepayers will need to do to ensure that they are complying is follow guided steps on GOV.UK. If the ratepayer follows this guidance, the VOA will not, under the existing provisions of the Bill, be able to apply penalties. Thus, we do not think that this amendment adds anything of substance to the position as it already stands. If a penalty is issued in error where a ratepayer has relied on VOA guidance, the Bill gives the VOA the power to remit it. Ratepayers will also be able to appeal any penalty applied, and this will be independently reviewed by the valuation tribunal.

Amendments 23 to 25 are designed to address the penalty tariffs applicable to instances where a ratepayer has either failed to notify the VOA or provided false information. I will briefly explain the Government’s approach here. The Bill sets out the maximum level of penalty which the VOA may apply depending on the nature of the failure to comply. Our intention, as set out in our response to the technical consultation, is for the VOA sometimes to levy lower penalties than are set out by the framework of the Bill. Penalties will be levied as a percentage of the change in the rateable value rather than the entire rateable value and, where penalties are issued for a failure to provide information, the minimum penalty will be reduced for those on lower rateable values.

The Bill also introduces an offence where a ratepayer has knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. In these cases, a ratepayer could be subject to criminal sanction. Alternatively, making a false statement will lead to a civil penalty, the amount of which is provided by new paragraph 5ZD. Where the civil penalty is applied, in practice the maximum penalty will be 3% of the change in the property’s rateable value plus a fixed penalty of £500. To address the amendment, the Bill rightly provides a more severe penalty for knowingly or recklessly providing false information.

The point has been made that there should be a cap on daily penalties following an initial instance of failure to provide information. This information can have a direct impact on tax liability, so it is crucial that the duty is underpinned by a fair and proportionate but robust compliance regime. However, I can provide the reassurance that, even after the initial 60-day deadline, ratepayers will receive a reminder, warning and final warning before a penalty is applied. Only after an additional 30 days would the first daily penalty of £60 be issued. Ratepayers will be able to request a review and appeal of any penalties imposed. The daily penalties will be stopped when the ratepayer provides the required information, so as soon as the ratepayer complies, the penalties are effectively capped.

Applying daily penalties in this way is not an uncommon feature of taxation penalty regimes. For example, Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 deals with powers for HMRC to request information from taxpayers and imposes penalties for a failure to provide such information. It includes penalties of up to £60 per day for as long as the non-compliance continues, without an overall cap on liability.

Amendment 26 seeks to alter the burden of proof which the valuation tribunal should apply when deciding whether to uphold a penalty decision. Of course, when considering a higher penalty for a ratepayer who has provided false information, the VOA must in the first place be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the information was provided knowingly or recklessly. There is considerable protection for ratepayers already.

Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising questions about the appeals process. We will of course review the relevant text. I hope that, given that I have explained why the system of penalties is designed as it is, noble Lords will agree the amendments are not necessary.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, for their contributions on this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the necessary balance here, and I agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, queried whether the application of criminal charges is properly introduced here, whether the Valuation Office Agency is the right outfit to make that call and whether it will be given the necessary guidance and assistance to make consistent rulings in that respect.

It seems to me that the question is about the discretion of the VOA to do things—its ability to do or not do—as opposed to a legal duty. It seems to me that some sort of duty on the VOA is part and parcel of its overarching statutory duty to, for instance, maintain a correct valuation list. It also seems to me that those duties should mirror the obligations and penalties imposed on the ratepayer, otherwise it is a very asymmetric situation. That is, to some extent, what I was trying to deal with in Amendment 16.

The Minister has given various explanations of the Government’s position here. On Amendment 22 and the question of “reasonably be expected to know”, she said that this covers the guidance given and therefore the amendment does not add anything of substance and that there is a right of appeal. I think I will have to consider carefully what she said. With regard to Amendments 23 and 25, I felt that I had detected a series of typographical errors, but I understand the Minister to have said that they are not errors and that the Bill is deliberately worded that way. I am not sure that on a fair reading that is likely to be the case, so I hope they may be looked into at some stage or other.

On the cap or no cap, I have already pointed out that there is a degree of asymmetry between the approach that has been adopted in the Bill in this respect and what happens with failure to deal with the form of return. I appreciate that there is the “knowingly or recklessly” test, but we have a rather circular argument here because, if the VOA is again the sole arbiter of “knowingly or recklessly” and the thing then proceeds to a tribunal that says something different, I would hope that we could have got to a situation well before then where the ground rules were understood. Is the Minister saying that the wording of the Bill is in all respects what was intended and that there are no typographical errors in it as I had supposed? Will she please clarify that point?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, there are no typographical errors in the Bill. I think the noble Earl asked that question earlier, and there were none.

Just to be clear on criminal offences and why they are necessary, there is already a criminal offence for providing false information in response to a request for information by the VOA. So we are not putting in a criminal offence—there is already one there as it stands now. It is interesting that criminal charges will be only for “knowingly or recklessly” giving false information. If it is just a false statement, for whatever reason, that would still be a civil penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has laid out his concerns very clearly and in great detail. At the least, we need clarification. We have talked about the problems around licensing conditions; the hospitality sector in particular is very concerned about the implications of being stuck with a valuation for three years that, bluntly, may not be correct. It would be very helpful to hear what the Minister has to say and for her to give reassurances to the licensing sector that its circumstances will be taken into account.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their amendment. I understand the concerns around this clause; I will take the opportunity to explain why we consider this measure to be necessary and to set out the limits of its application.

As we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, more frequent revaluations and the measures we are introducing to support them are central to the reform of the business rates system. It is through those revaluations that the rating system is able to track and reflect changing economic circumstances. In property valuation terms, rateable values are updated at revaluations to reflect changes in economic factors, market conditions and changes in the general level of rents.

Of course, that does not mean that rateable values never change between revaluations. It would hardly be fair if, for example, a ratepayer demolished part of their property but this was not reflected until the next revaluation, or if a new property were built but escaped rates until the next revaluation. Therefore, some changes are reflected in rateable values as and when they happen. Examples include changes to the physical state of the property, the mode or category of occupation of the property or matters affecting the physical state of the locality. These matters, reflected as and when they occur, are called material changes of circumstances—MCCs.

The MCC system has been operating in this way for many years, but, during the coronavirus pandemic, we found that it was not working as intended. Large numbers of challenges were made, seeking reductions between revaluations for the effects of the pandemic, which by their nature were part of the general market conditions. Such general market matters should be considered at general revaluations.

Therefore, the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 clarified the law to ensure that coronavirus and the Government’s response to it were not an appropriate use of MCC provisions. Specifically, that Act ensured that anything done to comply with legislation, advice or guidance given by a public authority and attributable to coronavirus should not be an MCC, subject to some exclusions. The principle in that Act was approved by both Houses, and it received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021.

Clause 14 of the Bill merely takes that principle, clarified and accepted by this House in the 2021 Act in relation to coronavirus, and applies it more generally to all legislation, guidance and advice from public bodies. Changes in such matters are part of the economic factors and market conditions for a property and should be reflected at a general revaluation. This clause will protect the integrity of the rating system and ensure that more frequent revaluations can proceed smoothly. It will protect the system not just for central government but for local government, which relies on the revenue from business rates. The Local Government Association supports this clause and agrees that these matters should be reflected at general revaluations. But this does not mean that these matters are not reflected in rateable values; it just means that they are reflected only at the set date of each revaluation, along with all other economic and general market factors present at that date.

Furthermore, we have limited the scope of Clause 14 to three aspects of the MCC system to ensure that it operates fairly. This is to ensure that physical changes to the property or the state of the locality are still reflected. Therefore, Clause 14 will bite on only three types of MCCs. First, it will catch matters affecting the physical enjoyment of the property but not the physical state. This might include changes in how the property can be used following new legislation or guidance. Secondly, it will catch matters that are physically manifest in the locality but not matters affecting the physical state of the locality. This might include changes to traffic flows and bus or transport services. Thirdly, it will catch the use or occupation of other premises in the locality, which might include the change in use of a nearby property where, for example, the original use has been prohibited by new legislation.

Clause 14 will ensure that matters such as physical changes to a property or to the state of the locality continue to be immediately reflected in valuations, even if they are a result of new legislation or guidance. Clause 14 will also not bite on whether the property is non-domestic or domestic or whether it is exempt. Overall, Clause 14 will preserve a long-established principle by ensuring that matters that go more to the market conditions and general level of rents of a property belong in the general revaluation process. Of course, with more frequent revaluations, these factors will still be updated more often than ever before.

The clause will provide important stability and certainty to the rating list and, therefore, to the vital revenue for local government that flows from the list. Therefore, it would not be prudent to delay the introduction of the clause, as this amendment seeks. I know that the noble Earl will be disappointed that we are unable to agree to this, but I hope that I have set out the basis for taking this measure and also given him some assurances regarding its scope. I will look at Hansard tomorrow and will write to noble Lords with further explanations if I feel that they are required.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their support in connection with this. Although I understand what the Minister says is the intention of Clause 14, having been taken through it in some detail by more than one expert, I am bound to say that I do not agree with her about the effect of the clause. There is a difference in understanding, and I wonder whether it could be dealt with by a further discussion—the Minister is nodding, which I am grateful for. It is very difficult if somebody reads this in one way and says, “This could cover a multitude of things that could be excluded”, and the Minister says, “Actually, it is not intended to do that and these are the safeguards that we have built in”.

All I can say at this juncture is that I will certainly return to this on Report. I hope that there can be a meaningful dialogue on this in the meantime. It would be wrong for me to go into a detailed unpicking of what the Minister said at this hour and given the other pressures on us. To that end, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in this group. Underlying the whole group is a major issue: the Treasury now sees business rates as a source of general income to government, but many small businesses see them as a contribution to local services. That has got out of balance.

I strongly support Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who has just spoken. He talked about the impact of online shopping on small high street outlets and said that there was a public interest case to be made. Indeed, Amendment 29, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, probes the possibility of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief on high streets. A number of us raised that issue at Second Reading.

A number of issues are raised in this group. I have an amendment on the hospitality sector. It is not clear to me what reason there would be for not having a hospitality sector review, as I propose. It is about assessing the consistency of approach; we have spoken a lot about high streets, but this applies to the hospitality sector as well. There needs to be an assessment of whether there is a consistent approach for setting non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style. I cite public houses, restaurants, live performance theatres and exhibition spaces as examples. This is the kind of thing that government should be doing anyway, but there is a huge policy issue now around what business rates are for and how we make sure that they are being fairly charged.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 6 covers several amendments probing the Government’s support for high street businesses and the wider impact of the Bill. I am grateful for the useful discussions that I have had with noble Lords on what are, undoubtedly, significant issues.

Amendments 30 and 31, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek a review of the effect of business rates on the retail and hospitality sectors. I recognise that the conditions for businesses in town centres and high streets are concerning for many noble Lords. The Government take these concerns seriously and recognise the impact that increased competition from online businesses, changing consumer behaviour and Covid-19 has had on the fortunes of some high street businesses.

That is why the Government have taken decisive action to ensure that business rates are manageable for ratepayers on the high street. First, 720,000 properties, including many smaller retailers, pay no rates as a result of small business rates relief. Additional support has also been provided for those that do have rates bills: at the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced a package of business rates measures worth £13.6 billion. This included a general freeze of the multipliers for all properties, as well as increased support—from 50% to 75% relief—for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which is worth over £2.1 billion. As we heard, the Government also scrapped downward caps and, as we move to more frequent revaluations through the Bill, we will see a business rates system that better reflects real market values, which was the leading ask of businesses in our review.

I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, tabled Amendment 26 to encourage the Government to more actively intervene in how different types of property used in the retail sector are valued. Valuation is, of course, conducted independently by the VOA. All properties subject to business rates are assessed to the same standard of rateable value, which is, broadly speaking, the annual rental value. Properties are valued by reference to the evidence on the level of rents, which is agreed by landlords and tenants for that specific property class. If, at the most recent revaluation, the evidence shows that those open market rental values have increased, rateable values will change with them. Nevertheless, in all cases, the method must result in the common standard of rateable values.

In our review of business rates, the Government sought views on many different ways in which the valuation system could be changed. However, there was strong majority support for retaining the existing basis of rateable value. Therefore, we do not support significant changes to the industry-recognised valuation methodology, as was suggested.