Residential Leasehold

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in begging leave to ask this Question, I refer to my interests in the register and declare that I am a leaseholder.

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

My Lords, while I cannot set out precise details of a future Bill at this stage, the Government have been clear about our commitment to addressing the historic imbalance in the leasehold system and to extending the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. We will bring forward further reforms later in this Parliament.

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

My Lords, that is just not good enough. It is extremely disappointing but, sadly, par for the course. Promises and pledges have been made, and promises and pledges have been broken. Over the last year—on 20 June, 14 July, 20 July, 17 October, 12 January, 20 February, 22 February, 23 March and, most recently, 2 May—I have raised these issues and been told that the Government intend to bring

“the outdated and feudal system of leasehold to an end.”—[Official Report, 20/2/2023; col. 1444.]

We now hear from the media that that is not going to happen in this Parliament. That is just not good enough. Will the Minister take the opportunity here today to apologise to all the people trapped in the leasehold nightmare who have been let down by these broken promises, and explain to the House why we should believe these latest promises and pledges?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said before, property law is fiendishly complex. It is absolutely right that the Government take the time needed to make sure that the reforms are right. As I have said before, the Government will bring reforms to the leasehold system in this Parliament, but I cannot pre-empt the King’s Speech by confirming at this time what will or will not be in future legislation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend read the article in last Sunday’s Sunday Times, which outlined the problems facing leaseholders who want to extend their lease? Because of the uncertainty to which the noble Lord has just referred, they do not know whether to extend their lease now or wait until the legislation that has been proposed, which may enable them to extend on fairer terms. This blight is beginning to affect the market in leasehold. Is not it important that the Government are clear as soon as possible as to what their proposals will be?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand the concerns, and yes, the Government will be as clear as they possibly can, when they can. Importantly, every leaseholder is in a very different situation and has different considerations. Specialist legal advice should be taken by leaseholders at this time if they are considering enfranchisement or extensions. The Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners and the Leasehold Advisory Service can offer that advice to leaseholders, and I urge them to take it in this time, before we can make any further announcements.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a landlord, leaseholder and former renter, may I ask the Minister this: since the Government seem to be backtracking on abolishing leasehold by the end of this Parliament, can she at least commit to reforming this archaic and feudal system?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not agree with the noble Lord. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we want to bring forward reforms to leasehold, and we want to do so during this Parliament. We wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. In line with our manifesto commitments, we will continue leasehold reform during this Parliament. We are working with the Law Commission to bring forward game-changing reforms to the system, and we thank the commission for all the work it has done in this area. As I have said, I cannot at this Dispatch Box pre-empt the King’s Speech.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend in answer to a question a moment or two ago referred to people taking legal advice, but how can lawyers give advice if they do not know what the Government are proposing to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. What they can do is give them the options they should consider at this time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on the current plight of leaseholders, there are 11,000 high-rise and medium-rise blocks in need of life-critical safety work since the Grenfell fire tragedy. The Government have made progress and done a contract with 43 or more developers that will put right those blocks—but only 1,100 of them. What assurance can the Minister give the other 10,000 that their work will be done at no cost to those leaseholders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are doing everything they can. They are making sure that, as she has said, the perpetrator pays, and they have put large amounts of money into this. It takes time to work through the remediation of these buildings, but we are working at pace and pushing the industry the whole time to ensure that it makes these buildings safe as soon as possible.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

The Minister agrees that some leaseholders will need advice, but who is going to pay for that advice? Do the Government think they might extend legal aid to cover it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, we do not intend to extend legal aid. For leaseholders who are considering what to do in future, we have made it very clear that it will be in this Parliament, and they just need to wait and take advice at this time until we can get these changes in place.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

What is the Minister’s response to the revelation from the Commonhold Now campaign that, according to polling, 60% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 support the abolition—not the reform—of leasehold? Perhaps that might concentrate minds.

The Minister says that she cannot at the Dispatch Box pre-empt what is in the King’s Speech, but it is at the Dispatch Box here and in the other place that the Minister and the Secretary of State have constantly assured the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others that leasehold will be abolished. If it is too difficult for this Government to do, maybe that says more about them than it does about leasehold law.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have made it very clear that we wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. That is why we have committed to ending the sale of new leasehold homes and houses to reinvigorate commonhold, so it can finally be a genuine alternative to leasehold. But, as I have said before, we know that, on commonhold work for flats, the Government, industry and consumers will all need to work together, which is why we established the Commonhold Council to prepare home owners and the market for what we want to do, which is to give this freedom to more home owners.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend just said that property law is fiendishly complicated and that is why this has taken some time. Will she enlighten us as to some of the complicated issues that have to be tackled before this law can be brought forward?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government are working with the Law Commission; we have asked it to recommend reforms to commonhold legislation, and it published its report in July 2020. We are considering those recommendations and will respond to them in due course, but it is a fiendishly complex system.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, earlier my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham presented a choice for leaseholders today. I think the Minister has just indicated that leaseholders should wait. Maybe she meant they should continue to weigh up their options until things become clearer.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. That is perhaps exactly what I should have said: they need to just wait until we have clarification, and it will not be long, because it will be in this Parliament.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, is not one of the obstacles to movement forward on this that landlords are going to find that the leaseholders have become freeholders, and that they are going to seek compensation? If so, from whom?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have had no indication that they will do that, but if they do we will have to look at that issue.

Redcar Steelworks

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of allegations of corruption related to the redevelopment of the Redcar Steelworks site in Teesside.

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

My Lords, the department has seen no evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality within the South Tees Development Corporation. The mayor and the combined authority are working tirelessly to level up the area of Teesside, including supporting economic growth and high-quality job creation. Private sector investment and a joint venture were always a core part of the business case for this site, and the National Audit Office review in 2022 found that government funding had been used as intended.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, everybody wants to see regeneration in Teesside, but the National Audit Office has not conducted an audit, just a light-touch review. The last full public audit was carried out 18 months ago, since when reports in the press, including the Yorkshire Post, have indicated the potential risk to hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, with superprofiteering to a monopoly private company. The Tees Valley Mayor yesterday said he has no objection to the National Audit Office carrying out a full audit. That has to be at the instigation of the Government, so what is stopping the Government agreeing to implement Section 6(3)(d) of the National Audit Act allowing a full National Audit Office audit to investigate that taxpayers are not being short-changed by excessive profits going to one private company?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; the Mayor of Tees Valley has written to the Secretary of State, giving his full support for an independent review. The department will reply to him shortly. As a Government, we will continue, as we have right the way through this scheme, to monitor the spend and delivery on-site. We will do that for two years after public spending on the site. The Tees Valley Combined Authority has also judged that the joint venture presented value for money. Independent auditors of the STDC’s accounts have not raised any concerns around that judgment or the management of that organisation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is vital that the public, particularly the public of Teesside, get answers to the very serious questions about the transfer of this key public asset into private ownership, with the potential losses that may have been incurred to the public purse. That is why my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State has written to the National Audit Office to call for a full inquiry. Ministers and civil servants seem to have had little or no knowledge about what was going on in Teesside, and the whole process was entirely opaque.

It was originally intended that public funding would be used to clean up the land, but also that it would remain in public ownership. However, a decision taken in private in 2021 changed that model. The taxpayer appears to have invested more than £260 million and provided a public loan worth £100 million. It seems that developers have secured £45 million in dividends, despite failing to invest any of their own money in the project. When were the Government aware of the transfer of 90% of the shares in Teesworks to private developers? What scrutiny and oversight did they have of decisions made by Tees Valley Mayoral Development Corporation to establish the joint venture that became Teesworks without a public procurement process? Lastly, what action will the Government take to provide reassurance that the public interest is protected, now and in the future?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will just explain the investment of this site to the noble Baroness. It was always going to be a public/private investment. She is right that £246 million of public money has been invested in this site, and this has already secured £2 billion in private sector investment, with the prospect of 2,725 long-term jobs created as a result. To make the site investor-ready cost £482.6 million, already leaving a funding gap of £200 million; that has had to come from the private sector. It has always been the plan to kick-start the land remediation and then divest the site and risk to the private sector, which we are doing. As a result, the JV partnership—the demolition programme—which was due to take up to five years, concluded in less than three years. It is now up to the private developers to develop that site for these jobs, and for this area of our country.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I think anyone who read yesterday’s Financial Times full-page article on this matter would welcome a full investigation by the National Audit Office. Since we are almost between Committee and Report on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, there is an opportunity to make changes on Report in terms of audit, insofar as it might impact upon development corporations. Will the Government, through the Minister, agree to ensure that this is thoroughly checked out, to make sure that the processes being followed on Teesside are appropriate and in the public interest?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think I need to repeat it, but the Mayor of Tees Valley has said that he is very happy for an independent review. Whether that is an independent review or the National Audit Office doing a full review, I think he is quite happy. The department is looking into that and will reply to him shortly. I do not think I can add any more. Nobody is stopping a full review if that is necessary, but what is important is that we have millions of pounds of private sector investment in an area that desperately needs it, for jobs and for the people of Teesside. That is levelling up; that is the important bit of this.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as someone who lives on Teesside, I respectfully tell the Minister that doubt over this site will damage future investment. It is already making people ask questions. The mayor has said that he wants an investigation and voices in this Chamber are clearly calling for one. I have not heard anybody here or in Teesside oppose an investigation. It is important that it is done quickly and it should be the fullest possible type of investigation that the NAO can offer, to regain the confidence that we need to enable more investment in the Tees Valley.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have to ask those opposite who is creating this uncertainty. It is certainly not the Government, who have invested in this area. Once more, the mayor is very happy for any type of review.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it was always part of the plan that public sector investment on a massive scale should be used to hugely enrich two private sector developers?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me give a little background. Three Thai banks had a hold on the former SSI steelworks land. As negotiations to secure that land broke down, a compulsory purchase order was launched. JC Musgrave Capital and Northern Land Management already had back options on parcels of land within the Teesworks site that were key to those negotiations with the three banks over land owned by SSI, which was already in receivership. The STDC was advised by a top KC that, without this private sector involvement, it would very likely lose that compulsory purchase order. The public/private partnership was agreed by the TVCA, the Cabinet and the STDC board, and it was envisaged in the original business case approved by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, MHCLG and the Treasury that that should be the partnership to take this site forward.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is not people on this side creating the concern; these are reports from local people, businesses and a lot of newspapers. Please do not be offensive to this side of the Chamber. We do our best to hold the Government to account—that is our job. In this instance, the Government seem absolutely blind to the fact that there could be problems. Moving forward, an investigation is necessary and should be part of the Government’s plan.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are not blind to that fact. We are monitoring continually, as we do when we invest in these projects, and the National Audit Office did its audit and said that the public money was being spent as intended. We will look at anything further that needs to be done. As I have said, the mayor is very happy to take part in any review.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the heart of this controversy is the perceived lack of transparency and accountability. This may arise from the mayoral development corporation having a board that, as the Yorkshire Post reports, is appointed solely by the mayor. Does the Minister believe that this power to appoint the board and select people who will do his will is at the heart of the problem? Will she consider changes to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to change that and improve transparency and governance?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it is up to the mayor to decide the best people to be on his board. We have seen absolutely no evidence—if there is any, we would like to see it—of corruption, wrongdoing or illegal acts.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the loss of Redcar was part of the blight on British Steel. Does the Minister agree that perhaps we should put in the orders that have been thought about, but not yet ordered, for a large number of ships and that the steel in the ships being built should be found from within British Steel?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not going to respond to a question on British Steel, but I can say that public money—quite rightly—has decontaminated the site and taken away all the hazards, and therefore it is now right for modern green technology.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister think it is okay for the joint venture to flip from a 50:50 share to a 90:10 share in favour of the private sector partners, when millions of pounds have been spent on reclaiming and decontaminating certain parts of the site? The site was then sold, reportedly for £1 per acre. When the private sector company bought it a few weeks later, it flipped it and sold it on for more than £70 million. That is why a National Audit Office report is required and the Government urgently need to implement Section 6(3)(d) of the National Audit Act.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The mayor has offered a review. We have only just got that letter; we are considering it. The public funding we put in did not create any positive land value. It was designed to remove the ongoing liability of £80 million a year that was falling to the Government after the liquidation of SSI UK Ltd. The issue of the 50:50 share shifting to 90% concerned further private investment.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister update us on what has happened with the investigation into the massive shellfish die-off, which many scientists believe was the result of the dredging when we got this land ready for sell-off, and the chemicals released from the deep seabed? It is still disputed; if there is a review, can this question be included?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry; I do not have an answer to that question, but I will take it forward to Defra and we will get an answer.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Minister said the Government will consider whether they will ask the NAO to conduct a further investigation, and we are grateful for that. We are very concerned, but perhaps it would help us to be bit calmer if the Minister could indicate when that might be decided upon.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I said the mayor had written to us, saying that he was happy to take part in a review, and we are looking to respond to that. Of course it is an important issue, but public money has been quite rightly invested in an area that desperately needs it after the steel industry left. There are opportunities for modern technology industries to come in—we are hearing about wind farm factories, et cetera—and we must keep this steady and online so that it can be delivered and we do not lose the investment we have.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, there are currently more than 50,000 asylum seekers living in hotels, given that our asylum system has been overwhelmed by the large volume arrival of asylum seekers by small boats. Hotels are neither intended nor adequate to be used as long-term accommodation. This is also burdensome on local communities and expensive for the taxpayer. It is important to recognise the significant challenges we are grappling with. The Home Office is working tirelessly, along with other government departments, to reduce the Government’s dependency on hotels by introducing a suite of short and longer-term measures. It is not right that the country is spending millions of pounds a day on hotels, and we are determined to put the asylum accommodation system on a far more sustainable footing. This reform is one of the many measures being taken to provide adequate and cost-effective accommodation in line with our statutory duty.

The Home Office is also bringing forward a range of alternative sites, such as disused holiday parks, former student halls and surplus military sites, to add thousands of places at half the cost of hotels. All local authority areas in England, Scotland and Wales became an asylum dispersal area in April 2022, thereby increasing the number of suitable properties that can be procured to accommodate asylum seekers across the UK.

Currently, the Housing Act 2004 requires all houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—where five or more people from two or more households share facilities to be licensed. Local authorities can also introduce additional licensing in their area. This requires all HMOs housing three or more people from two or more households to be licenced. Home Office service providers have reported that these additional conditions set by local authorities present a challenge when procuring cost-effective, suitable and safe accommodation for asylum seekers. The Home Office is therefore seeking to remove this barrier.

These regulations will temporarily exempt from the HMO licensing HMOs used by the Home Office to house asylum seekers. This means that HMOs which begin use as asylum accommodation before 30 June 2024 will not need to be licensed for a period of two years. These regulations will cease to be in force on 1 July 2026, and after this point all HMOs used as asylum accommodation will require licences.

I am aware of the concerns that noble Lords and the Local Government Association have raised. I assure noble Lords that the Home Office asylum accommodation and support contract—AASC—standards are broadly equivalent to mandatory HMO licence conditions. This alignment between contracts and national housing standards is deliberate and was developed in consultation with the local authority property inspectors via their professional body, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

Home Office service providers are contractually required to provide safe, habitable, fit for purpose and correctly equipped accommodation for all asylum seekers. The contracts also require providers to comply with the law and a host of best-practice guidance. Consequently, matters that stand to be enforced by local authorities in respect of unscrupulous landlords can also be enforced contractually by the Home Office via its service providers.

All asylum accommodation will continue to be subject to wider private rented sector regulations, including the duties set out in the HMO management regulations, and local authorities will retain their power to enforce these standards and take action against landlords who fail to meet them.

The Home Office contracts for housing also set out a minimum standard for all asylum accommodation, including conditions relating to gas and fire safety requirements, as well as compliance with wider private sector minimum standards. The Home Office is doubling the size of its inspection team to ensure that its service providers are maintaining minimum standards in all its accommodation, and specifically all HMO properties that benefit from this exemption.

This dedicated assurance team is responsible for testing and reporting on providers’ performance. In addition to the provider’s monthly inspections, the Home Office inspects properties on a targeted basis, as well as testing providers’ monthly performance against the contractual key performance indicators and conducting assurance reviews. The Home Office will ensure that the assurance regime is commensurate with existing arrangements for HMO licensing to avoid the risk of reducing quality. Where a provider fails to meet contractual obligations, financial penalties can be applied.

Separately, Migrant Help is contracted to provide a free, round-the-clock helpline and online portal available 365 days a year which asylum seekers can use to raise issues, request help, give feedback and make complaints. Maintenance issues raised via Migrant Help are referred immediately to the AASC—asylum accommodation and support contract—provider for action within contractual timescales. If a service user reports that a defect has not been fixed and they remain dissatisfied, it is escalated to a dedicated Home Office complaints team to adjudicate. In addition, the Home Office will put measures in place to allow local authorities to report poor standards or safety issues with any of the housing provided for asylum seekers. The Home Office will also take up the offer from the Local Government Association to enhance joint working to deliver suitable and safe accommodation for asylum seekers under its care.

The Home Office dispersal policy will focus on ensuring the fair and equitable placement of asylum seekers, as we recognise the strain on public services, including housing. The Government will do everything they can to mitigate the risk of homelessness in support of the existing cross-government commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament and to fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act.

We also recognise the general strain on public services in local authorities, and for this reason existing funding has been doubled for those local authorities which take on new accommodation and do so quickly. Subject to conditions of a grant agreement, this money is not ring-fenced and will incentivise co-operation and ease pressures on local services. However, payments will be subject to the conditions of a grant agreement.

The Home Office will develop a monitoring plan, which will cover service provider data in relation to the accommodation acquired as a result of this reform, reporting on quality and compliance/assurance to measure its effectiveness as well as to inform the assessment of wider homelessness impacts. More broadly, Home Office engagement with local authorities has significantly increased and improved since the introduction of an engagement strategy which is designed specifically to ensure that impacts on local services can be raised, discussed and mitigated through the multi-agency forums. Regular meetings are held between the Home Office and local authorities’ key strategic fora, including the asylum and resettlement council senior engagement group and the strategic oversight group. The Home Office will also arrange an open forum for local authorities to attend, which is a further opportunity for local government colleagues to discuss issues of concern with senior Home Office officials. I beg to move.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI, but this is yet another chapter in a book that is about dehumanising some of the most vulnerable people in the world seeking asylum in this country. It is bizarre that the Minister says that the reason why we need this SI is because the contract that providers of asylum accommodation have is exactly the same. In a moment, I shall go through what a mandatory HMO is licensed for, and I seek from the Minister an absolute assurance that every single clause that I give is covered in that contract. If not, the Minister has not been quite correct at the Dispatch Box.

It is not necessarily the case, as the Minister tried to portray, that the reason for the cost of accommodation for asylum seekers is because of the number of small boat arrivals. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee reported recently that the reason for the strain on accommodation is the incompetence and inefficiency of the Home Office in dealing with the backlog. Some 68% of those waiting to have their claims assessed in March 2023 had waited more than six months. Even though the number of case workers has doubled from 308 to 614 since 2022, productivity has not changed at all. The number of people being dealt with or cases that have actually been closed in a month is exactly the same: one case per caseworker per month. That is what is causing the strain on accommodation, not the number of people arriving. It is clearly the incompetence and lack of productivity from the Home Office.

In her introduction, the Minister said that the number of those who are available to investigate will double in size to see whether the contractual arrangements are being carried out. How many individuals, full-time equivalent, will be available? On average, how many does that equate to for each local authority area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

In my enthusiasm to speak, I forgot to put on record my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate today. Much of what has been discussed is obviously for the Home Office; in my responsibility as a Government Minister, I shall attempt to answer everything I can, but there will be things that I will have to come back to. I hope that I can persuade noble Lords to join me in supporting these regulations, which are a necessary step to accelerate moving asylum seekers from what is not suitable—we have had this debate many times in this House, and hotel accommodation is not suitable—into more suitable accommodation for them.

This is not dehumanising; this is actually giving them a better place to live, and trying to get people out of hotels as quickly as possible. Both the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why we are doing this. We are doing it because the asylum accommodation service people are telling us that they have identified that the whole process of licensing requirements is really a challenge to swiftly bring on board the properties that we need in order to get people out of the hotel system.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think either the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, or the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I cannot remember which, asked whether any thought was given to improving the resources for local government to take this on, rather than setting up a whole new system. Is the Minister able to comment on that?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will go through the support we are providing to local authorities, but I do not think the local authorities could have moved as fast as was necessary to do this: it takes training, et cetera. It is about getting people out of hotels and into better accommodation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, brought up the Home Office contracts. I have listed all the requirements under the licensing. I am sorry I have not got an answer to everything. Gas and safety requirements are there in the contracts for the Home Office, as well as compliance with wider private rented sector minimum standards, but I will go through each and every requirement in the licensing and we will send a letter explaining what is there and what is in the contract so that we are absolutely transparent about that.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Therefore, the Minister, at this point, even though we are being asked to accept the statutory instruments, cannot give an assurance to the Grand Committee that it is like-for-like and that housing standards of quality and safety will be exactly as asylum seekers now have in accommodation in HMOs if they are licensed by a local authority? That is what is actually being said: that guarantee cannot be given on a like-for-like basis.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I am not going to give that guarantee from this Dispatch Box, because there is a complicated list of things, and if I say, “Yes, it is”, there will be a tiny bit that the noble Lord will come back and quite rightly say, “You have got this wrong”. I am going to make sure that I look at that licensing requirement, look at the contract, and see what differences there are.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Will the Minister therefore give a commitment that that answer and letter will come before the statutory instrument hits the whole House? I think it is really important that we get it before the statutory instrument is before the whole House and agreed by the whole House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I cannot do that because I am not in control of when the statutory instrument comes before the whole House, but we will get it to noble Lords as soon as we possibly can from the Home Office. I am sorry, but that is as much as I can do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, brought up the issue of the dispersal policy. I have to say, I hate that word. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, brought up the pressures on local authorities; she mentioned London specifically. We need to make sure that asylum seekers are located across the UK, not just in one or two areas. We know the pressures on public services, and we need to make sure that those are not overtaken by larger numbers. It is important that we look at that. Equally, we need to make sure that we do not put asylum seekers away from family, friends and their communities, so we have to do both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister really confused me then. She just said that the providers of this accommodation will have to abide by the licensing conditions of local authorities on HMOs. Does not the statutory instrument actually remove the requirement on them to do that? Is that not its sole purpose?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it removes the requirement for them having to get a licence, which takes time. The letter I am going to write to the noble Lord, and to all noble Lords, will then give the specifics to make sure that there is nothing missing between those two issues. That is what he wants to hear, I think. We will get that to him—that is what he is asking for.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

It is, but the logic behind this statutory instrument is to speed up the process of getting accommodation. However, if the accommodation has to be exactly the same as the HMO licensing conditions of local authorities and the Home Office does not have the number of people to be able to do the assessment of the properties, how does it speed up getting the properties? The number of properties will be the same in each area and they will have to be inspected before they can be brought on board to house asylum seekers. I do not understand the logic of how this will speed that up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The whole process of licensing takes time and, I have to say, a bit of paperwork and bureaucracy. Noble Lords know that these things take time, whereas, if we can get people out and into accommodation that is properly regulated and tested, and people go in there and check it on a regular basis, that is a quicker way of getting people into communities and out of hotels.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hamwee, asked about unaccompanied minors—a really important point. I assure the Committee that they will not be placed in HMOs, which is extremely important.

I know I have not answered everything, but the difference between the licensing regime and the quality regime of the contracts and the Home Office is important, and I want to get it absolutely right and make sure that the detail is correct for noble Lords.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The question that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked was: if the number of people enforcing from the Home Office is going to double, what will that number be and what is the average per local authority area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I asked for an answer on that, but I do not think it has come forward. I am really sorry; I will get these answers to noble Lords as quickly as I possibly can. I am conscious of what they are asking me to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know it is not the tradition of the Committee to not vote for SIs, or to vote against them, and I understand that—I will not do anything like that—but had this come before my council, with the lack of information that we have about why it is being done, not just what is being done, I could not have supported it. Whether local government could do this job equally well was never assessed. If the Home Office can recruit more inspectors, local government can do so too. If the Home Office are going to look at the same things that local government looks at, why is local government not looking at it? Can we have some clarity about what will be looked at? I am happy to have that in writing.

Before I sit down, I profusely apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I called by the wrong name. I had written the wrong name on my papers, which is completely my fault, and I apologise profusely. I will not get it wrong next time.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot let it go that we are not making it clear why we are doing this. I want to make it very clear that we are doing it to speed up the movement of these people from what the House has clearly said many times is unsuitable hotel accommodation, which is not right over a long period of time, into better accommodation. That is why we are doing it. We want to do it as quickly as possible, and we fell that, in the short term of two years, the licensing regime was slowing that movement down.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I will tell the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, a tale about mixed-up names when we finish this Committee.

We have focused very much on safety standards. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, the standards of bathroom and kitchen facilities, and possibly the amount of space per person, will be different. I think that is covered by what the Minister has said she will find out about, but I do not want to lose that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, absolutely not: I have written down everything that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked to be checked against the Home Office conditions, and we will make sure we check Hansard. I know that things such as bathrooms, kitchens and room sizes were in that list because I have written them down. If there are no further questions, I assure noble Lords that these regulations are an important part of the Government’s asylum dispersal plans—although I do not like that word. I thank noble Lords for the challenge and scrutiny they have given to them, and I will make sure that I get answers to them as soon as possible.

Motion agreed.

Voter ID

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government implemented this rushed programme for voter ID against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Local Government Association, which all said that it needed more time. Does the Minister now agree that they were right, given that around 1.5 million people eligible to vote do not have the accepted ID or certificate? Tomorrow’s election will be the greatest restriction of the franchise in our democratic history, taking the vote from seven times as many people as were given the vote in the Great Reform Act. What will it take tomorrow for the Government to rescind this policy? How many people will the Government allow to be turned away before admitting that this experiment has failed?

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

No, I do not agree that we have done it in haste, because I have spoken personally to the LGA and many leaders across the country who are having polls. I have also spoken to the Electoral Commission. The processes that were put in place worked well; the IT worked well, and we will know after tomorrow what the outcome is. As I said yesterday in this House, the number of people who have not registered for a voter authority card will come out in the data. Whether or not we need to look at any changes, this Government and the people of this country want voter ID. Two out of three people asked said they would feel more confident in our democratic process if it was in place.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I return to a subject that I raised yesterday. It would be so much easier and sensible for all of us if we had an identity card that we could produce on all necessary occasions. There would then be no question of some people not having one of the designated documents, because they would all have the same. Could this please be looked at again if, as I suspect, the figures from tomorrow are disappointing?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Just to let my noble friend know, the Government have no intention of looking again at identity cards, as I said to him yesterday.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, allowing for postal votes, there will be more than 1 million people legally entitled to vote tomorrow who will not be able to do so because of the new requirements. The number of people who do not go to the polling station because of them will never be known; nor will the number of people turned away at the entrance to polling stations ever be known. If the Electoral Commission’s review suggests that wider forms of ID could be accepted, such as the items on the Post Office list for collecting a parcel, will such a change be made before elections in 2024? The cost saving would be substantial. Will the Minister undertake to tell us what that saving would be? She said yesterday that the government scheme would cost £2.42 per elector. There are about 48 million electors, so that would be a cost of £116 million. Which party is this expenditure most likely to benefit?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said before, we will look at whether there need to be any changes after the Electoral Commission and the Government have collected the data they require from returning officers. We said that we would do that; there will be a review by both Houses of Parliament at the end of this year, and the Electoral Commission will review it as well. We expect its interim report in early summer. That is when we will need to look at whether any changes need to be made.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate the difficult position that the Minister is in, but can she set out a list of all those people who are eligible for a proxy vote organised up until 5 pm tomorrow—election day? It was a mystery to me; I had never heard of emergency proxies. Apparently, they are available to people who, for example, cannot use the photo pass they were planning to use; it is not just an illness or disability issue. Where is the list, because it is very confusing on the websites, of who can get organised for a proxy up to 5 pm tomorrow? Are local authorities organised to do that for people who might have problems? Has this happened before or not?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

In certain circumstances where a person has an emergency that means that they cannot vote in person, they can apply for an emergency proxy. There is full guidance on the Electoral Commission’s website. I should stress that the circumstances where an application for a proxy vote may apply are specific and very limited. Emergency proxies are available if a person’s photo ID is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the deadline to apply for a voter authority certificate has passed. This can also be used if an anonymous elector’s document is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. As the noble Lord said, applications can be made up to 5 pm on polling day.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the measures being introduced by the Government are very similar to those that were introduced in Northern Ireland, which have been generally welcomed by both Houses?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: those measures were brought in in Northern Ireland by the Labour Government in 2003. They have been highly successful, and, in fact, the people of Northern Ireland have a higher rate of satisfaction with their electoral system than we do in England.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, are the Government alive to the prospect that they have set the bar too high for forms of photo ID for younger people in particular? The chance that someone would be so keen to vote fraudulently that they would make a fraudulent Oyster ID card as an 18-plus as a way to gain access to a polling station is vanishingly small. In that review, will they be alive to widening out the forms of photo ID for younger people?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, obviously, but it is interesting that, when the research was done on the number of people in this country who had photo ID, it was higher for younger people. It was 98% for the whole of the country, but 99% for young people between 18 and 25. But, yes, we will look at that. I know that the Oyster card has been an issue, but there is a real reason. Oyster cards for younger people have a different process which is not as secure as that for older people’s Oyster cards.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, mention has been made of a review, and it is critical that it happens correctly. That requires three sets of information. The first is how many people were turned away; the second is the precise reasons for their being turned away, and the third is the time of day that they were turned away, because if it was before, let us say, half an hour before the close of polls, people may have been able to go and get the required documentation in some cases. Will the Government have the correct data on which to form an opinion?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Councils are required by law to record data in polling stations. There are two purposes for that. The first is in the case of any complaints or legal challenges, as we know. That data is on individual electors formally refused a ballot and whether they later returned and voted successfully; it will be sealed and retained in case it is needed. The second set of data will be captured in the short term to help evaluate the voter identification policy. That data will be anonymised and will include both the number of electors turned away and the reasons why, as well as whether they returned and voted later; it will also include data on other aspects of the policy, such as the number of times a voter authority certificate is used. As I have said, that data will be used by both the Government and the Electoral Commission in their evaluations. I do not think that the time of day when those electors came to a polling station will be in the evaluation, but I will certainly get the House an answer on that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

All of this and more has led me into thinking about whether this levy is actually going to do what it aspires to, whether it is worth the risks involved and the 10-year timeframe it will take to deliver. But there will be more of that in later groups. We will also probe in a later group how this relates to the crucial area of affordable and social housing. Much more will be said about that, but it has been kicked off well today by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we broadly support.

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

My Lords, I apologise for the length of time that I am going to take, but it has been a very diverse debate about a number of things and some important issues, so please bear with me.

When new development is built, it creates a demand for public services and local infrastructure. The granting of planning permission also increases the value of land. It is important that local authorities can secure contributions from developers to share in the land value uplift that comes from granting planning permission and use this to deliver local infrastructure and affordable housing for communities.

The current system of developer contributions is uncertain and fragmented. The negotiation of Section 106 agreements frequently results in delays in granting planning permission and these agreements can be renegotiated as the development progresses, as we have heard. Local authorities cannot be expected to negotiate as effectively as big developers. The developers can always build elsewhere, which weakens a local authority’s leverage in negotiations. Developers can devote more financial resources to negotiation, out-gunning local authorities. This can generate uncertainty for local communities over how much affordable housing will be available and what infrastructure will be delivered.

Local authorities can also charge the community infrastructure levy, which is a non-negotiable—but optional —charge. Only half of local planning authorities currently charge the levy. Of those that do not, over one-third believe that introducing it would increase their ability to capture land value. The community infrastructure levy is also unresponsive to change in development value as it is charged at a fixed rate per square metre of new development and does not go up in line with house prices. That is why we are introducing the new infrastructure levy; to largely replace the existing system of developer contributions.

The new levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current developer contributions regime by charging rates based on the final value of developments. This should ensure that a fairer price is initially paid for the land by the developer, and then that the developer pays a fairer contribution to the infrastructure and affordable housing. As it is a non-negotiable charge, it should help to reduce delays associated with Section 106 agreements, while maintaining the viability of developments. It will also end the inequality of arms, where local planning authorities must negotiate for affordable housing with developers. The levy will be charged on the majority of types of development, providing opportunities to secure funding for affordable housing and infrastructure from developments that currently contribute very little. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, that the important issue for developer contributions is housing.

The Government recognise that the new infrastructure levy is a significant change and a major undertaking. For this reason, we are taking a “test and learn” approach to its implementation. This will be vital to monitor and test the design of the levy as it works on the ground. This means that, once levy regulations have been developed following Royal Assent, only a small number of local authorities will adopt the levy initially. This “test and learn” approach will allow the Government to continue to work with local authorities, developers and local stakeholders to achieve a system that is optimally designed. We have published a detailed technical consultation, which closes on 9 June, to inform the design of the new levy regulations. We have approached this consultation in a very open manner with the sector, and we really want to listen to, and take on board, the feedback.

I turn to Amendments 290, 324, 335 and 343, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Hayman. The amendments relate to the definition of “infrastructure”. I will highlight first the point that the priority for receipts from the new levy will be the provision of infrastructure: affordable housing, schools, GP surgeries, green spaces and transport. This infrastructure is vital to support the local community and mitigate the impact of any new development.

Although I understand the desire for future levy receipts to be spent on a wider range of other important priorities, I must be clear that this will not be an unlimited pot of money and that any other spending will come at the expense of affordable housing and local infrastructure that is needed to directly mitigate the impact of new development. Although we have the ability to allow for some spending on non-infrastructure priorities through the Bill, we recognise that there are important trade-offs here. Through the consultation, we are testing the extent to which we should require local authorities to prioritise affordable housing and infrastructure before unlocking such flexibilities.

Secondly, I will address childcare, which I think everybody in the Committee agrees is exceptionally important—I know that this is a priority for all of us in the House and the other place. It is also a priority for the Government, and I am happy to say that, since Amendment 290 was tabled, the Chancellor has announced transformative reforms to the funding and delivery of childcare, as part of the Spring Budget. By 2027-28, this Government expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education, helping working families with their childcare costs. This represents the single biggest investment in childcare in England ever, and it means that eligible working parents of children from nine months old to their start in primary school will all have 30 hours of free childcare per week. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Chancellor’s announcement means that it is no longer necessary to try to bolt together the planning system and funding for childcare through the Bill.

I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that guidance for applications for free schools already includes explicit assumptions that any new free schools will include proposals for nurseries. Therefore, education investment in a possible new development will include a nursery, unless there are very strong reasons why this would be inappropriate. So the Government are dealing with the issue of ongoing support for childcare and, at the same time, there is already in guidance the necessity for more nursery places where houses are built.

I turn to infrastructure spending more broadly. New Section 204N(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of kinds of infrastructure, which assists with broadly understanding what the levy might be spent on. But spending is not restricted to any of the listed items: the levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area. This means funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, provided that this in accordance with the overall aim of the levy, as set out in new Section 204A. To strengthen infrastructure delivery, new Section 204Q requires local authorities to prepare “infrastructure delivery strategies”, which will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure and spending levy proceeds.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Where do the infrastructure delivery strategies sit in terms of the local plan process? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. What role will they play in relation to NDMPs? It is not clear from the legislation exactly how they fit in with the rest of the planning process, and it is important that either the Bill sets that out or we have guidance elsewhere—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that makes it crystal clear where those strategies sit.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand that, and I will write to the noble Baroness to explain this completely. I know that this is confusing because the NPPF has not been agreed, so I understand where she is coming from and I will make sure that we send her a letter.

Turning to Amendment 324, I agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh that the emergency and rescue services should be among the infrastructure providers that are able to receive levy funds from local planning authorities. For this reason, they are already included in the illustrative list of infrastructure in new Section 204N(3), which makes it explicit that levy funds can be applied towards

“facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services”.

We do not provide detailed definitions across all kinds of infrastructure, as this is not necessary. The words used must be given their natural and common-sense meaning—so “infrastructure” too must be given its ordinary meaning. I have stated that it can encompass matters not listed in new Section 204N(3).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I really appreciate that response, but the emergency services replied to the letter from the Housing Minister with a way forward. They are very concerned that the existing community infrastructure levy and Section 106 system is not working. Although, as the Minister pointed out, emergency services are mentioned in the schedule, the principal concern is how the historic system works, as it will take up to a decade for the new system to come into play. Will the Minister respond to the latest representations, so that we can agree a way forward?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I completely understand my noble friend’s issue and, as I have said, we are very happy to have a meeting to look at what can be done in the existing system. We know what is going on with the proposed system, but I understand the issues and we will meet further on this with the emergency services.

Turning to Amendments 331 and 346, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh for tabling these amendments. I agree that ensuring that development is accompanied by the timely provision of the right infrastructure is important to local communities where development is taking place. However, requiring a full payment of the levy up front would impact the viability of development and result in fewer homes, and therefore fewer affordable homes, being delivered. Large developments can be built out over periods of a decade or more, and it is not necessary for all mitigating infrastructure to be delivered in the early stages of that development.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

The viability of development, particularly larger schemes, does not put the developer’s position at risk. The increased costs of—in this case—the infrastructure levy come out of the value of the land: in other words, the landowner, who, at the stroke of a pen in a local authority, has seen their agricultural field, for want of an example, rise from £4,000 or £5,000 an acre to £750,000 an acre. That is where the loss of value will occur—in the simple viability of a large development.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. As I said, large developments can take a decade or more to build out and we do not want to build infrastructure, only for it to stand idle for a long time. This would increase costs for developers, reducing the amount of money that can therefore be put towards other infrastructure and affordable housing, without generating additional benefits for the communities. I agree that infrastructure must be delivered in a timely way, but that means neither too early nor too late. I will turn in a moment to the powers in the Bill that will allow this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

First, I am very grateful for the very lengthy reply the Minister has given us. I listened very carefully to all she said, but could she confirm that the new system, which she referred to as a “long-curve transformation programme”, will actually end up building more affordable homes? That seems to me to be a central requirement of the infrastructure levy. I seek her confirmation that the outcome of all she has just said will be that more affordable homes will be built in this country.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What we have said is that this will deliver no fewer affordable homes. Of course, the number and type of affordable homes that are built will be a local decision. If local authorities want more homes—I suggest that we need more homes in this country—we should be able to deliver more homes.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the Minister from our side for the very detailed response she gave to all the contributions that have been made. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we have a further group on this, so I am sure we will debate it further in the course of that group. The combination of the lack of clarity around what the new infrastructure levy is going to deliver in affordable housing and the removal of housing targets looks like a terrible contribution. I know the Minister said that this would not mean fewer affordable homes, but the number that have been built in the last few years is woeful. We want that to improve; we want to get more affordable housing out of this. I know we will discuss this again in a subsequent group, but it is really important. I hope we can get some clarification in that group about how this new infrastructure levy system is going to help us deliver the affordable homes that we all know we need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is about not just the new infrastructure levy but the whole Bill. We know that where local authorities have local plans, they build more houses. The Bill is there to enable and encourage local authorities to have local plans. It is the combination of all these things within the Bill that should deliver more houses.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Well, my Lords, time certainly flies when you are talking about local government. I pay tribute to the stamina of the many people here who have a background in local government. I also congratulate them because I think this is the first time I have heard a debate on local government where about five people have not popped up, one after the other, and stated that they are a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. Eureka—we seem to have got away from that. I do not know whether the Minister is grateful to the Government Whips’ Office for putting such a compact group of amendments together; maybe it is an efficient way of dealing with this. I pay tribute to her for her stamina, for being on her feet for nearly 50 minutes and for being as detailed as she has been. I think all of us genuinely appreciate that. She deserves lunch really quite soon.

I thank the noble Lords who spoke specifically about my Amendment 290. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to go into detail on any of the other amendments. What I would like to come back to is the fact that I think all of us who are concerned about the level of provision of childcare services would really appreciate a detailed letter which very explicitly says what is covered, what is completely clear and what may be slightly less clear. We are in a situation where it simply is not working at the moment.

If we are going to get value from the Chancellor’s huge expansion in free childcare services, we have to be sure that we have enough places to put the children in, in the right places. We also need to be completely clear that we need both capital funding, where it is required to ensure that we have new childcare facilities, and funding to actually make it possible for them to be run. Part of that is about ensuring that the fees charged cover the costs and, in most cases, leave a degree of profitability for those services—most of which are private —otherwise they will continue to go out of business. We would be most grateful if we could have a really detailed response on that.

I am sure other noble Lords will follow up on their amendments as well. Again, I thank the Minister for the length and thoroughness of her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leasehold Enfranchisement

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interests as set out in the register and the fact that I am a leaseholder.

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

My Lords, we are committed to making enfranchisement simpler and cheaper for leaseholders. We will abolish marriage value, cap the treatment of ground rents in the enfranchisement calculation and prescribe rates to be used, saving some leaseholders thousands of pounds. An online calculator will also be introduced to make it simpler for leaseholders to find out how much it will cost them to enfranchise. We are due to bring forward further leaseholder reforms later in this Parliament.

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

My Lords, there is a specific problem with any lease extension granted in blocks of flats after 14 February 2022, as they are not protected by the Building Safety Act 2022. When will that be put right? Secondly, the Minister will have seen the interview her predecessor—the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh—gave to the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership on 14 April, which raised grave doubts about the promised leasehold reform Bill being in the King’s Speech. Does she understand the concern and worry that has caused leaseholders, and will she bring those worries and concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend—or, rather, the noble Lord opposite; the number of times he brings this Question means I think of him as a friend —is quite right that, if you are a qualifying leaseholder and extend or vary your lease, you may surrender your existing lease and be granted a new lease. As the new lease will not have been granted before 14 February 2022, the statutory leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act will not apply. We are looking to legislate to resolve this issue as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, before seeking a new extended or varied lease, leaseholders should seek legal advice and seek to come to agreements with landlords to apply the same protections as contractual terms.

I am very sorry, but I did not answer the second question. He asked whether I would bring the letter to leaseholders from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to the attention of the Secretary of State. I have already done so.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Answer which my noble friend has just given to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will the protection to which my noble friend has just referred be retrospective so those leaseholders who extended their leases after February last year will get the protection she referred to?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As I say, we are looking at how we can protect it. On whether it is retrospective or not, I will have to write to my noble friend.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that the general tenor of the Answer she has given this afternoon is enormously welcome and a demonstration of the statements made in the last 12 months that our Government believe in not only modernising leasehold but the whole structure of the housing market in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question—or statement, I think. Yes, we have made it very clear all along, in answering every question that I have been asked at this Dispatch Box, that we are going to bring forward further leasehold reform and it will be in this Parliament.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, my recent experience of helping leaseholders in a retirement block near me leads me to ask: does the Minister accept that going to the final arbiter of leasehold disputes, which is the First- tier Tribunal, is a long, off-putting, expensive, complex process? Can she reassure us that, when the renters reform Bill finally arrives, it will address this unsatisfactory service which, I can bear testimony to, really is a serious detriment to leaseholders seeking fair treatment?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Certainly, we will be looking at the First-tier Tribunal issue, as we will be looking at all issues, when we get to the leaseholders Bill and the private renters reform Bill.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, when this new legislation gets published, can the Minister ensure that the exemptions on certain pretty ordinary houses on the Isles of Scilly, which the Duchy of Cornwall has opposed for so many years, will be included and they will be able to buy their leases like everybody else? I would have mentioned it to His Majesty this morning, but my train was late.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am afraid I cannot tell him whether the few cottages on the Isles of Scilly that he refers to will be covered, but I am sure he will ask further questions during the passage of that Bill.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, over 20 years ago we introduced the law of commonhold, and I think I contributed to a textbook on the subject as a junior barrister. In the years since, I think only about 20 commonholds have been established. I know the Law Commission looked at this a couple of years ago, and commonhold is designed to be a better alternative to leasehold without the complications. Can the Minister explain what is happening to update commonhold and to encourage the adoption of it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Earl brings up a very interesting point. Commonhold, as he knows, allows home owners to own the freehold of a unit, such as a flat, within buildings and it is commonplace in places such as Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. Unlike leasehold, commonhold does not run out, there is no third-party landlord and owners are in control of the costs and decisions affecting the management of their buildings. Commonhold was introduced in this country in 2002, but for some reason it has not taken off and, as the noble Earl says, there are currently fewer than 20 commonhold developments. In 2020, the Law Commission recommended reforms to reinvigorate commonhold as an alternative to leasehold ownership, and the Government are looking at this and will respond in due course.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Would my noble friend agree that, with the shortage of leasehold properties and the extensive number of good landlords that there are across the country, it is important, when we have the new legislation, to ensure that not only are tenants protected—because of course, rightly, they must have protection in their own homes—but we are careful about the balance around putting too much burden on landlords to the extent that we may drive good ones out of the market? I declare my interests as set in the register.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: this is a balance. There are a lot of exceptionally good landlords in this country, but there are a few that are not good—in fact, you could probably call them rogue. It is important that whatever legislation we put through gets that balance right, protecting tenants and good landlords but ensuring that we get rid of those rogue landlords.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise the distress and anxiety caused to leaseholders and, indeed, the degree of uncertainty that still exists? Could she explain to us why the opportunity was not taken in the levelling-up Bill to include leaseholders? They are signally not included in it, and so many other things are.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is very simple: the leasehold Bill was already in production when LURB came in. It is a very complex Bill and the issues in it need their own legislation; it will be here before the end of the Parliament.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It has been very helpful to hear the assurance that we will see leasehold reform before the end of this Parliament, but could my noble friend push to have the Bill published? It is going to be very complex, with issues around enfranchisement, the right to manage and encouraging and reinvigorating commonhold. Can we publish the Bill so that we can begin the pre-legislative scrutiny as soon as possible?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have had this question before, but I can tell my noble friend that we are trying to get the Bill here. We have a short period of time, it is a complex Bill and—I am going to be totally honest with noble Lords—it will not get here for pre-legislative scrutiny, but we will get it in shortly.

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

My Lords, can I just be absolutely clear? Are we definitely going to get this Bill in the next Session of Parliament, without a doubt?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Does the noble Lord want me to repeat it? I shall not waste time—but, yes.

Voter Authority Certificates

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the number of registered electors who have acquired Voter Authority Certificates, and (2) the effectiveness of the scheme in practice.

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

My Lords, over 89,500 applications have been received for voter authority certificates. The Government have never had a target for applications and are pleased with the initial rollout. A three-stage evaluation will begin after May’s elections, seeking to understand how the policy measures are implemented and their impact on electors and election staff. Publication of the first review is expected in November 2023, with further reviews after each of the next UK general elections.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Government estimated that around 2 million people who are on the electoral register do not have one of the forms of photo ID required this year. Around 1.6 million of those people have elections on Thursday—but the figures show that more than 1.5 million do not have the local authority certificate and will be unable to vote on Thursday, unless by any chance they have acquired another form of photo ID in the meantime. So perhaps 1.5 million people could be denied their vote. Is the spending of £180 million of taxpayers’ money over 10 years a successful investment for the Conservatives if it blocks this many people from voting?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, there are multiple reasons why voters have chosen not to apply for a voter authority certificate at this time. Not everyone will have elections in their area, for a start, and not everyone will choose to vote in a polling station. Those who vote by post or by proxy will not need voter identification and therefore have no need to apply for a VAC. While we would not seek to predict turnout on 4 May, in previous local elections over the past decade a significant proportion of votes have been cast by post. For example, in the May 2022 local elections, postal votes comprised 38% of overall turnout and proxy votes a further 1%. We also have to accept that, while we hope that every elector takes part in the democratic process, this is simply never going to be the case and many will choose not to vote. The cost of this is £2.42 per elector over a 10-year period.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the best form of voter authority certificate would be an identity card? Will she also reflect on her own remarks about postal voting? Where there has been manifest corruption in recent years, it has been not at the ballot box in the station but among postal voters.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The discussion about ID cards is a whole new question that I do not intend to go into. As for postal votes, the Elections Act 2022 contains further measures on postal votes to secure that vote.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, if I heard the Minister correctly, she said there would be a review this autumn on these local election results and another review after the next general election and so on. What is the point of a review if things will continue to go on as if nothing has happened, no matter how bad the election was in terms of voter turnout? Surely, what is required if the review shows a drop in voter turnout is not another review but an abandonment of the whole policy.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think it is an abandonment of the whole policy. We expect the Electoral Commission, as an independent regulator, to provide some analysis and some early, interim reports on the May elections some time this summer. We will learn from that and, if any changes need to be made, we will consider those changes.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Government ensure that adequate, accurate records are kept of the number of potential voters who are turned away because of inadequate documents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, my Lords; it is in legislation that local authorities will count the numbers, anonymously, of electors who are turned away and we will look at those and at all the other evidence from the electoral returning officers when we look at how this has worked.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Does my noble friend have any idea why the opposition parties should be against ensuring that the ballot is properly conducted and secure?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not, because it was the Labour Party, supported by the Liberal Democrat Party, that agreed in 2003 to Northern Ireland having a similar system. They voted for it and I cannot understand why they are not voting for it this time.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard about the review, but the review has to be meaningful, otherwise it is pointless. So, given that the Minister has previously stated that this will consider evidence from polling stations, what exactly will that evidence include, what steps have been taken to prepare for it and what guidance has been given to electoral staff?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Both the Electoral Commission and the Government have been working with electoral staff continuously since the Act came in. What will be collected at polling stations will include the numbers and the reasons why electors have been turned away, if they have, whether they returned and whether they voted later, as well as other aspects of the policy. This will just be adding to what they would normally collect in a polling station.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise for those Conservative leaflets that have been distributed in Norwich and other places, specifically telling people that they do not need ID to vote?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As a Norfolk resident, I have taken that issue forward.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there seem to be different restrictions in different local authorities before they issue ID cards? I had a message from someone who had been on the electoral roll since 1999. They were initially denied a certificate and had to go back with four different proofs of ID before the authority agreed to issue one. Is this normal practice, and will she look into it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It does not sound like normal practice. If the noble Baroness would like to give me some further details, I will look into it. I cannot discuss an individual case.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords on all sides who supported the passage of the Ballot Secrecy Act, which was given Royal Assent a few moments ago. Further to this particular Question, can I ask my noble friend to re-emphasise the fact that those people who return, having previously been refused the ballot, will be recorded as well, so that there will be a clear record not only of those who are turned away but who return?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I am happy to repeat that: those who return with voter ID will be recorded.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

That scheme was unilaterally abolished by the Liberal Party when they were in the coalition. They are the very same people who are now crying out for some decent method of identification. It is the only way to make sure that there is no impersonation in voting.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I do understand what happened in Northern Ireland in 2003. Let us get it right. Personation in polling stations is very difficult to identify and prove. By definition, it is a crime of deception. If you listen to the people of Northern Ireland, you will hear that they are more satisfied with their voting system than people in this country. We should allow our residents to be as satisfied with ours. If you look at what comes from polling, you will see that two out of three people in this country would feel more confident in the voting system if there were photo ID.

Housing: Overcrowding

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Housing Federation’s report, Overcrowding in England, published on 19 April; and, in particular, its finding that one in six children lives in ‘overcrowded conditions’.

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

The Government are committed to reducing overcrowding by increasing the supply of affordable housing and enabling councils and other social landlords to make better use of their existing homes. We are also consulting on changes to the NPPF to make clear that local authorities should give greater importance to social housing in planning decisions. The current legislative framework maintains that statutory reasonable preference requirements must ensure that social housing is prioritised for those who need it most, including for those in overcrowded housing.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply but does she accept that the National Housing Federation’s research has exposed the dire levels of the housing crisis in England? Some 2 million children are forced to live in cramped and overcrowded conditions, with no personal space—that is one in six children. Households from ethnic-minority backgrounds are three times more likely to be affected by overcrowding. There is a general recognition that the leading cause of overcrowding in England is the chronic shortage of social housing, as the Minister has I think acknowledged. Funding for social rent remains at an all-time low. The lack of any funding for regeneration has made investment in existing homes nigh impossible. Does the Minister agree with the National Housing Federation that a long-term, national plan is required to drive up the number of appropriate, affordable homes across England for families right round the country?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Obviously the Government are concerned about overcrowded houses around the country and the report that came out, but I can tell noble Lords what the Government are doing. Now, as we sit here, we have an affordable housing fund of £11.5 billion, and we are putting more priority on using that fund for houses for social rent. The £500 million local authority housing fund is also going out now, to build houses in the next two years where local authorities are under extreme pressure for social housing. As I say, for the future, we are changing the NPPF to ensure that social housing takes a higher priority when local planning authorities are looking at their local plans and prioritising houses for social rent.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is it not a fact that, over the last five years, there has been a steady decline in social housing? Against that background, will my noble friend look again at this issue and put some drive behind new towns, new cities and new garden cities? Those organisations have relieved a great deal of overcrowding in our cities throughout the United Kingdom and have provided decent housing for families to live in, for the future.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is a subject that my noble friend brings up quite often. As I have said, we will continue to look at every solution to the problem of more houses in this country.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, for me, the key issue is the lack of suitable homes for people to upsize to at a rent that they can afford. Will the Government please reconsider unfreezing the local housing allowance to help some families, especially those in the private sector, to upsize and get out of those conditions?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have no plans to do so at the moment but I will keep the noble Baroness and the House aware of any that we might have in the future.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the National Housing Federation for its excellent report highlighting this crucial issue, and to my noble friend Lady Warwick for her tireless work on housing. The level of overcrowding highlighted by the NHF is one of the strongest indicators of the woeful state of housing in this country and the shameful record of this Government, with only 6,000 social homes built last year and 2 million families on waiting lists. The recent decision to abandon housing targets has exacerbated the housing crisis and will worsen the issue of overcrowded properties. Given that planning applications in England are now at a record low, will the Minister bring forward amendments to the levelling-up Bill to put the targets back into law?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. We have had this debate on a number of occasions throughout the LUR Bill, and I am sure we will have this discussion again. We are clear that we are looking at the NPPF into the future, but it is up to local planning authorities to decide on the types of housing that they are going to put into their local plans and how many. We feel that, with the new changes in the LURB, local plans will be easier to produce and there will be more of them, delivering more housing for this country.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the research to which my noble friend referred showed that the families most likely to suffer from overcrowding are families already in the social housing sector, but they cannot move because there are no larger homes to move to and they cannot afford to rent. In the medium term, should the social housing sector not be building more, larger houses? In the short term, should housing associations and local authorities consider leasing larger homes from the private sector in order to mitigate the problems to which my noble friend referred?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. If you have anything to do with local housing, you will realise that there seem to be many more one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties than there are family homes. We recognise the challenge faced by the sector, and that is why we encourage local authorities to continue to consider innovative ways in which they can best use their stock. For example, supporting underoccupiers to transfer to other, smaller properties is one way that they can then relet family homes. Landlords are focused on providing high-quality services to all their tenants. Introducing a new requirement for local authorities to lease larger homes in the open market may also be considered a new burden, for which funding would be unlikely to be provided.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, as has already been mentioned, the report firmly states that ethnic-minority households are three times more likely to be overcrowded than white households. Have the Government taken note of that? What do they intend to do to specifically rectify the problem for ethnic minorities?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, interestingly, in December 2022, we published our report Overcrowding in South Asian Households, to provide a deeper understanding of the issues faced by those from South Asian backgrounds. The study puts Bangladeshi and Pakistani households at the centre of a piece of research, including their perceptions of their living situations and cultural drivers. This is the first time that overcrowding has been studied in that way, and our findings are used to develop culturally sensitive policies on overcrowding and housing more generally. This came from an English Housing Survey that indicated that British Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were particularly affected by overcrowding.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I know a number of families in London who are affected by significant overcrowding, and obviously one of the options for them is to leave London. Will my noble friend the Minister please talk to her colleague at the Department for Education, as there are reports that the school-places situation in London is going to be affected by the fact that families are now moving out of the capital? It might cost more money to build school places elsewhere in the country than to adopt the solution suggested by my noble friend Lord Young, which is to rent from the private sector three-bedroom and four-bedroom properties here in London.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am aware of some of those issues, some of which came from Covid and people moving out at that time. I do not know the answer to the questions that my noble friend raises on the education side, but I will ask my colleagues in the Department for Education and will write to her.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the myriad issues that arise on housing provision are very serious indeed. The solution might be expensive but it is not complicated —virtually every questioner today has pointed to the lack of supply of social housing. The stats are very simple: the availability of social housing in the last two or three decades has pretty well halved, while much more expensive, private accommodation has pretty well doubled. Can the Government just focus on this one, simply stated issue, as we desperately need a huge expansion of the level of provision of social housing?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is why, as I have already said, we are putting £11.5 billion into the affordable housing fund, more of which is going to be prioritised on social houses for rent. We are also looking at changing the National Planning Policy Framework in order to increase the importance of social housing. We are encouraging local authorities, in drawing up their local plans, to consider not just affordable housing but social housing for rent. We have just put £500 million into the local authority housing fund to help in the short term.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

For me, those are the issues at the heart of this. We have an urgent need for new housing in this country. The Government are not using the levers that the country needs to enable housebuilding to occur and to provide for the needs of our communities, rather than the needs of commercial construction and development companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Best (CB)]

I am encouraged by the tone with which these issues are being approached. As regards the placing of penalties upon those who are not getting on with the job by refusing future applications from that firm, I can see some hazards here, not least if the delay is happening in one area and the applications for further schemes are somewhere completely different. Is this new power of withholding permission for new applications because you have been so slow in building out the ones you already have to be transferred from one local authority to another, or is it confined to a local authority acting only with regard to interests within its own boundaries?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I believe it is in one local authority, but I will check that. I will let the noble Lord know and make sure that everybody else in the Committee is aware.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for yet another thorough and thoughtful answer in response to the amendments.

When I moved my amendment last week, I said that I was pleased to see that the government amendment seemed to be complementary to my amendment, and therefore it was good to hear that some new steps are coming forward as regards placing some more requirements on developers in this respect. The Minister outlined some of those, such as publishing data on developers and diversity, the proposal on slow delivery and how it results in turn-downs, and financial penalties that we would be able to impose from local government, and so on. However, it would be good to see the details of those and how they are going to be incorporated. I assume they may go into the National Planning Policy Framework, but again, to echo the point we made several times, so far we have not seen that.

I remind noble Lords that the Local Government Association has said that it did not believe that “tangible powers” had been brought forward in the Bill to enable councillors to encourage developers to build out. I hear what the Minister said about secondary applications from those builders, but local authorities need powers to deal with current applications, where the buildout is slow too, so I hope some more thought might be given to that. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the fact that builders may operate across different areas, which is a good point. However, if we take action on developers in the first instance, perhaps they will be encouraged not to go and apply elsewhere if they think that there will be action and that financial penalties will be imposed where they are too slow to build out.

I reiterate our strong support for Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. On the issue of diversification in larger developments, I take the Minister’s point that that might also apply to other developments in terms of making sure they include all types of accommodation. We have had long debates in your Lordships’ House around supported accommodation, but it can also apply to student accommodation—I have a particular passion for social housing. That is important. I also wanted to make the point that those types of accommodation being requirements, whether it is through the local planning authority or as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, would also help encourage the development of specialist builders and help us to get a wider picture across the country with specialist builders who have great experience in developing for those particular areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the viability issue, which I am sure has and will be the subject of discussions. On the Islington example she gave, those questions have arisen across the country. It is important we continue to debate that as part of the Bill, because I believe it is an opportunity to try to crack some of these issues around viability that we have been trying to wrestle with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave examples of the huge failure to build out, which means that 2.8 million permissions have been granted since 2011 but only 1.6 million homes have been built. We desperately need those homes, so we need to do whatever we can to push that forward and end the delays in the system—from land banking but also from other issues.

I come back to the issue of diversification of property. If we are not going to have a proper diversification strategy built in, we need a proper definition of affordable housing, because the current definition just does not work; that has been a theme throughout discussion of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the affordable housing definition does not work for lots of people in our communities, as we have discussed many times in this House. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

261A: Clause 105, page 137, line 29, leave out “all or any part of the land” and insert “land all or any part of which is in the local planning authority’s area at the time the current application is made”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables a local planning authority to refuse to determine an application for planning permission in certain cases where there was a previous application relating to land within the authority’s area and the development was not begun or has been carried out unreasonably slowly. The current power in the Bill would only be available if the previous application related to all or part of the same land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 267 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was music to my ears; Amendment 287 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is very similar. I have never understood why the public purse—the hard-pressed local government public purse at that—has to subsidise the development industry even for the very largest and most profitable developments. We have long spoken about a “polluter pays” principle in discussions on the environment; perhaps it is time we had a “profiter pays” principle in planning.

This issue has long been debated in local government. It is the subject of general incredulity that, at this time of financial crisis for local government, it is still allowed to continue. The Local Government Association has lobbied consistently on this point, stating in its recent response:

“We welcome the proposal to increase planning application fees, as it has for a long time been our position that there is a need for a well-resourced planning system. However, the Government should go further by allowing councils to set planning fees locally.”


I do not think it is a surprise to any noble Lords that local authority planning departments are at full stretch already. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to how they will respond to the 47 clauses in this Bill, never mind the issue of street votes—they will have plenty of work to do, that is for sure. It is an area of specialism where there are considerable shortages of professionals. In spite of a great deal of work being done to encourage young people to consider planning as a career and increase the number of routes into the profession, there remain difficulties in recruitment and retention. This is even worse in areas surrounding London, where it is almost impossible for local authorities to compete with the packages offered to planning officers in London.

This is exacerbated by the pressure of work; I know that many noble Lords in the Chamber will have sat through contentious planning application hearings, and I do not think any of us would be surprised to learn that our officers subject themselves to considerable stress. Therefore, it is only right that the industry makes a fair contribution to the cost of processing applications where it will reap substantial developer profit. This will enable local authorities to ensure that their planning teams are resourced adequately.

We also strongly support Amendment 283 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, and so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She is absolutely right that statutory consultees, often hard-pressed themselves, should be able to recover the costs from applicants. I understand that of the £50 million bill for this, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, 60% was incurred by Natural England and the Environment Agency as the two statutory consultees dealing with the greatest number of planning consultations. It was as far back as 2018 that the top five statutory consultees came together to form a working group to identify potential alternative funding mechanisms to address the increasingly critical and unsustainable position. They made recommendations to DLUHC in March 2019. This work highlighted the need for a change in primary legislation to provide a broad enabling power under which statutory planning consultees could pass on the costs incurred in providing statutory advice to applicants, either as part of the existing planning fees or as an additional separate charge.

We welcome the inclusion of a power in the LURB to enable statutory consultees to recover costs incurred in providing advice on nationally significant infrastructure projects. That alone, though, makes only a modest contribution to addressing the challenge of establishing the sustainable funding model. I believe for Natural England, approximately 70% of the statutory consultation work will continue to be reliant on grant in aid. Will the Government introduce a power that will help us? If not, the Government are, in effect, committing to rely on the Exchequer as the primary means of funding the essential role that statutory consultees play in support of the operation of the planning system.

There is also the danger that we will create an inconsistent funding model between NSIP cases and non-NSIP cases that are of a comparable size or impact, such as large-scale housing developments. That could result in the need to prioritise resources for NSIP work over non-NSIP work, create inconsistency in service levels and potentially disadvantage large housing developments, which would be the exact opposite direction to the way we want to go. I hope that the strength of my noble friend Lady Young’s amendment will be taken into account.

Consideration should also be given to other statutory agencies. We have seen similar pressures on colleagues in the National Health Service, for example, where they have to comment on planning applications. There is also pressure on the resources of county councils to respond to matters relating to highways, flood risk, education and adult and children’s care provision—to name just a few—which is required on almost every major application and some smaller applications. It is simply not right that those costs should fall on public agencies whose funding is limited. If they were adequately recompensed, their ability to respond to applications in a timely manner might be improved.

Government Amendment 285C is similar to that proposed by my noble friend Lady Young—I hope we can at least agree on that—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, this may not refer to charging for local authorities. We would want to see both local authorities and statutory consultees able to charge something like the recovery of the costs they incur in relation to the planning system.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 267 and 287 have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, respectively. I assure your Lordships that the Government understand the concerns about stretched resources in local planning authorities. However, we do not believe that enabling local planning authorities to vary fees and charges is the way to answer resourcing issues, and it does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies. Local authorities having different fees creates uncertainty and unfairness for applicants and, if set too high, could risk unintended consequences by discouraging development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

281CB: Clause 115, page 148, line 30, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Regulations may make provision specifying descriptions of planning permissions or permissions in principle that are, or are not, to be treated as development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding for the purposes of this section.”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to specify descriptions of planning permissions or permissions in principle that will count as development permissions for the purpose of a local planning authority complying with its duty to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in its area.

--- Later in debate ---

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that it makes sense to review progress and for that to be part of keeping things moving forward. However, if it is down to capacity issues, the Government really need to look at how that affects delivery of DCO consent—that is what we are talking about—and how the numbers of qualified staff and staff training can help to increase capacity so that local authorities and statutory agencies have the right people, and enough right people, to move this forward.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling Amendment 284. I shall not be commenting on any individual planning case at all. Obviously it would not be correct for me to do so.

Amendment 284 seeks to ensure that the progress of applications, in circumstances where a Section 35 direction has been made, is monitored and kept under review by the Secretary of State. I agree that developments, especially nationally significant infrastructure projects, should enter our planning system efficiently, and doing so is crucial for ensuring that local communities and businesses can express their views on the real impacts that these projects can have on them.

The NSIP consenting process has served the UK well for more than a decade for major infrastructure projects in the fields of energy, transport, water, waste and wastewater, and has allowed these projects to be consented within an average of around four years. Some of these projects enter the NSIP planning system under a Section 35 direction. This is the beginning of the planning process for some projects and offers prospective applicants certainty that they can take their projects through the NSIP consenting process. This consenting mechanism has been used successfully by 18 developers and allowed them to capitalise on the benefits that the NSIP regime offers.

Very occasionally, applications for development consent can be delayed or even withdrawn. This applies to applications that either automatically qualify as an NSIP under Part 3 of the Planning Act or are directed in through Section 35. This often occurs to allow developers time to ensure that applications entering the system are of the standard needed to efficiently and robustly undergo the scrutiny required. I acknowledge that this can translate into uncertainty for some communities, businesses and investors that have the potential to be affected by such projects.

Under Section 233(2) of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State already has the power to revoke a direction to treat a project as an NSIP, and thus no longer allow the project in question to enter the NSIP planning system through these means. The Secretary of State may consider using this power, for example, if it becomes clear that the rationale or basis on which the Section 35 direction was made has changed, so this is no longer the correct and appropriate consenting option for the project in question. I appreciate why my noble friend has raised this amendment, and I hope he will withdraw it following the reassurances I have provided.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others brought up the interesting issue of oversight. We are currently working to set this up. Minister Rowley is setting up an IMG which will look at the cross-cutting issues on projects, but he cannot get involved in the specifics on projects, in order not to prejudice, obviously, future decision-making, particularly as a Planning Minister. I will also take on board the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, brings up about the capacity within local planning authorities to deal with these very big projects. I think it is something we can feed back in and I will do so.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for a very helpful answer. Will she say something about the actual timeline for this group formally starting work? She suggested that it was going to start work in the fairly immediate future: perhaps some sort of timescale could be provided.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not have a timescale tonight, but I will talk to Minister Rowley and try to get one for the noble Lord and let him know. As I say, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment following the reassurances I have provided.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I shall start briefly with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, being keen to fly. He said at the end about Heathrow expansion, “We should get on with it”. I am not necessarily a believer that textual exegesis is the right way to approach a winding-up speech, even in your Lordships’ House, but this question of what “we” is in that sentence is at the heart of this. If it were purely a private planning application, it would mean the developer, but I do not think that is what he meant when he talked about Heathrow. He meant either “we” as a Government or “we” as a nation: we, somehow bigger than just the private sector developer, should be getting on with it, and it is that blend that is involved in nationally significant infrastructure projects, where, as I say, the Government make themselves a co-partner with private sector developers in the case both of Heathrow and the other example I gave. It is that confusion about who is responsible that I am trying to get to.

We know the Government are responsible, to some extent, with a project such as Heathrow expansion, but what are their responsibilities in relation to the consequences of it and are they actively monitoring? That is really my question. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I am sure understood that I was not in anything I said criticising the process as such or saying that there was not the need for a process that would speed large applications through the system, although it is undoubtedly the case that the speed with which the DCO process is handling applications is getting slower and slower, and everybody involved in it knows that. It may well be that the time for a refresh is coming. I do not think it is simply skills; it is also demand for additional up-front information and so forth: this is something the Built Environment Committee, which I chair, may well look at again.

I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said that he was only three-quarters in support of my amendment, as I thought he gave a 100% endorsement. I do not know what reluctance prevented him from coming out wholeheartedly, because he also put my purpose very well. Although I invited my noble friend to accept the amendment, the noble Lord recognised—as I am sure my noble friend does—that it is essentially a probing amendment to try to find out what the Government do and how they take their responsibilities for these projects forward.

I welcome my noble friend’s response, but it was slightly on the disappointing side. Of course, it is wonderful that an inter-ministerial group is being set up to look at these issues—I did not know that—but she slightly took away from the benefit of that in saying that it should not look at individual projects, which are precisely what I would like Ministers to look at. I appreciate that a Planning Minister, who may have to take planning decisions—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It will look at cross-cutting issues on projects but cannot get involved with the specifics of a project, in order not to prejudice decision-making. I did not say that it could not look at individual projects, just their specifics.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful for that but, thanks to a judgment—I cannot remember the name—in the courts a year or two ago on the Holocaust memorial, local planning authorities have been required in the past year or two to put in place rigorous separations, called Chinese walls, between those officers who work on developing councils’ own applications and those assessing them, in a way that always existed to some extent but is now very much more rigorous. If Ministers, including the Planning Minister, are understandably inhibited from getting into the details of why a project is not happening, perhaps a similar arrangement could be achieved within government; maybe someone in the Cabinet Office or wherever could take on the responsibility for getting into the weeds of projects that are not happening and either helping them to do so or cancelling them.

I am grateful to my noble friend for acknowledging that Ministers have the power to remove an NSIP designation. I would like to think that they could remove it on grounds more expansive than the one she mentioned—that it was no longer an appropriate designation—such as it simply not happening and therefore being, in practice, an irrelevant designation. She did not say that but perhaps it was implicitly encompassed in what she did say. I would like to think that any ministerial involvement now getting going, which I wholly welcome, could be structured in such a way that Ministers could get involved in the weeds.

I am very grateful for this debate. It has flushed out some issues that we would not otherwise have debated and I am grateful to my noble friend. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

285A: After Clause 122, insert the following new Clause—
“Power for appointees to vary determinations as to procedureIn paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to TCPA 1990 (powers and duties of appointed persons), in sub-paragraph (10)—(a) for “does not apply” substitute “applies”;(b) at the end insert “only for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause into Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable a planning inspector (as an appointed person) to vary the procedure of certain proceedings under section 319A of that Act.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, planning appeals are currently decided by three potential routes: written representations, hearings or public inquiries, or a combination of all three. Government Amendment 285A will enable an appointed planning inspector, rather than a case officer, as is currently the case, to change the mode of procedure for a planning appeal. The Government believe that an appointed inspector is best placed to decide the most appropriate mode of procedure for an appeal case as they will be familiar with the facts of the case and the views of all parties. The new clause will facilitate a more streamlined procedure and have a positive impact on the operational delivery, leading to more efficient and timely appeal decisions. I therefore request that the amendment is supported. 

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 285A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

285B: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Participation in certain proceedings conducted by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State(1) The Secretary of State may, to the extent not otherwise able to do so, require or permit a person who takes part in relevant proceedings conducted by the Secretary of State to do so (wholly or partly) remotely.(2) The references in subsection (1) to the Secretary of State include references to a person appointed by the Secretary of State.(3) “Relevant proceedings” means any inquiry, hearing, examination, meeting or other proceedings under an Act (whenever passed or made) which relate to planning, development or the compulsory purchase of land.(4) Relevant proceedings include, in particular—(a) any proceedings to which section 319A of TCPA 1990 applies (see subsections (7) to (10) of that section);(b) any proceedings under section 20 of, or paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;(c) any proceedings under section 21 of, or paragraph 6 of the Schedule to, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990;(d) any proceedings under section 13A of, or paragraph 4A of Schedule 1 to, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;(e) any proceedings under Part 10A or Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008;(f) an examination under Part 2 of PCPA 2004;(g) an examination under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 6 of the Planning Act 2008 (including any meetings under Chapter 4 of that Part) in relation to an application for an order granting development consent;(h) an examination under Schedule 4B to the TCPA 1990 in relation to a draft neighbourhood development order.(5) For the purposes of this section a person takes part in relevant proceedings remotely if they take part through—(a) a live telephone link,(b) a live television link, or(c) any other arrangement which does not involve the person attending the proceedings in person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause into Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Bill. The Clause confers a power on the Secretary of State to require or permit a person who takes part in certain proceedings relating to planning, development or the compulsory purchase of land to do so wholly or partly remotely. The power can be exercised by a person appointed by the Secretary of State and it is intended that the Planning Inspectorate will be appointed for this purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that debate. Short it may have been, but it was full of some interesting facts.

Amendment 288 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publicly consult on changes to the planning system to establish the impact on women’s safety. The amendment would also require local planning authorities, when determining a planning application for public development, to establish a view on how that proposed development would impact women’s safety.

The Government recognise public safety for all as a priority, and that it is critical that the planning system plays an important part in addressing that effectively in new development. The National Planning Policy Framework is already clear that a council’s planning policies and decisions should aim to create safe and inclusive places for all. It explicitly states that both planning policies and decisions should promote public safety. This is in line with the Government’s strategy on tackling violence against women and girls.

The Government have recently consulted on the proposed approach to updating the National Planning Policy Framework. The consultation acknowledges that this important issue is already addressed within national planning policy. However, it sought views on whether to place more emphasis on making sure that women, girls and other vulnerable groups feel safe in our public places including, for example, policies on lighting and street lighting. As we have heard, the consultation closed on 2 March this year. We expect to consider this subject area in the context of a wider review of the National Planning Policy Framework, to follow Royal Assent to the Bill. The Government will consult on the details of these wider changes later this year, reflecting responses to the prospective consultation.

The supporting planning practice guidance on healthy and safe communities spells out that planning provides an important opportunity to consider the security of the built environment and those who live and work in it. This specifically references Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which requires all local, joint and combined authorities to exercise their functions to do all that they

“reasonably can to prevent … crime and disorder”.