Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2022.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I have a few preliminary reminders that Mr Speaker has asked me to read out for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

Clause 184 - Pavement licences

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The temporary streamlined route for pavement licences implemented in 2020 has been successful in supporting the expansion of outdoor dining during the covid-19 pandemic and the economic recovery. To continue supporting the hospitality sector, and to encourage better use of our high streets for our communities, we are making that measure permanent.

Clause 184 inserts a new schedule that amends the Business and Planning Act 2020, making the measure permanent subject to the amendments set out within the schedule. The clause is necessary to ensure that businesses, communities and local authorities have a sustainable process going forward, which balances the interests of all and enables better use of outdoor spaces. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Schedule 17 - Pavement licences

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 199, in schedule 17, page 321, line 27, at end insert—

“(A1) In section 1 of the 2020 Act (Pavement licences), in subsection (5)(b) at end insert ‘but includes any part of a vehicular highway which is adjacent to a highway to which part 7A applies.’.”

This amendment would enable the pavement licence to include part of the carriageway, where the carriageway were adjacent to, for example, an eligible pavement. This would enable a licensing authority to grant licences which occupy part of the highway shared between space for pedestrians and vehicles.

It is a pleasure to resume debate with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We support the principle of pavement licences, along the lines of the Minister’s introduction, but we have tabled a few amendments that would enhance them. We are interested in getting some views on the amendments, to ensure that the scheme works as well as it can, taking into consideration concerns about its implementation, whether of road users, walkers, businesses or disabled people. We need to ensure that all voices are heard, and the Bill provides a good moment to do so. As the Minister said, this was a very challenging time for business, but having gone through a dreadful couple of years of collective sacrifice we should seek to grab whatever good we can get from it.

One of the issues, with the benefit of hindsight, with the Business and Planning Act 2020, which legislated for pavement licences, is that a licensed area may take up part of the pavement but not part of the carriageway unless vehicles are already restricted or excluded from it. The existing provisions therefore protect vehicular space but reduce pedestrian space, which is contrary to the aims of “Gear Change”, the vision of the Department for Transport to make England a great walking and cycling nation. If it is right to license extra space for use for commerce, I do not think that we should put a blanket limitation on the nature of the space available, and not include highways when local space could sensibly accommodate it. Again, it would be a matter for local discretion whether it was reasonable to encroach on the space used primarily by motor vehicles, not just by pedestrians.

The amendment would allow a pavement licence to use part of the carriageway adjacent to a pavement. Local authorities would then be able to decide where it was appropriate to allow use of the carriageway. We would expect them to refuse the use of busy roads, but perhaps to license space in other roads and to use road furniture creatively, just as a build-out can accommodate a bus stop, to ensure that the space is still available in its usage. The amendment would empower local authorities, which know best in this regard, to make the decision, thereby giving a bit of flexibility. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

The Government are incredibly supportive of provisions making it as easy as possible for businesses and authorities to facilitate outdoor eating and drinking through the use of the streamlined pavement licence process. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s broad support for this measure.

There are already a number of ways in which a local authority can consider the pedestrianisation of a street—for example, through traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and through a pedestrian planning order under section 249 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That includes facilitating the placement of furniture on the highway for al fresco dining. The regimes already in place to consider pedestrianisation include important processes to allow the consideration of any issues, including whether vehicular access is required at any time of the day. Pavement licences can then be granted for highways that have been considered under those processes. We have seen the success of that in practice across the country, including in Soho in London and in the Northern Quarter in Manchester, so I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I felt that there was a contradiction, however, because she started by talking about a desire to streamline the process, but it was explained essentially as a double process. Not only will there be a pavement licence process, but the local authority will then have to do the other process that she detailed in order to change the use of the space. I am not sure that that is streamlined. Nevertheless, the facility is there to do it and I think that I have made my point, so I will not labour the argument any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 17, page 322, line 7, at end insert

“, together with any profit share, the maintenance fee and the cleansing fee”

This amendment and Amendment 205 would enable the local authority to share in the additional profit accruing from a licence enabling the licensed business to trade on the highway, and to recharge to the licensee the cost of maintaining and cleansing the licensed part of the highway.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 205, in schedule 17, page 322, line 10, at end insert—

“(1C) In subsection (1A)—

(a) ‘the profit share’ is such sum as the person who applies for a pavement licence, as part of an entity employing more than 250 people, and the local authority may agree represents one half of the additional profits arising from the grant of the licence during its term, or such sum as the local authority may reasonably determine to represent that amount in default of agreement;

(b) ‘the maintenance fee’ is such sum as the person who applies for a pavement licence and the local authority may agree represents the cost of maintaining that part of the highway comprised in the licence during its term, or such sum as the local authority may reasonably determine to represent that amount in default of agreement;

(c) ‘the cleansing fee’ is such sum as the person who applies for a pavement licence and the local authority may agree represents the cost of sweeping and cleansing that part of the highway comprised in the licence during its term, or such sum as the local authority may reasonably determine to represent that amount in default of agreement.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 204.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

A highway is part of the public realm. Every publicly maintainable highway is, under section 263 of the Highways Act 1980, vested in the highway authority. Pavement licences and the granting of public space to be used by private business must therefore strike the balance between commerce and the community.

Let us consider a very foreseeable example. Let us suppose that a large, national chain of pubs with an extensive frontage on a street—perhaps a pedestrianised street—seeks a licence for the use of that street for seats and tables. That, in and of itself, is a good thing. I love a decent pub garden. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich always complains that I make him stand outside. I hate being inside in a pub; I like being outside, and I suspect that there are a significant number of like-minded people who may wish to vote with their feet, so it is good that we are offering this facility. However, we should understand that it may well be a highly lucrative endeavour for the business. The business increases its capacity to trade, particularly in summer. We know that some of the very big chains can increase turnover by significant sums in this way.

At the moment, the local authority can charge a fee for the pavement licence. This Bill amends the fee from £100 per application under the 2020 Act to £500 for a new application and £350 thereafter for repeat applications. We say that this is a step in the right direction, but it is not likely to do much more than meet some of the administrative, monitoring and enforcement costs. Of course the public, under this process, lose their right of access to the area and, unless they are customers of the licensee, they do not gain any benefit from it, but, as I said, the licensee can derive significant benefit, so we have to try to find a balance, which is what I am seeking to do in amendments 204 and 205.

We know that things are tough enough, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses—often the local independents that populate much of our high streets—so I have removed them from this proposal by using the 250-staff threshold that the Government used with regard to calories on menus. I think that that is where I divined that they draw the line for small and medium-sized businesses. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she felt that that was not the case, because I am seeking to target the proposal particularly on larger companies, which perhaps can afford to pay a bit more.

It is incumbent on us to drive a hard bargain for our constituents and for a fair deal for this use of space, because the local authority will retain its obligation to cleanse, drain and maintain the street. Indeed, with more outside activity, the need for that could grow. It is important that those costs are reflected. Even when the licence is granted, the authority does not just offload its duties and obligations in this respect. Therefore these amendments would secure for the local authority a share in profits arising.

It is probably important to say at this point that these are probing amendments. There might be a different mechanism by which we could secure this outcome. If the Minister is minded that way, I certainly would be too, so I am interested in her views. I think that, in this process, a balance has to be found between private enterprise and the public interest and I do not think that we have quite found it yet, although what is in the Bill is a welcome move in that direction. I just wonder whether we can go a little further.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is a continuing pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Mr Hollobone.

The amendment moved by the official Opposition gives us something to consider. For someone who represents an area such as Cumbria, where it is always sunny and al fresco dining can therefore happen at any time throughout the year, it is hugely significant. One of the learnings in the development of the pandemic that could have a positive ongoing legacy is the move towards dining and drinking outside, and making better use of the public realm. That is a positive thing.

Let us remember that pubs in particular have never been under more pressure than they are now. We lose many every week, with people losing their livelihood and communities the thing that holds them together. It is deeply troubling to see that happen. We should allow smaller pubs especially to gain the full benefit of anything that they can from the provisions allowing use of the pavement and parts of the highway to expand capacity and therefore increase profit.

I agree, however, that with larger employers and businesses we absolutely need to ensure shared benefit from the development for two reasons. First, we are giving local authorities more responsibilities. Planning departments—we have discussed this throughout the Bill—have an enormous role to play in ensuring that communities have genuine power. If we are devolving power to communities, we have to allow planning departments that work on behalf of those communities the resources—the scope—to be able to enforce their rules. This is an additional responsibility, so we should enable additional finance to go to the planning authorities to make sure that they can uphold the rules, protect the community and ensure that the costs to the local authority, the community and the council tax payer for highways, refuse collection and other things are borne jointly.

Secondly, many people will observe that throughout there has been a disconnect between the interests of the local authority and the business community. The proposed measure would integrate them—the fact that there is joint benefit shows that it is in the interests of the council tax payer and the business rate payer to do the same thing. Organised synergy is almost a consequence of the two amendments, which is why they are important. I hope that the Government will take them seriously.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

The thing that is most wonderful about today is that only seven minutes into the Committee’s sitting, we have found some cross-party agreement, which is on the quality and value of a good pub garden. I hope that at some point we can share a pint in one, when the Bill Committee is over.

Clearly, in my last few trips, I have been in Cumbria on those incredibly rare rainy days, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a good point that pub and hospitality businesses are under pressure. According to our most recent stats, 73% of hospitality firms have outstanding debt as a result of the pandemic, so at this point we really do not want to put additional undue pressure on businesses.

In developing the proposals to make the streamlined pavement licensing process permanent, we have worked closely with local authorities, business, leaders of the hospitality sector and the community. That is why we are increasing the fee cap from £100. We will take detailed analysis of the actual cost to create a sustainable process, which will cover the cost to local authorities of processing, monitoring and enforcing the powers, while remaining affordable and consistent for businesses around the country. Businesses have seen inflated fees reaching thousands of pounds per application under the previous process.

Local authorities maintain flexibility to set fees at any level under the fee cap, to respond to local circumstances. For example, we have seen some areas make licences completely free in order to support their local high street. At a time of rising costs, we are not seeking to impose additional charges on business, in particular given that the hospitality industry was one of the hardest hit by the pandemic. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. His point about joint benefit is a good way to characterise this—we do not envisage a situation in which business and local authorities scrap it out, but take a sharing approach, with the benefit going to local rate payers as well.

I am also grateful for the Minister’s response. She addressed well the point on cost, and we would not want local authorities and therefore rate payers to be out of pocket for the processes, so there should be cost recovery. However, I do not think she has addressed the point on the enhanced value through use of a public asset. As drafted, the amendment is not quite ready for inclusion in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the point that it makes. We will certainly return to it in due course, but for the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 200, in schedule 17, page 322, line 19, at end insert

‘(2B) In subsection (7), for “it is sent to” substitute “a receipt for the application is sent to the person who applies for a pavement licence by”.’

This amendment would cause the public consultation period to begin from the date on which the local authority sends a receipt to the applicant.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 201, in schedule 17, page 322, line 30, leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘28’.

This amendment would amend section 2 of the 2020 Act so that the consultation period for licence applications would be 28 days, rather than 14.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

Under the current provisions of the 2020 Act, the application and consultation process for a pavement licence do not adequately protect the public interest, particularly with regard to having suitable time to engage in a consultation. As it stands, the process is such that the applicant for the licence must immediately display a notice on their premises. The date of the application is the date on which it is sent to the local authority and that display is made. The local authority must then publicise the application for public comment. The public consultation period lasts seven days, starting the day after the application has been made. The Bill amends that to 14 days—that is welcome—but that is the sole change to the process. We think the process could be further improved and my amendments seek to do that.

Amendment 200 delays the date on which the application is deemed to have been made until the local authority issues a receipt. That delays the start of the clock on the public consultation period until the local authority has been able to act and do something about it. Amendment 201 builds on the increase to 14 days and instead increases the period to 28 days, therefore protecting the public with such a period of engagement. As the 2020 Act currently applies, if the local authority fails to publicise the application until a week after receipt, the public have no time to respond. That is assuming that they have not seen the site notice, and we know there is a challenge there. That cannot be right or fair for the public, and is probably reflected in the decision to move to 14 days. However, we still think that is not enough time, especially if we consider that we are often talking about the summertime. We know local authorities already have limited resources. If the appropriate officer is away or unavailable, there might be a delay to that process, when the clock is running down and the public do not know that.

That is worthy of consideration in and of itself, to ensure that the right balance is struck regarding the public interest. I am also interested in the Minister’s views on the following matter. In the 2020 Act, section 3(6) says that there may be circumstances in which the granting of a licence would have unacceptable effects on the use of a highway. That makes sense because, otherwise, why have a process? There are circumstances where the answer might be no. However, at the moment, if the local authority does not act quickly enough, the licence is granted notwithstanding those effects. There is a contradiction there. Can the Minister say whether the Government wish to draw the line at 14 days? Is it clear that there could not be a situation where what ought to be a rejected grant could, through delay, be granted anyway?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I thank the shadow Minister for his clarity on the purpose of his amendments. The pavement licence process that we are seeking to make permanent has been successful over the past few years because it provides a simpler and more streamlined process to gain the licence. We feel that the amendments would place unnecessary new administrative processes on local authorities by requiring a receipt to be sent to all applicants. They also have the potential to create a delay in the process, meaning that licences could take longer to be determined should receipts not be processed within reasonable timescales. We are, however, seeking to double the consultation and determination periods, compared with the temporary process, to ensure that communities have sufficient opportunities to comment on applications.

We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the consultation period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with those groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that process is sustainable for the long term and gives communities an opportunity to comment on applications. That is why we are setting the consultation period at 14 days—double that of the temporary process. We feel that the amendments would create a slower process than that which it replaces, adding unnecessary administrative burdens for local authorities.

The shadow Minister is correct that if the local authority does not decide within the 28 days, the licence will be deemed granted, but local authorities still hold control, as they are able to publish conditions in advance that will automatically apply to any deemed licence. That provides an additional layer of protection, so I kindly ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for that last point on protection, which addresses the issue. Where there is a difference is that the Minister characterises this as a possible delay in the process. I would say that that is the whole purpose. Our interest is in ensuring that the public get the full time to have their say. It is welcome that there has been consultation with groups who take an interest in this matter. I would be slightly surprised if the consensus among them was that less time is better, or that the weird period where the application has started and they just do not know about it is a desirable use of the first two or three days of the 14, but I might have to test that with them outside the Committee. However, that is probably a point to return to in due course, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 17, page 322, line 31, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—

“7 (1) Section 3 of the 2020 Act (determination) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (8) insert—

‘(8A) A local authority, in deciding whether to grant a pavement licence under subsection (3), shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the free flow of pedestrians and other road users along the highway, and the avoidance of inconvenience to such persons.’.”

This amendment would confer discretion on a local authority to have regard to the needs of road users in deciding whether to grant a pavement licence.

As I said in the previous debate, under the 2020 Act the local authority can refuse to grant licences that prevent traffic from passing along the highway or that inhibit the passage of, say, mobility scooters. However, the Act is not clear—I want to test the Minister’s views on this—about whether a local authority can refuse a licence that inhibits or unduly influences the free flow of people or their enjoyment of the public amenity. For example, what if an authority believed that the use of the licence would substantially interfere with the free flow of pedestrians or cycles at a peak time or deprive people of the use of street facilities such as benches? If residents living nearby, or in flats above shops, would be disturbed by the use of the licence above and beyond what we would normally expect under the alcohol licensing process, would an authority be able to refuse the licence on that ground alone? The Government’s guidance states that

“1500mm clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway”,

but 1.5 metres is not a particularly generous allowance in a shopping street. Would the Minister be comfortable with a local authority seeking more than that?

The amendment proposes a solution to the examples I have listed. It proposes that an authority should be able to refuse a licence if the use of it would interfere with pedestrian flow—for example, if it would leave the pavement so narrow that pedestrians might feel they had to step into the carriageway to pass each other, which obviously is not very desirable. I am keen to test the Minister’s views on that, and to get on record the level of flexibility that local authorities have to balance the enjoyment of the amenity across various, possibly competing, interests.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I thank the shadow Minister for raising an important issue that local authorities must consider when determining applications, which is the continuing flow of pedestrians and other road users on the highway. The Business and Planning Act 2020 already requires that local authorities take that into consideration when determining applications through section 3(6), and it prevents licences from being granted where they would prevent pedestrians or other non-vehicular traffic from entering or passing along the highway or having normal access to premises adjoining the highway.

Ensuring that pavements remain accessible to everyone, including disabled people, is a condition of the temporary pavement licences issued by councils. Where that condition is not met, licences can be revoked. To provide some reassurance, we have worked with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to refine the guidance to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of people who are blind when setting conditions and making these decisions.

We have carefully considered the issue of minimum distances, which the shadow Minister raised, and we judge that we should leave some room for reasonable local discretion, given the different physical environments involved. However, we have made it clear that 1.5 metres will be the minimum acceptable width in most circumstances. We therefore resist the amendment on the basis that the existing legislative framework already requires local authorities to consider these issues, and they cannot grant a licence if pedestrians are prevented from using the highway as they usually would. I therefore kindly urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for that answer. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 202, in schedule 17, page 322, line 32, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

This amendment would allow a local authority 28 days to determine the application, instead of 14.

If this feels a bit like a replay of the debate on amendments 200 and 201, I assure colleagues that it is slightly different—they might just have to squint to see that.

At the moment, the Bill retains the stringent regime whereby a local authority must determine an application for a pavement licence within a fixed period. Formerly, that period was seven days; it will now be 14 days. If the local authority fails to do so, the application is deemed to have been granted. Labour wanted to extend the period for consultation purposes, but we have not succeeded. I want to test the point of potentially amending it to give the local authority

“28 days to determine…instead of 14”,

as it says in amendment 202.

We remember well the quick passage of legislation during the early knockings of the pandemic. As the Minister said, the industry was struggling and we needed to support it, and quick action was integral to that. The times for consultation and determination in the 2020 Act reflected that, but now that we do not have such time pressures, it is reasonable to expect a little more time for determination, not least because local authorities are hard-pressed. They will probably have only a single person, not teams of people, working on these applications.

The two-week period would not align with most applications people might make to their local authorities. For example, it would certainly not align with an alcohol licence—ordinarily, that would not be determined in 14 days, and it definitely would not be deemed to be granted if the clock had run out. Labour feels that having a little more time—28 days, rather than that two-week period—would give space for creative solutions in line with those the Minister set out in the previous debate and would ensure a fair balance between the business, the public and the local authority.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

We have worked closely with stakeholders, including groups representing disabled people, local community groups, businesses and local authorities, in considering the determination period when making the streamlined pavement licence process permanent. In working with those groups, we have sought to achieve a balance between a quick and streamlined process and ensuring that the process is sustainable for the long term and gives local authorities sufficient time to consider any issues and determine the application. That is why we are setting the determination period at 14 days—double that of the temporary process.

I refer the shadow Minister to comments I made on the previous amendment. Local authorities can publish conditions in advance, which will automatically apply to any deemed licence. However, even if a licence is granted, local communities will still be able to contact local authorities about any concerns they have, and authorities will have enforcement powers to tackle any issues raised. We deem that the period is lengthy enough, but local authorities will of course continue to have those enforcement powers should any issues arise. We fear that the amendment would create a slower process than that which it replaces. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

It absolutely would create a slower process, but that was the intention. I will not press it to a Division, but I hope the Minister will reflect on the fact that it seems considerably out of kilter with other decisions of this nature that are made for licences and permits. I cannot think of another that would be as quick as 14 days, with a deemed acceptance if the clock runs out. In those others cases—say, for a parking permit or an alcohol licence—there is good reason to have a little time for reflection, and I think those reasons probably apply here.

This is perhaps not a point to labour any further today, but I hope the Minister will keep thinking about it. We could be in danger of being just a little too streamlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 206, in schedule 17, page 323, line 5, at end insert—

“(8A) (1) Section 5 of the 2020 Act (conditions), is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) The conditions to which a licence granted by a local authority may be subject include—

(a) a condition that any furniture which may be placed on the highway under the licence must be removed from the highway at times when the premises are not open to the public;

(b) a condition that, where the furniture to be put on the relevant highway consists of seating for use by persons for the purpose of consuming food or drink, the licence-holder must ensure that smoking or vaping does not affect others.’.

(3) After subsection (8) insert—

‘(9) But regulations under subsection (8) must not prevent a local authority imposing a condition, nor affect a condition imposed by a local authority for the purposes of subsection (7A)(b).’”

This amendment would allow a local authority to require that furniture is removed from the highway when it is not in use, as well as imposing a condition to require the licensee to prevent smoke-drift affecting those in the vicinity.

Me again. Sections 5(4) to (6) of the 2020 Act cover the imposition in a licence of a “no-obstruction condition” and a “smoke-free seating condition”. These conditions require the licensee to avoid the effects specified in section 3(6), including

“preventing traffic, other than vehicular traffic, from…passing along the relevant highway”

and to make reasonable provision for seating where no smoking is permitted. The Bill does not affect these requirements, which the Opposition support. However, we might want to tighten up these provisions to ensure they have the desired effect.

Local authorities are already required to impose a smoke-free seating condition to ensure that reasonable provision is made to accommodate non-smokers. A smoke-free seating condition, however, does not give the public, people using the highway or neighbouring premises, or people living above the premises explicit protection to ensure that their enjoyment of the amenity is not affected by people smoking. Smokers are more likely to go to outdoor tables because they cannot smoke inside, and that can throw down a gauntlet, in that the public have to run through a cloud of smoke.

Amendment 206 would expressly enable local authorities not just to lay down conditions about smoke-free seating, but to require in those conditions that the licensed area should not affect passers-by, neighbouring shops or homes. If, for example, there are flats above a café, a condition could require steps to avoid the occupiers being affected by smoke drift. We are seeking a balance, so that people using a highway can do so peacefully and with the full enjoyment of the amenity. I hope the Minister will say that local authorities can already do that, but if that is not the case and if this amendment is not the right answer—though I think the principle is likely one that is shared—how do local authorities ensure that balance for people?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I thank the shadow Minister for his dedication on this point. Pavement licences may be granted subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. We are aware anecdotally of conditions that would, for instance, require licensed furniture to be removed when not in use and that go further than our national smoke-free condition.

We are all about empowering local areas and relying on local leadership. That is why we consider that local authorities have the local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions, should they consider that necessary. A number of local authorities have already implemented local smoking ban conditions for outdoor seating, including the City of Manchester, Newcastle and North Tyneside, so it is clear that local conditions can be implemented where it is appropriate and desired. On that basis, we do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions, and there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate on a local level. I would therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for that very clear answer. There are areas where this is still a point of debate. I think the Minister’s answer alone will resolve that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment 207, in schedule 17, page 324, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) If the person leaves or puts removable furniture on the relevant highway in contravention of the notice, the local authority may issue a fixed penalty notice of £500 to the person in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(4B) Subsection (4A) applies whether or not the local authority has taken the action specified in subsection (4).”

This amendment would enable local authorities to issue £500 fixed penalty notices to persons who leave or put removable furniture on a street in contravention of a notice.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 208, in schedule 17, page 324, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) It is an offence to leave or put removable furniture on the highway in contravention of a notice issued under subsection (3).

(4B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

(4C) A person may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (4A) notwithstanding whether or not the local authority has taken action against the person under subsection (4).”

This amendment would make it an offence to contravene a local authority notice requiring a person to remove furniture or to refrain from putting it on the highway.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

This is my final amendment to schedule 17. This is a really important point, and I hope to find the Minister in listening mode. The provisions in part 10 of the Bill have addressed many of the problems with the temporary regime for pavement licences and have given local authorities a bit more say and strength in this matter. That is very welcome.

However, under the temporary regime we are seeking to replace, many licensing authorities highlighted the challenge of not being able to adequately enforce the regime they are overseeing, with district councils issuing licences under the temporary regime, while enforcement powers remain with county councils under the Highways Act. A couple of the answers the Minister has given have relied on enforcement, so the enforcement point is important. For example, if a premises puts tables and chairs outside its business without a licence, the licensing authority is not the one that can take action; it needs the highways authority to do that, so it already gets a little complicated.

That can have an impact because there have been cases across the country where, seeing a change in culture—suddenly all these tables and chairs are springing out—businesses that did not know that they had to apply stuck tables and chairs out in good faith. However, they had not gone through the processes, so they have not looked at passage, particularly for disabled people, noise nuisance and possibly even customers being at risk if they have to go into the road. Again, there is a reason why there is a regime around this.

Under the current provisions, if a business breaches its licence, licensing authorities can remove the furniture and store it, require the person to pay the authority’s reasonable costs for removal and storage, and refuse to return the furniture until those reasonable costs are paid. If, within the period of three months, the person does not pay the reasonable costs or recover the furniture, the authority may dispose of it by sale or in any other way it thinks fit, and retain any proceeds of sale for any purpose it thinks fit.

For some licensing authorities, particularly bigger ones, those powers will be workable, but others have concerns about the logistical challenges involved and that those provisions will not be effective for them. For example, many councils have said that they will not have the capacity to collect or store that furniture and that removing it could place licensing or other officers in a confrontational situation with business owners and create other drama. There is therefore a case for licensing authorities to have alternative powers, which is what these amendments are designed to address.

Mr Hollobone, you, like many colleagues in this room, have done a lot of service in local government, and “works in default” is important for local authorities to be able to use. If a house is going to fall over and bring its neighbours down with it, the local authority must be able to do something about it, and those who ought to pay must be the ones liable for that final bill. However, getting that money is a real pain, and those who are inclined not to do the right thing in general will often not do the right thing in that instance. So perhaps having a slightly different tool in the armoury would help.

Amendments 207 and 208 would make it an offence to contravene a local authority notice requiring a person to remove furniture or to refrain from putting it on the highway. That would enable authorities to issue £500 fixed penalty notices to persons who leave or put removable furniture on a street in contravention of a notice.

The amendments will also offer licensing authorities an alternative approach to tackling non-compliance, by creating an offence of breaching a pavement licence or operating without one, and by giving councils the ability to issue a fixed penalty notice for those offences. Councils will then have a range of different enforcement approaches, such as seizing the furniture or issuing a notice, depending on the circumstances of each case.

I am pleased to have support on this issue from the Local Government Association, the Institute of Licensing and the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers. They support these amendments, so I think we are in the right place regarding practicalities. I hope the Government, either today or at a later stage, will also back this approach, because it would give just a little more flexibility.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

The Government recognise the importance of having a system that can be properly enforced to deter and tackle the unauthorised placement of furniture. Powers introduced in the Bill enable local authorities to serve notice requiring that businesses remove furniture that has been placed on the pavement without a licence. If that notice is contravened, local authorities can remove furniture themselves or issue an instruction to have it removed, and can then recover the costs of that and go on to sell the furniture and retain the profits.

The Government’s position is that the introduction of the powers proposed will lead to appropriate protection of our communities by giving local authorities powers that work as a deterrent and to directly tackle issues where notices are ignored, ensuring that the licensing system operates appropriately. Ultimately, local authorities will still have the power to revoke a licence.

It is also important to note that highways authorities already have powers in the Highways Act 1980 to tackle obstructions on the highway. That includes section 148, which creates an offence of depositing, without lawful authority or excuse, things that cause interruption to users of the highway.

The shadow Minister mentioned some of the groups that he has worked with, and I would be delighted to sit down with him to discuss their response. However, at this stage, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for that. It is of note that those who know of what they speak in this area, particularly on a day-to-day basis, feel the way they do. However, the Minister’s offer is a good one and I will take her up on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 185 - Historic environment records

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 185, page 190, line 2, leave out “an historic environment record” and insert

“or have access to an historic environment record and adequate specialist advisory capacity”

This amendment is intended to ensure that all current models for service provision of HERs are covered by the provisions of Clause 185 and that HERs have access to specialist archaeologists and conservation officers.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. We are making good progress. Although the provision in the legislation on historic environment records is good in itself, it simply does not go far enough. My amendment calls for specialist archaeologists and conservation officers to be engaged in the planning process to a greater degree.

Historic environment records extensively map the physically accessible historic environment and archaeological areas. However, they do not come with a voice, a brain or context. The amendment, which is supported by those who work in the field, recognises the unique importance of specialist archaeologists and conservation officers in the process and the need to draw on their skills and expertise to advance the understanding of a site, which often is missed when just looking at historic records.

Although HERs are an important starting point, it is about the interpretation of the relevance of a site and using that specialist knowledge combined with the records that makes a significant impact on the site and makes it significant. Eighty areas in England are covered by HERs; two thirds of records are held online and are accessible via local authorities. An archaeologist can interpret the HER data, bringing it to life, placing it into context and giving the site relevance, weighing the possibilities and asking the challenging questions about that site: why is it there? What is it about? How does it impact on us, past and present?

I use York as an example of the discoveries made, because there have been so many incredibly significant finds in the city that have led to further exploration and understanding of the context of our history. Ensuring that we engage specialist archaeologists and conservation officers extends the understanding of our past and the influences on us. In York there have been so many finds on the Coppergate site. People think about the Jorvik centre, but behind that is the understanding of our city as an international place of trade, and what that meant then and today for diversity in our country and where we all come from. Those issues are so important in the archaeological context, but we would not get that from an HER. That is why it is so important to extend the legislation to ensure that we have those minds and that knowledge applied to the records, to ensure that there is significance.

I think about the Richard III finding in Leicester. Had the minds not been there, that site could have so quickly been missed. Yet the discovery of Richard III has given a huge economic opportunity for that city, not least from tourism. It is important that the skills that we have educated people in, which they have applied in their science and their art, can be brought into the process. That will ensure that we have the specialist archaeological and conservation officers’ engagement with the historic environment records, which will give real value to this process and ensure that we are not just looking at a paper exercise, but using the science and arts of archaeology and conservation to ensure the value of that site and build it into the identity of the community.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central for introducing this amendment. We agree that historic environment records are an important source of information about the historic environment of any given area, especially its archaeology. I defer to the hon. Member for York Central in terms of her knowledge of the history, particularly in her area. HERs can help the public learn more about where they live and ensure that local plans and planning decisions are informed by an understanding of an area’s history. I am glad that the hon. Lady and others have broadly welcomed clause 185 and the fact that we are putting historic environment records on a statutory footing for the first time. I know that the heritage sector has warmly welcomed that as well.

I completely understand the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment. The first philosophical question we have to deal with is not whether this is a good thing in principle, but whether it is necessary to have it in primary legislation. My gentle challenge to the hon. Lady—and the reason that in a moment I will ask her to withdraw her amendment—is that I am not convinced this necessarily needs to be put forward in primary legislation in this instance, given what I am about to outline and the fact that there will be other opportunities for her to make her case and for the Government to consider what is possible.

Furthermore, though I understand the intent behind the amendment, we are concerned that the wording may potentially water down some of the statutory duties of local authorities, if it is looked at in certain ways. It may also be inconsistent with the current drafting of subsections (4) and (5), which provides for how the duty should be discharged by a local authority. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Lady, but it is something that has been raised by officials in discussion and appropriate assessment of this. Consequently, I will ask the hon. Lady if she would be minded to withdraw her amendment. She may be aware that we intend to publish accompanying guidance alongside the intention of putting HERs on a statutory footing. That will give some clearer views about how those records can be maintained. If she is willing, we will be happy to receive more detail about her concerns, and I will ask that officials give those concerns complete consideration when we are creating that guidance. I hope that some of the understandable concerns she has outlined today can be assuaged through that process. Therefore I will ask the hon. Member if she is content to withdraw her amendment.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I welcome the Minister to his place. I take the challenge straight on. First, I reiterate the point that records themselves do not have application—they are presented in the way they are but they do not have a voice, they do not have context and understanding and they certainly do not have a brain, though they are written by those who do. Of course, archaeology is about a process and a journey; it is not static, but is moving the whole time. Therefore that context is really important to engage with.

I issue a challenge back to the Minster on the matter of watering down the role of local authorities. We all have a huge responsibility to preserve our heritage, understand our history and ensure that we are using the science of that. I know that archaeologists know more about science than we do, but we draw on the opportunities that that presents, which takes us into a stronger future as well as having commercial benefits. However, I am heartened to hear that there will be guidance that looks specifically at HERs and their application. I hope that when drafting the guidance the Minister ensures that specialist archaeologist resources are drawn on, as well as that of conservation officers, so that the maximum opportunity can be derived from looking at the historical context within the planning system. I will closely examine that guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I will not detain the Committee for long. Historic environment records are, as we have just discussed, an information service that provides access to comprehensive and dynamic historic environment resources. They relate, as the hon. Member for York Central indicated, to a defined geographical area, for public benefit and use. They are important sources of information for plan makers and applicants, as well as for the public and other Government bodies. We seek to put them on a statutory basis in order to provide clarity for the sector and those who wish to use the records. The clause will make it a statutory requirement that all local authorities maintain a historic environment record, which must be kept up to date, be maintained to an agreed standard, contain specified information as a minimum, and be publicly accessible.

Clause 186 - Review of governance etc of RICS

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The clause enables the Secretary of State to commission, from time to time, reviews of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS, as many hon. Members will know, is the leading professional body for surveyors. Its members work across the UK, and RICS plays a vital role in these sectors. The guidance RICS publishes is valued by surveyors, industry and members of the public. The clause will enable reviews into RICS’s governance and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. The clause does not prescribe the frequency of reviews, but gives the Secretary of State the necessary power and flexibility to further specify the scope and timing of any review that is required.

The Government do not envisage enacting a review of RICS on a regular or specified basis, so long as RICS demonstrates its effectiveness and is reviewing its own performance to the satisfaction of Government and Parliament, but should a review be required the clause sets out that the person the Secretary of State appoints to carry out the review must be independent of both the Secretary of State and RICS. The reviewer must submit a written report setting out the results and any recommendations of the review to the Secretary of State, who will publish a copy of the report. The clause does not include powers for the Secretary of State to act on any such findings or recommendations; they would need the explicit approval of Parliament. That will ensure that the Government have the ability in law to review whether RICS is performing in the public interest, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose of the clause, but he will be aware that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has expressed deep concerns about its precise wording, not least in terms of the precedent that it would set in relation to Government interference in other royal chartered bodies.

The issue is not the need for RICS to undergo periodic reviews of its governance and performance. Following the September 2021 publication of the Levitt report into the events that took place within the institution in 2018 and 2019, and the subsequent independent review undertaken by Lord Bichard, which examined its purpose, governance and strategy, RICS’s governing council accepted that regular independent reviews should take place, with their findings laid before Parliament and the devolved nations. The case for periodic independent reviews is therefore uncontested.

From what the Minister said, I think what remains the point of contention is whether the Secretary of State should be given the power to commission reviews of RICS, the scope and frequency of which are not clearly defined in the Bill, or whether the clause should be revised to reflect the commitments made by the institution in the light of Lord Bichard’s independent review. Given the serious concerns expressed by RICS, I will probe the Minister further on the Government’s rationale for the clause’s wording. Can he set out more clearly why, given that RICS’s governing council has made it clear that it accepts recommendation 14 of Lord Bichard’s review in full and will implement it subject to Privy Council approval, the Government believe that they still need to legislate to ensure that the Secretary of State can initiate reviews of RICS whenever they choose, as well as determine their scope?

Can the Minister also outline how such periodic reviews initiated by the Secretary of State using the powers in the clause would differ, if at all, from the parameters of independent reviews as outlined in paragraph 3.22 of Lord Bichard’s review, and accepted in principle by RICS? Can he reassure the Committee that the Government have given serious consideration to the potential impact of approving this clause unamended on not only RICS’s independence and ability to act in the public interest but the status of royal chartered bodies more widely?

As I say, we have no issue with the clause in principle, and we do not suggest that it should be removed from the Bill entirely; there is clearly a need to act to ensure that RICS is subject to regular independent review. However, we want the Government to properly justify the inclusion of the clause as worded in the Bill, rather than amending it to reflect developments following the publication of Lord Bichard’s review. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions, which are entirely reasonable and on which I hope to provide some assurance. First, he asked why the Government are asking for this power, given that the Bichard review has outlined a process to resolve the current situation. The view of the Government and of previous Ministers who instigated this was that a process was likely to be under way, but equally there is value in the Secretary of State having this power, should it ever be necessary in the future, which obviously we hope it would not, and we have indicated that it would be used extremely sparingly. The principle of having the ability to instigate a review is one that the Government believe is reasonable and proportionate.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked how the terms of reference would differ from an independent review. That question would have to be asked in individual circumstances, so I hope he will accept that it is a difficult one to answer. However, I understand the sentiments behind the point he makes.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government have given serious consideration to the impact of this approach on the ability of RICS and other bodies to operate. I am happy to confirm that the Government and I will engage in discussion with RICS about this in the coming weeks before further stages of the Bill, and I will be keen to discuss with RICS all elements of the Bill, to understand its concerns and to see what reassurances I can provide.

Clause 187 - Vagrancy and begging

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

We recognise that this is an issue on which there is a great deal of passion and heart. The Government agreed that the Vagrancy Act 1824 was antiquated and not fit for purpose. That is why we committed to repeal the Act once an appropriate and modern replacement was in place. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned so passionately on this issue, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).

It is important that we balance our role in providing essential support for the most vulnerable with ensuring that the police and other agencies can protect communities, while embedding rehabilitation and support at the heart of our approach. We launched a public consultation to seek views and inform any replacement for the Vagrancy Act. This placeholder clause will allow Government to introduce appropriate legislation once the results of the public consultation have been analysed.

In the meantime, the Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament. We remain steadfastly committed to that goal. By autumn last year, rough sleeping levels were at an eight-year low, having reduced by 49% since 2017. In September we published a bold new rough sleeping strategy, backed by £2 billion of public money, which sets out how we will end rough sleeping for good. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We are extremely concerned about the implications of this clause, and the explanation just given by the Minister does not reassure me one bit. Clause 187 is a placeholder clause that allows for a substantive clause to be introduced via Government amendment at a later stage in the Bill’s passage. Its effect is to disregard the full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 that the House approved via amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

There are two fundamental problems with the clause. First, in approving section 81 of the 2022 Act, the House made it clear that it wished the Vagrancy Act to be repealed in full, so that homelessness would no longer be criminalised. It did not seek to qualify the effect of that measure by stipulating that the repeal of the 1824 Act should be delayed until replacement legislation was brought forward, which appears to be the Government’s intention in inserting this placeholder clause in the Bill. The House voted purely and simply for repeal in full.

Secondly, precisely because clause 187 is a placeholder clause, we have absolutely no idea as we debate it today what the “suitable replacement legislation” will look like. It could include positive measures that featured in the consultation that the Minister mentioned, which was launched in April, such as multi-agency outreach, but there is a clear risk that any replacement regime introduced via the powers provided for by this clause could once again criminalise people who are begging or sleeping rough. We take the view that replacement legislation is not required at all. Existing legislation—including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Fraud Act 2006—already provides the police with sufficient powers to tackle harmful types of begging, harassment, antisocial behaviour and exploitative activity. By expressly allowing for the reintroduction of criminal offences or civil penalties for conduct that is the same or similar to that under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act, clause 187 enables the effective re-criminalisation of homelessness and rough sleeping, with all the damaging and counterproductive implications that that entails.

As the Minister has recognised, the Vagrancy Act is an embarrassing remnant of Georgian England’s approach to the poor and destitute. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history in its entirety, rather than being surreptitiously restored in a modern form to enable the criminalisation of rough sleeping or passive begging. As I said, the House made its views on this matter clear during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, but if the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue, she need only look at the long list of names of Members from her own Benches who have signed amendment 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).

We do not intend to oppose clause 187 today, but if the Government do not voluntarily withdraw it from the Bill, we will work with Members from across the House to ensure that it is removed on Report. I hope that the Minister can give some indication today that that will not be necessary, and that the Government will reconsider their position.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Likewise, I am appalled and deeply troubled by this provision. Clause 187 feels gratuitous—unnecessary. As we have heard, plenty of provisions already exist to allow the police to deal with antisocial behaviour that could be associated with rough sleeping and people who are begging. This clause feels unnecessary and counterproductive. Above all, it feels like an act of bad faith, given what the Government have committed to doing—both from the Treasury Bench in the Commons and from the Dispatch Box in the other place.

Tomorrow, we will either celebrate or mourn the 100th anniversary of the last Liberal leaving No. 10 —notwithstanding the current sleeper agent, obviously. The legislation that is brought back to life by this clause was nearly 100 years old, and out of date, back then, but even saying that is not going far enough, because if something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong no matter how old it is—whether it is 200, 100 or new, and whether it is from Georgian England, Lloyd George, or the current era. It is morally wrong to criminalise people for being homeless. It is pointless as well.

I have spent a number of nights over the years raising money for our local homelessness charity, Manna House in Kendal. We do a night sleeping rough in January up at Kendal castle. Some of the people who work with Manna House have slept rough in reality—in many cases for years. As we went through the difficulties of one night out in the open, the casual way they would speak about their experience on the street I found more chilling than the night air. It was not just the poverty, the hardship, the hunger and the cold; it was the sense of shame, the sense of not being fully human. A Crisis poll of people who are street homeless found that 56% felt that laws that criminalise them added to that sense of shame.

People who are in desperate housing need, and are on the street, need more than just a roof over their head—though they need that. They need sustained help in rebuildibng their life. Often there are addiction and other mental health issues that partner their homelessness, and may even have fuelled it. The last thing that they need is to be criminalised. There is no value to society in doing so. All that happens is that they are displaced to somewhere else. Instead, our society should be compelled to do something to meet their needs.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the Government did good work—let us give them credit—in ensuring that the majority of people who are street homeless became not street homeless in a matter of weeks. That showed what we can do if we put our minds to it. However, even considering reinstating the essential principles behind the 1824 Act, through clause 187, is morally wrong in any era. The Government should withdraw the clause immediately.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I, too, rise in disgust at the piece of legislation before us today, and I urge the Government to think again. It is an insult not only to Parliament, which strongly voted to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824 just this year, but to those incredibly vulnerable people who find themselves on our streets, for whatever reason. It is not for us to judge them; we should provide support and pathways for people out of that situation.

Yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the new Chancellor announced a new era of compassionate Conservatism. Today, we have this legislation before us, which is anything but. It is about othering people—the most vulnerable people in our society. It is about calling them out, and using despicable language to describe them: “vagabonds” and “rogues”. These people are incredibly troubled. Today, language has moved on. We recognise that people who have serious mental health problems or addictions need support. We recognise people who simply do not have the money to survive in our society. That population is growing. There are three people officially registered as on the streets in York, yet when I went out the other morning, there were 23 people sleeping rough.

This is not just about people who are sleeping rough. Many people who are living in hostel accommodation, sofa surfing, and so on find themselves begging on the street. Many people I talk to—and this is where the Government must engage with the community—simply find applying for social security too complicated. They are fed up of being rejected by the complex process of getting access to the public money to which they are entitled. They therefore turn to begging as a mechanism by which to survive, feed themselves and get through the day or night. Many people have multiple challenges pressing down on them, including financial debt and other things that they owe.

To put into legislation once again, having just repealed them, measures that criminalise people who are trying to find their pathway through life—trying to survive—is an abomination. It is completely unacceptable to criminalise those individuals. This measure is not just about civil penalties; it is about the criminalisation of the most vulnerable people. Any compassionate Government would reach out and recognise their duty, and would recognise their blame and responsibility for allowing people to fall into that state. The language used is horrific. It is a horrific piece of legislation. I urge the Government to U-turn on it, and will praise them for it if they do. It is prejudicial and insulting, and it is certainly not beign done in my name, or in the name of my hon. Friends who are signed up to the amendment, which is significant.

Although the Conservative party is desperately trying to rebrand itself, deep down the roots of prejudice seem to continue to exist. If this Government spent time with those vulnerable people across our society, and understood their pathways and stories, they would not write such appalling pieces of legislation. It is not for any of us to judge those individuals, or to place our prejudices on them. It is for us to provide support and pathways out, so that they have the future that we have been afforded, and the opportunities we have had the privilege of having. We need to enable people to have that fresh start, however many attempts it takes. We need restitution and opportunity, not blame and criminalisation of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is therefore disgraceful to see this measure before us, and I trust that the Minister will withdraw the clause.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

The hon. Lady made a very good point when she said that it is for us not to judge, but to provide support and pathways, and the Government are absolutely committed to that. I have already outlined the rough sleeping strategy, which was announced just a few weeks ago.

I want to reassure the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed—we have repeatedly been clear about this—to not criminalising anybody simply for having nowhere to live. The intent of any replacement legislation will not be to criminalise people for being homeless. I want to put that point very firmly on the record.

On our support for rough sleepers, we want to ensure that rough sleeping is ended in a way that is sustainable in the long term. That means preventing people from needing to sleep rough where possible and, where rough sleeping does occur, ensuring that those spells are rare, brief and non-recurring. We recently published our strategy, which is backed by more than £2 billion of funding over the next three years. As part of that, we announced the new £200 million single homelessness accommodation programme, which aims to provide up to 2,400 supported homes for rough sleepers by March 2025, and £500 million to provide 14,000 beds for rough sleepers and 3,000 staff to provide tailored support across England. That support is absolutely crucial in ensuring that those who are homeless can get back on their feet. The support includes helping individuals to find work, manage their finances and access mental and physical health services. We will fully enforce the landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which we believe is the most ambitious reform to homelessness legislation in decades.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

The Minister is asking us to have faith that the Government do not want to criminalise rough sleeping, but is asking us to approve a clause that will allow them to do just that. We are not debating what the Government are doing on rough sleeping; we are debating this legislation.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

That is why I made the point about the consultation we are running. We want to make sure that we get this right, which is why we sought views on this issue in a public consultation that closed in May. Analysis of those responses is ongoing and will form the backbone of our response to any new legislation. The measure is a placeholder until we can bring something forward. I recognise that it is not an ideal situation, but that is where we are.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I want to challenge the Minister on that point. If I heard her correctly, I think she said that the intention behind the clause is not to recriminalise homelessness.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

Absolutely.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Can she explain why subsection (2) allows regulations to include provision to create criminal offences, in similar ways to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which the House voted to repeal? It effectively will allow for the recriminalisation of homelessness. I think she is wrong on that point, but if she could provide further clarification, I would appreciate it.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

As I outlined, this is a placeholder, and we are analysing the consultation responses. The commitment I have given is that no criminalisation will result from the fact that someone is homeless. I want to put that point on the record incredibly strongly.

I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I have spoken to the Minister with responsibility for rough sleeping, who has committed to writing to Committee members to outline the next steps. As I say, this issue does not usually sit within my brief, but we are limited by the number of Ministers we can have in Committee today. Hopefully, that Minister will be able to provide additional reassurance.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

This measure was not brought forward in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, so we have had a period in which the Government have not had the opportunity to criminalise people for being homeless or begging on our streets. Nothing has changed since Parliament as a whole gave the Government a clear indication that it wanted to see off a 200-year-old piece of legislation, yet today, Government are trying to resurrect the opportunity to criminalise people.

The Minister says that there is no need for the measure, but it is hardwired into the legislation. It is the text of the statute, not what the Minister says, that decides what the Government have the capacity to do. The clause is completely unnecessary, yet the Government push it before us. Will the Minister explain the context of having such measures written into the Bill? We have not had them for the past six months; indeed, she says, while still analysing her consultation, that we will not need them moving forward. The measure is seen as a draconian move, and should be taken out of law.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for her passion on this issue, which is prevalent in the City of York, and she has campaigned on it well and strongly in recent years. The best thing that I can do is ask the Minister with responsibility for homelessness to write to her directly. Indeed, he has committed to writing to all Committee members to set out the next step. I hope that he can provide some reassurance. However, at this stage, I ask that the clause remain part of the Bill.

Clause 188 - Data protection

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 189 to 191 stand part.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The clause stipulates that any duty or power in the Bill, or provision made under the Bill, to disclose or use information must be in accordance with data protection legislation. This is subject to an exception, which I will come to, that provides for “data protection legislation” to be interpreted in line with the definition in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a standard provision to make it clear that relevant provisions in the Bill are subject to data protection legislation. As was discussed in the debate on the planning data clauses, the Government are clear that nothing in the Bill should jeopardise the proper protection of data.

Hon. Members will note the exception from the clause: they will immediately recall that clause 77, which is part of our digital powers, will enable the open publication of prescribed planning information to anyone for free. Clause 77(2) ensures that planning authorities cannot publish planning data that is otherwise restricted in law, including under the DPA. The exclusion in clause 188 preserves that position. There is therefore no intention to allow our digital powers to operate outside the framework of data protection legislation.

Clause 189 provides that the Bill will bind the Crown, except where it amends legislation that does not bind the Crown. There are two exceptions to that: part 8 does not apply to the Crown in relation to land that is Crown land for the purposes of part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and part 9 does not apply in relation to land belonging to His Majesty in right of his private estates.

Clause 190 is a technical provision that sets out the abbreviations used throughout the Bill in order to ensure that the abbreviations used are clear and consistent. Finally, clause 191 provides a power to make consequential provision, which includes the power to amend primary legislation to ensure that the statute book remains coherent and legally operative as a result of the provisions made in or under the Bill through regulations. It confers no power to make policy changes.

Clause 192 - Regulations

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 192, page 195, line 7, at end insert “(fa) under Part 8;”.

This amendment corrects a drafting omission by applying the negative procedure to regulations under Part 8 (unless they amend primary legislation, in which case the affirmative procedure will apply under the existing drafting of the clause).

The amendment relates to the high streets rental auctions measures in part 8 of the Bill and seeks to correct a drafting omission. Clause 192 prescribes the parliamentary process applicable to the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State. Under the existing drafting, the affirmative procedure applies to regulations made under clause 176, or where they amend primary legislation, which is the case for regulations made under clauses 152 and 160.

Clause 192 does not, however, specify that regulations made under other clauses in part 8 are subject to the negative resolution procedure, which is the drafting omission. That includes regulations made under clause 162 making provision about the rental auction process, and regulations made under clause 164 making provision for the terms of the contract for tenancy. That is the position set out in the delegated powers memorandum for the Bill, but it was not reflected in the Bill’s drafting. Government amendment 77 corrects that omission, and I commend it to the Committee.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 193 and 194 stand part.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

This series of clauses covers a number of technical matters in the Bill. Hon. Members will have noted the number of delegated powers taken by the Bill. Clause 192 deals in particular with the parliamentary procedure to be followed in making certain of those regulations. It also allows those regulations, for example, to deal with incidental or transitional matters arising from them. It is a standard provision found in legislation, and allows us to protect against unintended disruption of the legal position.

The Committee has already debated specific delegated powers in the substantive clauses. My predecessors and colleagues have already committed to consulting on various regulations to be made under powers in the Bill. That will ensure that the public and sector stakeholders are brought into the detailed design of the new policies that the Bill will introduce. The delegated powers memorandum published alongside the Bill sets out the Government’s view on the necessity of the powers, and the approach to scrutiny as a result.

Clause 193 authorises the spending of money for the purposes of this Bill. It is a standard provision included in Bills that incur costs on the public purse. Hon. Members will note that clause 194 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill and whether each part of the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolution position has been debated in relation to each part during the discussion of that part. As a consequence, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Clause 195 - Commencement and transitional provision

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment 197, in clause 195, page 197, line 1, after “sections 107” insert

“, (Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications)”.

This amendment provides that the clause inserted by NC60 will come into force two months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 60—Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The Government and the country need to ensure that world-class sustainable infrastructure can be consented to, vitally, in a manner that can support our ambitions for economic growth. To achieve that, we must have a robust planning system that is able to accelerate infrastructure delivery and to meet the forecast demands and complexity of projects coming forward in order to attract strong investment in infrastructure. Through these changes, the planning system can continue to lead in its approach to supporting the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, which incentivises investment and makes it quicker to deliver that infrastructure.

The Government have an ambition in the national infrastructure strategy for some development consent applications entering the system from September next year to go through the process up to 50% faster from the start of pre-application to decision, but to achieve that a national infrastructure planning reform programme was established to refresh how the nationally significant infrastructure project works and to make it more effective and deliver better and faster outcomes. New clause 60, as a consequence, will amend the part of the existing NSIP process that concerns the examination of a development consent order application. Under existing legislation, the relevant Secretary of State can set an extended deadline for the examination of an application for development consent, but there is no corresponding legislative power to enable the same Secretary of State to set a shorter deadline for such an examination.

Our measure will rectify that, providing the means for the Secretary of State to set a shorter examination period for projects that meet quality standards as part of wider NSIP reform and the fast-track consenting route that we plan to put in place, as set out in the energy security strategy. The mechanisms and criteria that could trigger the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State will be set out in supporting guidance and we will commit to consulting on that in due course. I commend these measures to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have serious concerns about the potential implications of Government new clause 60, which, as the Minister has made clear, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose a shorter statutory timeframe for the examination stage of some NSIP applications.

In the policy note entitled “Improving performance of the NSIP planning process and supporting local authorities”, which was published in August to accompany the tabling of the Government new clause, the rationale cited for its introduction is specifically the need significantly to reduce the time it takes to gain consent for offshore wind projects in order to realise the commitment set out in the British energy security strategy. That objective is entirely laudable, but while we support efforts to improve the overall performance of the DCO system—a reform, after all, introduced by the last Labour Government to expedite decisions on large-scale infrastructure projects—the Government have not provided any convincing evidence that the length of the DCO examination stage is the reason why project consents can take too long to secure.

As the Minister will know, the DCO system already specifies a fixed timeframe of nine months for the planning inspectorate to make a final decision, with only six of those months being allocated to the examination stage. The Minister might have some convincing evidence that he can share with the Committee to explain why the six-month examination process is the reason why the Government believe that offshore wind projects are taking up to four years to gain consent, but we are not aware of any such evidence that has been published.

Allowing an appropriate time for a DCO examination is important not only because that enables inspectors to gather and analyse all the available evidence and the social and environmental impacts of projects properly to be interrogated, but because it is the part of the statutory process in which communities have a say over developments that are often likely to have a significant impact on their lives. If the Government want to hand themselves the power to curtail the timeframe in which that important part of the DCO process takes place, we feel strongly that they need to bring forward the evidence to justify such a measure, and they have not done so yet.

However, beyond that in-principle concern over reducing the time available for the public to engage with a detailed process, there is a further reason why we are concerned about the possible implications of the Government new clause, which is that its scope is not limited simply to offshore wind projects. Instead, the powers provided to the Secretary of State by the measure will seemingly apply to all DCO applications and any large-scale infrastructure project that meets as-yet-to-be-specified qualifying criteria.

To take a topical example, the powers could be applied to schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production, which I know is of deep concern to the new housing Minister and other Government Members. With the Government having abandoned their manifesto commitment by signalling the end of the fracking moratorium and with UK onshore oil and gas already gearing up to convince Ministers to designate fracking projects as nationally significant, the obvious concern about Government new clause 60 is that the Government will use it to facilitate fracking applications with only the most limited opportunity for local communities to have their say on them. That concern is made more acute by the fact that Ministers have so far failed to provide any detail on precisely how it will be determined that local consent for fracking schemes exists.

Given the serious nature of those concerns, I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. First, what evidence do the Government have that the examination phase of the DCO process is unduly holding up consent for offshore wind and other large-scale renewable energy projects? Secondly, given that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to set an unspecified date for a deadline below the current six-month timeframe for DCO examinations, can the Minister give us a sense of how much shorter the Government believe the examination stage should be under the proposed fast-tracked DCO application process? Thirdly, when will the Government tell us what the qualifying criteria will be for large-scale infrastructure projects subject to shorter examination stage timeframes via this route? Lastly, do the Government intend to designate schemes for hydraulically fractured shale gas production as “nationally significant” and bring them within the purview of this new fast-tracked DCO process—yes or no? I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to returning no doubt to this matter as we consider the Bill further.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Again, they are entirely reasonable and I will answer as many of them as I can. We recognise that this is a change to the approach, but it is a change that comes directly from a recognition, which I hope we all share, that where there is a desire to move quicker on important infrastructure for this country that we are able to do that. We have an in-principle ability to extend this process, which has been in place for a number of years, and—although I do not know the history—presumably ever since the Labour party started this process a number of years ago, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. Given that, it is not necessarily conceptually problematic that we have the ability to vary that in the other direction, while accepting the understandable challenge of ensuring that there are appropriate reassurances within the process that mean that it will be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidence base and working through all the detail and ensuring that it is reasonable and proportionate, we are trying to establish the principle that while there is already an ability to vary this timeline in one direction, we can also vary it in another direction. In that narrow sense of what we are trying to achieve, that is a reasonable thing to do. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as directly as I can. On evidence, I am happy to have a further discussion with him—either verbally or in writing, whatever his preference—going through why the Government think this is reasonable and proportionate. This is all part of a broader attempt to improve this in aggregate, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that pulling multiple levers to try to secure incremental improvements in all parts of the process is a laudable aim to pursue.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions on the length of time the stage should take and the qualifying criteria, that can be dealt with in guidance. I will ensure that the officials have heard his concerns and I hope we can deal with them at the guidance stage. In addition, because we have given a commitment to consult, there will be an opportunity for that. We have an interest in providing that information in the detail that is sought, so that the Government can consider it in appropriate detail as well.

Finally, on fracking, I have strong views on hydraulic shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, which I have put on the record many times in this place, and I will continue to share those views. At the same time, and I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are times and places to debate policies like this one, I am no longer a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am sure that there will be regular opportunities to develop this matter, but my own position is known and understood. On his specific question, hydraulic fracturing is not within the NSIP process. There was a consultation in 2018-19 in which the Government decided not to put it in the NSIP process at the time. Should that change, I would be happy to debate with him at the appropriate moment.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 195, page 197, line 1, after “sections 107” insert—

“, (Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders)”

This amendment provides that the clause in NC61 will come into force two months after the Bill is given Royal Assent.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 61—Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

A key benefit of the NSIP regime in the Planning Act 2008 is that it puts forward statutory timeframes for consideration and determination of applications concerning NSIPs, thereby providing a degree of certainty to developers and others in order to ensure a timely outcome, as we discussed in the previous debate. The outcome of a successful application is the granting of a DCO. Subsequent changes to a scheme after a DCO is granted—regardless of whether they are material or non-material changes—require consent from the relevant Secretary of State. Although there are statutory timeframes in place for the consideration and determination of DCO applications for material change, there are none currently for non-material change.

Unlike the previous amendment, which was designed to provide greater clarity in another part of the NSIP regime, we are seeking here to ensure that there is greater clarity around non-material amendments. Feedback from stakeholders has highlighted that there is an inconsistency here and a desire to rectify this and to provide certainty of outcome in respect of non-material change applications, just as there is for material change.

Consequently, amendment 198 and new clause 61 will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that relate to the decision-making process associated with non-material change applications, which will allow for the introduction of time limits in respect of non-material applications, together with the ability to extend the timescales if necessary, among other things. Alongside this, we are exploring non-legislative reforms to support the non-material change process, to see how these can achieve a reduced timescale prior to the introduction of any statutory timeframe. I commend the amendment and the new clause to the Committee.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 196 stand part.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

This group contains the two final clauses in the Bill. Clause 195 governs the commencement or coming into force of the various provisions. It enables certain provisions to commence immediately on the Bill gaining Royal Assent—for example, some devolution measures, notably clause 42, which allows proposals to establish combined county authorities to be made. That will facilitate proposals coming into effect as rapidly as possible. Other provisions commence two months after Royal Assent—for example, the levelling-up missions in part 1. The remaining provisions will come into effect on a day appointed by regulations. In all cases, clause 195 provides additional powers to make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision in the Bill. The final clause, clause 196, contains the short title for the Bill. I commend both clauses to the Committee.

New Clause 60 - Power to shorten deadline for examination of development consent order applications

New Clause 61 - Additional powers in relation to non-material changes to development consent orders

New Clause 62 - Prospects of planning permission for alternative development

New Clause 1 - Independent body to monitor levelling up missions

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

Welcome to the afternoon sitting. We now come to new clauses 2 to 7, which have already been debated. Does Rachael Maskell wish to move any of the new clauses formally?

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

We wish to bring them back later in proceedings, at which point we will press them to a Division.

New Clause 8 - Industrial support reporting

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is tabled in my name and that of hon. Friends and hon. Members right across the House. Time and again, we have heard from the many Ministers who have sat opposite us during our short time considering the Bill that the Government are committed and serious about levelling up, yet time and again, when the Opposition have suggested amendments to support and strengthen those aims, the Government have voted against them. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to new clause 8, as it will actually help the Government.

The Government have struggled to define what levelling up means and, consequently, how its success can be measured. In fact, in their own technical annex to the White Paper, when addressing how they will measure boosts in productivity, pay, jobs and living standards—especially in areas where they are lagging—the Government state that further work needs to be undertaken to refine the metric. I humbly suggest that new clause 8 does just that.

Legislating for a reporting mechanism that is linked to a revival in manufacturing will focus the efforts of this and any future Government into job and skills creation, as well as the promotion of the UK as a manufacturing powerhouse once again. For too long our economy has been reliant on the service sector, where jobs can often be low paid and insecure, especially in coastal communities such as mine—coastal communities, towns and cities that were once the manufacturing hubs of the UK.

In the last 12 years we have seen a marked increase in low rates of economic growth, leading to stagnation in productivity and living standards. That is felt most starkly in the north-east, where Hartlepool, Redcar, Cleveland, Darlington, Newcastle, South Tyneside and Sunderland have all seen significantly decreased manufacturing outputs compared with 2010. The consequence has been an over 50% decrease in apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing technologies in every single north-east local authority since 2010. Manufacturing makes up only approximately 9% of UK output, compared with 17% in the early ’90s. In other countries, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and South Korea, it is nearly as high as 25%.

The UK brand is still powerful; we have the skills and talents to be making and doing so much more. I do not have all the answers, and I know it can be difficult to create the right environment for manufacturing to thrive, but there are plenty of people smarter than me out there who have thought it through and do have the answers. What we need is a Government who are willing to listen to them, and to be held accountable for any action they take. New clause 8 would do that.

I suspect that the Minister will try to explain why the Government do not support the new clause. I suspect that she will explain that there is already provision for measuring and monitoring the missions in the Bill. However, new clause 8 goes further than that: it cuts across nearly every one of the levelling up missions but, more than that, it targets them directly at the very areas that the Bill claims it wants to level up. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on the new clause.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

It is an honour to serve under your guidance, Sir Mark. I am in full agreement with the hon. Member for South Shields, and I am pleased to be a signatory to the new clause, which gives the Government the opportunity to place real, measurable metrics at the heart of levelling up. It would ensure that we tackle some of the myths about growth, which is a word bandied around an awful lot in this place. Many of us think that so much of what the Government mean by “growth” is just consumer spending on the basis of credit and, therefore, does not really add anything long term to our economy.

The new clause gives the Government the opportunity to have measurables for this country to level up in a way that sees us restore manufacturing and skills to the heart of our economy, ensuring that we have growth that is not only real and sustainable, but distributed equally across the country. It would ensure that the Government can be held to account on whether they achieve that or not.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for raising this matter. As MPs for the north-east, we are acutely aware of the value of manufacturing. She referred to her manufacturing powerhouse, which the north-east certainly is. We want it to continue to thrive, but we also want the entire UK to thrive when it comes to manufacturing.

Manufacturing is vital to levelling up as it provides high-skilled and well-paid jobs. It is supported by the Government, including through a new £1.4 billion global Britain investment fund, with grants to encourage internationally mobile companies to invest in the UK’s critical and most innovative industries.

There are already publicly available official statistics covering matters in the new clause, such as the number of manufacturing jobs by region. We are a little concerned that the new clause would require an additional and disproportionate burden on businesses to collect data in a timely manner at a time when they are already facing unprecedented rising costs, which are particularly acute for manufacturing businesses. We therefore feel that the new clause is unnecessary at this stage.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about having real metrics at the heart of levelling up, which the Government are certainly passionate about. We want to be able to measure levelling up to show that we are successfully delivering it. That is why we are already taking steps to improve the quality of the spatial data that we have available.

My Department has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data transformation required in central Government. The unit supports the delivery of levelling up by transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and manipulate sub-national data to underpin transparent and open policy making. On that basis, I think we are reaching for the same end here. I reassure the hon. Member for South Shields that the spatial data unit will be pivotal in this matter. The Department for Education is also working to deliver a better understanding of local area skills demand and supply through its unit for future skills.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

I referred to the fact that the Government’s technical annex to the White Paper identifies an issue with measuring and understanding pay, jobs, living standards and productivity. If the Government do not want to put an extra burden on businesses, who will they ask to get this data for them? How will they do that?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

This is a matter for our excellent new spatial data unit, which is doing valiant work. It will really help us to understand the scale of the challenges, as well as the progress that we are making against the levelling-up missions. As a Government, we are determined to level up and make progress against those missions.

We are doing a lot of great work in this area and the spatial data unit really will be revolutionary in how we gather this data. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

I am not entirely convinced, so I will go away and think about it, but I will not divide the Committee on the new clause today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 12 - Duty to have regard to impacts on UK agriculture, agricultural land and domestic food production

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Statements about Bills which may impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production—

“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament is of the view that the Bill as introduced into that House contains provision which, if enacted, could have an impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.

(2) The Minister must, before Second Reading of the Bill in the House in question, make a statement under subsection (3) or (4).

(3) A statement under this subsection is a statement to the effect that in the Minister’s view the Bill will not have an adverse impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.

(4) A statement under this subsection is a statement to the effect that—

(a) the Minister is unable to make a statement under subsection (3), but

(b) His Majesty’s Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(5) A statement under this section must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister considers appropriate.”

This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to make a statement when a Bill is introduced which is likely to have an impact on UK agriculture, agricultural land or domestic food production.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. While I have no actual technical or financial interests to declare, for the sake of transparency, as we are going to talk about agriculture, I declare that my wife’s family are farmers. Conveniently and coincidentally, they are located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, who is sat next to me.

Some 90% of my constituency’s 335 square miles is agricultural land. Day in, day out, we see massive competing demands on that land, from the Agriculture Act 2020, with the environmental land management scheme and demands on farmers for rewilding and various other uses that take land out of agricultural use, to the thousands of acres of solar farm developments being brought forward, the housing demands, and state-sponsored infrastructure projects such as, in my constituency’s case, 19 miles of High Speed 2. As a result, when it comes to food security, we have seen our self-sufficiency declining over recent decades. We currently sit somewhere around 60%.

Within the national planning policy framework, there is a presumption to protect the most versatile and productive agricultural land, but I am certain that we in Buckinghamshire are not alone in seeing planning applications approved on said land, be those for housing, solar farms or other projects that I have listed. In the spirit of new clauses 12 and 13, in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), it is high time we locked into the planning system a legal requirement for planning authorities—indeed, any public authority that considers these matters—to take food security into account when determining those applications.

I think that would take us to a place that is far stronger than the current NPPF presumptions that we see being overlooked and not enforced up and down the country. It would get us to a position that is good for our farmers, where they are not losing hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of their land and can get about their business—the way they make their money—growing crops or raising cattle, sheep or other livestock. It would improve our food security at a time of global pressures, which I need not take up the Committee’s time describing, not least the appalling war in Ukraine. It would also give the countryside back its very definition—that it is there primarily for food production. It is there for farmers to work the land to produce the food that we need as a nation.

James Cartlidge (Conservative, South Suffolk)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; there will be much sympathy for his argument in South Suffolk, where his family reside on a beautiful farm. Was he reassured by suggestions in one newspaper that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at the classification of new solar? At the moment, we are using farmland that could still be productive; we should, potentially, be tightening those rules.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am reassured that the Government are moving to a place where productive farmland will not necessarily be used for solar in future. However, as it stands, we are trapped in a position where it has become very attractive for land to be taken over for solar use. We see the glossy planning consultants’ documents that show sheep grazing underneath the solar panel. That is all very well in year one, when there is still some grass underneath the glass, metal and plastic that form those solar panels, but when a field has been covered so comprehensively in those materials, the grass will not grow, and it becomes very difficult to graze a sheep underneath those panels in year two and beyond. We should call out and challenge the assumption that those planning consultants make when it comes to solar farms in particular.

New clauses 12 and 13 are not specifically about solar, housing, infrastructure or whatever; they are about taking the principles and precedent in the Environment Act 2021, which places a duty on planning authorities to take into account environmental concerns such as biodiversity gain, and extending them to include a requirement to take our nation’s food security as seriously as we take environmental concerns, energy security and national security.

This is the first time I have spoken in Committee since the new Ministers took their place, so I welcome them. I am grateful for the time they and their predecessors—and their predecessors, and their predecessors—have given to debate some of these issues with colleagues who have concerns. I will be so bold as to say that they saved the best until last. I hope that, as we head out of Committee, the Government will look towards Report and bring something back then. As I have said before in Committee, given the commitments made in the Conservative party leadership campaign over the summer, the Bill will, by definition, have to undergo some pretty mighty changes before it re-emerges on Report. We need to find a way of sending the signal to our farmers and to everyone in this country who needs the food that our farmers produce that food security is important, that we can lock it into the planning system and that we can ensure it is considered as a material concern whenever development comes forward on our agricultural land.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on bringing forward these important new clauses. I agree with an awful lot of what he said. Undoubtably, food security is something that our country has overlooked hugely in recent decades, to our great cost. By some metrics, we produce only about 55% of the food we eat. That is not just a dangerous position to be in given the global situation, but it is morally questionable. As a first-world nation, we will go out and find the food we need, and we will inflate prices on the commodities markets, which will end up increasing prices for the poorest people in the world. On that level, we have a moral requirement to make good use of the land we have to produce food to feed ourselves so that we are not literally starving other people around the world.

It is worth pointing out that 70% of England’s land and about 72% of the United Kingdom’s land is agricultural. If we are serious about tackling global carbon emissions and improving biodiversity, we have to start with those working in farming. Anyone who thinks we can improve our environment without keeping people farming to deliver those environmental policies is not living in the real world.

The other thing that makes the new clauses attractive to me is that they refer to the responsibilities not just of planning authorities, but of Ministers. When it comes to planning authorities, a requirement to look at the impact of any proposal on food production and farming may sometimes mean that we protect land and do not allow development. It may also sometimes mean that we permit development, in order to allow, for example, diversification. Some level of renewable energy on farm sites is something that farmers actively want, to help shore up their businesses. I agree that we do not want to see whole farms handed over to solar, but many farmers would like the option to use renewables for environmental reasons and to cross-subsidise and diversify their business. Also, sometimes we simply need labour in those communities, and we may need to build some houses to ensure that we have sustainable farming.

I wish that the provisions of these important new clauses were already in law, because they would stop the Government botching the transition from the common agricultural policy, which was far from perfect, to the new ELM scheme. That will see farmers lose 20% of their income by the end of this year, with very little to replace it. Fewer than 2% of the 1,000 farmers in my patch—13 of them—have signed up for the new sustainable farming incentive. The botching of the transition means that farmers will lose their income, and so far they have very little to compensate for it.

However, to botch the unbotching is almost inexcusable. In the last few weeks, the Government have signalled that they might be ready to rip up ELMS altogether, after farmers have spent two years preparing for it. We see foolishness upon foolishness, all of which puts our farmers in a desperate position. They have never been more angry with the Government of the day—and we do not have time to go into the damage being done to our farming community by trade deals. We desperately need to remember, at the heart of policy making, nationally and locally, the importance of farmers and farming to food production and the environment. If the hon. Member for Buckingham were to press the new clauses to a vote, he could count me on his side—I would vote with him.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his introduction to the new clauses and for the work he is doing on this important policy area. We absolutely accept the challenge that he puts to us. He made strong points about the importance of balancing competing demands, all of which are important in isolation and need to be thought through and integrated as best as possible, while recognising that it is sometimes not possible to do everything. The point of Government, both local and national, is to try to ensure that that balance is struck in the best possible way.

I hesitate to go too much into an agricultural discussion, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was keen to move into that space, but I acknowledge the points that have been made. It is critical that we continue to have food security in the United Kingdom, that consumers have access to good quality, healthy and sustainable food and that domestic producers have a viable business in the long run. Although I do not want to trade figures, the figures I have in front of me state that we produce about 60% of what we eat, and we produce roughly 70% to 75% of what we can produce in this country. Given the problem of dates, times and the like, I recognise that those things move around, although they seem to have been relatively static over the last 20 years. Therefore—to my hon. Friend’s point—the question is whether the planning system needs further content and signals so that it is clear that these things can be weighed up more clearly.

At the current time, things are going on elsewhere in Government, particularly around the Agriculture Act, which my hon. Friend referenced. The Act commits the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and for that production to be done in an environmentally sustainable way. Also in the Agriculture Act is a legal obligation to produce an assessment of food security once every three years. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend, although I acknowledge that he is also interested specifically in the planning element.

This might be one of the statements that I make regularly over the next few minutes or so, but I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend in more detail about the underlying intent and calls behind his new clause. However, at the current time, I ask him to withdraw it in lieu of further discussions and debate outside after our sitting.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to keep the conversation going. This is a subject, as right hon. and hon. Members can perhaps understand, that I get very passionate about. I could have a debate on agriculture for as many hours as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale could. Our farmers produce the best food in the world, and we have to find the right balance to ensure that they have the land on which to produce it. In the spirit of carrying on the conversation before the Bill reports, I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I urge the Government to keep listening and talking to protect our world-class, best-in-class British farmers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 14 - Prohibition of mandatory targets and abolition of five-year land supply rule

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).

(2) The NPPF must not contain a presumption in favour of sustainable development including where there are no relevant development plan policies, or such policies are out-of-date.

(3) The NPPF must provide for the right for persons to object to individual planning applications.

(4) The NPPF must provide that the Planning Inspectorate may only recommend that local plans not be adopted if—

(a) the consequences of that local plan would be detrimental to the objectives of such plans, and

(b) that local plan is markedly and verifiably atypical in comparison to other such plans.

(5) The NPPF must permit local planning authorities to impose bans on greenfield development in their areas, other than in exceptional circumstances, where—

(a) greenfield areas make a marked contribution to the local economy through leisure or tourism, and

(b) where sufficient brownfield land is likely to be available to meet housing needs identified in neighbourhood and local plans.

(6) The NPPF must include specific measures designed to support the creation of additional retirement homes, sheltered accommodation for the elderly and facilities for care homes.

(7) This section comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause requires a revised NPPF within six months to provide that, among other things, there should be no presumption of sustainable development.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

This should be relatively straightforward, given the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in the leadership election during the summer. I believe that she described her approach as ending the Soviet-style, top-down housing targets that exist in the United Kingdom at the moment.

New clause 14, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), gets to the nub of the matter by getting rid of mandatory targets and leaving local areas free to decide what housing development, commercial development, infrastructure and so on they need. It also gets rid of something that has been an aberration in the planning system for far too long. I have talked to local government colleagues up and down the land, and the five-year land supply rules have got in the way of many areas deciding exactly what is right for them and of their ability to be dynamic.

The new clause gets to the nub of these issues. I hope that the Government can listen and that we can move forward by adding to the Bill either this new clause or whatever the Government wish to bring forward to meet the Prime Minister’s commitments over the summer.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses and for articulating the rationale and reasoning for them. I think he and everybody else present would accept the principle that these would be significant changes, whatever people’s views about some of the important points he highlighted, such as the five-year housing land supply rules, local plans and the NPPF. The appropriate balance needs to be struck in each case, and those debates could detain the Committee for many hours, with extremely strongly held views in many places. Each of us will have—as I do and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who is not on the Committee, do—individual recollections and experiences of the implications of the NPPF, the five-year housing land supply rules and other things for their constituencies and more broadly.

I recognise and acknowledge the significant underlying element of change that is proposed in the new clauses, the significant move away from the current approach, and the balance that needs to be struck. I also acknowledge that, as part of the leadership campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a series of statements over the summer about looking again at this area and bringing forward new proposals. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be content on this occasion to emphasise the point in his speech, which was that we should either look at the new clauses or bring forward additional proposals. I hope we can bring forward proposals in due course that he will have the opportunity to comment on, so I ask him to withdraw the new clause, pending further discussions in advance of the Bill coming back at a later stage.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for those commitments. The statements made over the summer were very clear, and I look forward to working with the Government on their proposals or to put new clause 14 into the Bill on Report.

New clause 15 goes to the heart of localism and the same issue that new clause 14 talks about: the ability of local communities, rather than Whitehall, to decide. Given the commitment that the Minister made, I am equally content that we continue the conversation, which we will come back to on Report. For the time being, I am content not to press new clause 15.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 16 - Character test: determination of applications

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—Prohibition on development for prescribed persons—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England (or a prescribed description of such development).

(2) The descriptions of persons which may be prescribed include in particular persons who—

(a) have been found to be in breach of planning control on a development undertaken by them, and

(b) that breach has not been rectified.

(3) A prohibition under the regulations applies despite planning permission (or any prescribed description of planning permission) having been granted.”

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

New clause 16 is relatively straightforward. It addresses an issue that arose from talking to Conservative and other councillors up and down the country in areas where rogue development—build now and seek to apologise or get retrospective planning permission later—has caused significant issues. The new clause would give the planning authorities the ability to take into account an applicant’s character, such as whether they have previous form on rogue or illegal development, when considering any fresh applications. It is relatively straightforward and aims to give our planning authorities more ability to protect their communities from rogue development.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. New clause 37 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is, like new clause 16, a simple amendment. I will not devote too much time to making the case for it.

We all agree that it is essential that the integrity of the planning system is upheld, not only to ensure that unauthorised development cannot blight local communities, but to maintain public trust and confidence in the planning decision-making process. When considering chapter 5 of the Bill, we had a number of debates about how planning enforcement might be improved as well as better resourced. A number of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, have spoken at length about the impact that rogue developers can have on communities across the country.

New clause 37 seeks to probe the Government on a specific issue of concern. As the hon. Member for Buckingham has just made clear, at present it appears that it is entirely permissible for an individual developer to consistently breach planning control, with the only risk being that they face enforcement action in respect of that specific breach. We believe that it is right that enforcement of planning law and regulation is based on the principle of proportionality and that when it comes to cases of alleged unauthorised development, local authorities have discretion to determine how the breach can be remedied. However, we also believe there is a strong case for changing the law so that certain categories of proscribed persons, in particular those who breach planning control and make no efforts to rectify those breaches, can be prohibited from carrying out development of any kind.

New clause 37 would allow that sanction to be applied to those who persistently offend when it comes to contraventions of planning law and regulation. Its objective is the same as new clause 16, on a character test and the prior record of an applicant. Adopting new clause 37, or a version of it, would reduce the burden on local authorities that are attempting to deal with the minority of rogue developers of this kind, and would also strengthen the integrity of the system overall. I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for their new clauses. I am extremely sympathetic to some of the concerns. I agree with the hon. Member that ensuring the integrity of the planning system is paramount. We will all have examples from across the country of where development does not occur in the way that is sanctioned, or before it is sanctioned, and then an attempt is made to gain planning permission retrospectively by those who are not necessarily following either the letter or the spirit of the rules as set down. It is extremely frustrating.

By the same token, we have to tread extraordinarily carefully here. There are a set of principles, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged in their speeches—that the planning system is based on a specific application, which should be judged accordingly on its merits. It is challenging to bring forward a form of character test within those principles, although I recognise that there is an issue here that many communities up and down the land are seeing.

As those who have debated it for longer than I have will know, the Bill already includes a significant package of measures that will help tackle persistent abuses of the system. Those will speed up the enforcement process, restrict the circumstances in which an appeal can be lodged, increase fines for non-compliance and discourage intentional unauthorised developments that rely on a slow enforcement timescale. The Government acknowledge some of the concerns and are trying to find appropriate levers with which to approach them.

While offering a commitment to continue to talk about this issue, although wanting to be being clear that it is extremely difficult in terms of legislation, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member acknowledged, the Government are not minded to accept the new clauses. I therefore ask both Members not to press them.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome the commitment my hon. Friend has just made to carrying on the conversation. I accept the complexity, in a system that looks at individual cases, of bringing in a more universal test. However, there are other areas of life where people—for example, those with particular criminal records—are barred from doing certain activities—particularly where children are involved. If we could extend the principle and precedent whereby somebody who has form with rogue development—that is, turn up, build now and apologise later—which blights communities up and down the land, is barred through legislation that is practical and that does not undermine the planning system, I am up for carrying on that conversation. If not through the exact wording of this new clause, then perhaps by another means, we could find a happy solution that protects our communities from those who, I am sorry to say, continue to blight them by building out schemes that they do not have planning permission for.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that we have to tread very carefully in this area; the principles that we have all spoken about, in terms of planning system proportionality and judgment on individual applications, are important. The Minister was not on the Committee at the time, but the Opposition broadly supported the measures outlined in chapter 5 of part 3, which strengthened enforcement. I welcome his commitment to continue the discussion outside the Committee, but I hope he gives the issue some serious thought.

I accept what the Minister said about the difficulties, particularly in terms of a character test, but at the same time it does not seem beyond the talents in this Committee Room—I will put it that way—to come up with a system that proscribes certain categories of person. Even if it was a threshold of a certain number of planning breaches in the past, beyond which someone cannot bring forward applications, there must be some way of doing it. A minority of rogue developers are causing havoc for communities and lots of work for planning departments in local authorities. We think the Government should give further thought to making progress on the issue.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 17 - Community right of appeal

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause gets to the heart of a frustration for many communities, be it Maids Moreton in my constituency, Ickford or many others. Planning permission is granted—or conceivably in some places not granted—but the community is opposed to the application. Conversely, the community wants it, but it is not given permission. We know that, as it stands at the moment, there is little power for communities to challenge that, short of the judicial review process. We all know how much judicial reviews can cost and how unlikely they are, in many cases, to succeed, because they are dependent on technical legal requirements, as opposed to the wider planning law environment.

The new clause would bring in a community right of appeal. It would mean that a community that felt particularly hard done by as a result of a decision of a planning authority, rather than being forced down the route of judicial review at great—often unaffordable—expense, could lodge an appeal, just as a developer can who is not content with the way that their application has been determined. This is about fairness—about giving those on both sides of the debate the same right of appeal. It is a point of principle that I hope the Government will listen to, and I hope that they find a way of getting this measure into the Bill.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I add my support for these measures, because it is incredibly important that power be given back to people in communities. On many occasions, I have seen developers across York move into a space and determine the future of a community without engaging it, even if only in a consultative way. Occasionally, the community may be lucky enough to meet the partners cursorily, yet those developers will derive serious profit from the land. Also, what they place on the land will have huge implications for local housing prices and economic opportunities for the community, but the community is completely disregarded.

That feeds into a wider agenda around people identifying with their place. Across society, we are wrestling with that issue, and with people having a franchise in place. People are feeling more and more disconnected from their locality. It is crucial that we find a way, across communities, to rebalance people’s right to steer through a mechanism. In debate on my earlier amendments, I talked about deliberative democracy. The community should absolutely be involved in processes before they get to a certain point. It is far better to prevent an incident than to try to recover once it has happened. It is important to find a way to give people franchise over their community, particularly when we contrast the harm that could be done with the profit that developing companies and landowners will reap. This huge extraction economy, as I have been calling it, is playing off the localism that people want in their vicinity, and causing a lot of stress and tension, because while it benefit others, it causes the community harm. A community right of appeal will start to tilt the balance back towards local people, which is absolutely essential.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

This important new clause gets to the heart of a historical imbalance, injustice and inequity in the planning system. Developers, who tend to have significantly more resources than those who question or oppose a development, have the right to appeal against the local authority or national park that turned down their planning permission, and they have the resources to see that through; but what happens if a community that has opposed a development loses? It may have opposed not development, but the nature of the development proposed. In my constituency, we are very often happy with the number of houses proposed, but outraged that none of the houses is affordable to local people.

The ability to challenge a developer and a decision seems to be at the heart of democracy. To really level up, we must not just level up geographically, but level out the imbalance of power between developers, many of which have substantial resources, and local communities, who, generally speaking, do not.

The new clause is a sensible move in the direction of winning people’s consent to the planning system, so that communities do not feel that things are being done to them. If levelling up is to mean anything, and if devolution is to mean anything, the Government should surely want to embrace proposals such as this.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. At a high level, the new clause is attractive, and I am tempted by it, but for reasons that I will outline, I am afraid that we will be resisting it. I completely accept the way in which all three of my colleagues have articulated the issues. I am sure that everybody in this room has stories of cases in which, although planning applications have gone through the process, there is a general lack of consent from the community to the manner in which they went forward.

Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding my acceptance of the points that the hon. Member for York Central rightly made about the importance of franchise of place and embedding local consent in decision making, two fundamental principles mean that I am unable to accept the new clause. First, it is absolutely vital that we retain the principle that those who own land have the right to make applications, and to understand the processes that they can go through. Once that due process has been concluded, those landowners have the right to do as they wish with their land, within the established framework that the Government deem it reasonable and proportionate to apply.

Secondly—I recognise that I am speaking to people with a great interest in this area, and I am probably telling them lots of things that they already know—we would all accept that planning is a long, difficult and convoluted process at the best of times. In another part of my portfolio, I am looking at the reasons why a large proportion of local authorities do not have a local plan; a local plan is one of the processes through which discussion takes place and consent, hopefully, is given to development. That is a multi-stage, multi-consultative process in which people can put forward ideas, and in which those ideas can be tested, and then accepted or not, first in the community, and then with an additional body looking at them. Once that process has concluded, on most occasions, there is the opportunity for planning applications to be debated in principle. The community has the opportunity to get involved at that stage, and then once again in the case of reserved matters.

That is a very imperfect process, and we will all have lots of experience of it not leading to communities liking, or particularly wanting, individual applications. However, it is important to note the multi-stage nature of the process and the multiple elements of consultation in. While I understand the sentiments behind the new clause and the frustrations that have been articulated, and while I recognise that the system is very imperfect, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to consider withdrawing the new clause. As many Members know, and occasionally remark on, I am only six weeks in post, but I have spoken to a number of people who have been involved with these matters for years. I understand that this proposal has been around for many decades, and one of the reasons why it has not been taken forward is the fundamental change it would make to the planning system. I accept and understand the importance of the new clause, but we are not able to accept it.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I appreciate that the Minister was not here for earlier stages of debate on the Bill. Will he consider my suggestion about greater community engagement and involvement, and my point about ensuring deliberative democracy when sites are brought forward for use? It would be a way of trying to address the problem at source, rather than retrospectively, and it would give communities that engagement, franchise, and opportunity to determine how the community develops.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. We may have another discussion about deliberative democracy when we debate another amendment in a few minutes’ time.

I am a great advocate of local communities having as much involvement in these discussions as possible. It is a shame when councils—I experienced this in North East Derbyshire a number of years ago—do not emphasise the discussion at the appropriate point, and people do not feel as involved as they need to if they are to understand what happens later in the process. I hope that local councils take opportunities to be as broad and open in their discussions as possible. I am also a big fan of neighbourhood plans, because they give communities the opportunity to be more involved in discussion. There are parts of the system that can be used at the moment, though I respect and acknowledge the challenge of involving local communities in it. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about due process for landowners who wish to develop their land. I am not in any way, shape or form seeking to take any of that away through the new clause; it is quite right that landowners or developers should have the due process set out, and a clear path to appeal if they feel that they have not been treated fairly.

What is missing is the other side of the equation, when something materially affects a village, town or neighbourhood. Some months ago, when speaking to an amendment, I gave the example of the way flooding is dealt with in the planning process. In the village of Ickford in my constituency, every villager knew that a piece of land flooded not just a little, but a lot, but that was completely ignored throughout the planning process and when it got to the Planning Inspectorate. The community could see the problem—they knew and felt it; they had puddles lapping up to the top of their welly boots regularly—but was left with a choice of going to judicial review or nothing. That community right of appeal did not exist. They could see, feel and breathe the issues. This was the place they call home, but that knowledge could not be put into any meaningful challenge that would not cost the village £1 million.

I am happy to withdraw the new clause for the time being, but I really urge my hon. Friend to look at how we can restore fairness, so that when a place feels that the planning system has worked against it, it can lodge a good, well-thought-through challenge that that does not go into the unaffordable realms of judicial review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 18 - Start of development for planning purposes

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

There is clearly a game afoot, whereby many developers up and down the land acquire planning permission, but do not build out what they have received planning permission for. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that around a million homes that have planning permission are not being built out. New clause 18 would shut down some of the loopholes that are exploited; for example, if a trench is dug, or a single pipe is laid, or something very superficial to the development is started, that can satisfy the planning authorities that the development has started, even though not a single brick may follow, or certainly not in the timeframe the community expects.

Particularly pertinent is the ability under new clause 20 for a planning authority to revoke or modify planning permission where the development has not been built, or started. The community is expecting 10, 50, 1,000 houses or whatever, but the developer is simply playing a game, in order to increase the land value for resale later, or because they want to sit on the permission and distort property values in the a particular area, or for some other reason.

In our planning system, there should be an presumption that once a developer has been granted planning permission, they need to build the development. There will always be reasons why a development might not start immediately—force majeure or whatever—and we need to be conscious of that, but if a developer has been given planning permission, they should build or face a penalty. New clause 21 goes that little bit further: it would make council tax payable on sites that have been granted planning permission. That would give the developer a financial incentive, shall we say, to get on with the development, because if they are attracting council tax on each new home given planning permission, that will quickly rack up, certainly in many parts of the country, to many thousands of pounds per housing unit per year.

The new clauses are designed to get the planning system to work as it is meant to do. It is about ensuring that planning permission means something. When it is granted, communities that have consented to it should see the product—the homes and the commercial developments—that they want.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

These interesting new clauses highlight two issues about which I am particularly concerned—issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. They are very helpful new clauses, and I am grateful to him for tabling them. He is right that, over the past decade, roughly a million properties granted planning permission have not been built. That tells us something. When the Government consider growth and the need for new developments, they think they just need to loosen planning regulations. Well, the answer to that is that 1 million new homes have obtained planning permission but have not been built. Let us focus on making sure that those developments get delivered, rather than on reducing the regulations, because that tends to lead to the wrong sort of homes in the wrong sort of places.

Another issue affects tens of thousands—but not a million—houses. It is when developments begin but are not completed. That may be for a range of reasons, such as genuine business failure. It may also be due to a disreputable developer; we have seen plenty of those. I think of one in my constituency, a serial bankrupt, and it seems obvious to me that in their case, we are talking about a deliberate business tactic. Developments are either completely or partially abandoned. That is a waste of time and money, and it creates eyesores for communities, when the development could have provided nice, decent homes for people to live in.

Would the Government consider going further than the new clauses suggest and applying existing legislation, namely empty dwelling management orders? They allow local authorities to commandeer empty properties after a period. It should be noted, however, that the period is seven years, which is far too long, but we should be able to commandeer developments that were begun but not completed for public use and public good. I can think of one house in the Kendal Parks area of Kendal that has been uncompleted for 20 years. It is an eyesore, and damaging to the local community. It could be a decent home for someone. I can also think of a whole development in Burton-in-Kendal that has been poorly managed and has fallen out of the hands of one set of owners into those of another. The ability of local authorities to commandeer properties for the public good would be of huge benefit, not just to my community but to every Committee member’s community.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his comments, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clauses.

I accept that this is another area of policy that is difficult and challenging and that a balance needs to be struck. I completely understand the concerns that have been raised. In order not to detain the Committee, and without offering any guarantees, I would be keen to continue the conversation outside the realms of the Committee to consider and reflect on the points made by those who have spoken. I am happy to discuss that in advance of further stages of the Bill, should my hon. Friend be content to do that.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome that commitment. I stand ready to carry on the conversation; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 22 - Abolition of planning enforcement time limits in protected landscapes

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is in a similar vein to many of the others that I have tabled, although it looks at the controls for planning enforcement and essentially abolishes the time limits so that where rogue development or development carried out without planning permission takes place, especially in protected landscapes, it can no longer be timed out by a lack of enforcement action. I accept that planning enforcement is not a statutory service on local authorities, which are often overstretched. Removing the time limit would ensure that those who have done wrong by a community and developed that which they should not have, or have developed in a manner that is not commensurate with their planning permission, can still face the appropriate planning enforcement beyond the current statutory time limits.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that important landscapes are protected from breaches of planning control. We would need to consider the time limit by which that occurs, and whether an open-ended time limit is the most appropriate way. While I understand the underlying principle and point that my hon. Friend makes, there is a challenge in leaving something so completely open ended, as it could come back in many years’ or decades’ time, however unlikely that may be.

As my hon. Friend will know from sitting on this Committee longer than me, the Bill already increases the time limits for some breaches of planning control from four years to 10 years. We hope that is a positive direction of travel that demonstrates the Government’s willingness to look at this area and make changes where appropriate, but in this instance, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the clause. I am happy discuss it further—although it is very difficult to see how an open-ended timeframe can be obtained. I hope that he can see in other parts of the Bill the Government’s intent to look at that where we can and where it is proportionate to do so.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I very much welcome the Minister’s words. I accept that, with a totally open-ended time limit, the new clause is imperfect. I am happy to negotiate and find a happy medium that sets a more realistic and reasonable timeframe, so that planning enforcement does not just fall off the metaphorical cliff edge and communities are not left wanting. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 23 - Report on measures to incentivise brownfield development over greenfield development

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I want to give the Committee a change of scenery for five minutes, before I let somebody else speak. I will not develop these points; I will just add a thought that the Minister might wish to take away and consider in further conversations.

The Bill will, I hope, create numerous mechanisms and levers to incentivise local areas to bring forward brownfield sites, not least development corporations, combined authorities and the investment zones that have been the subject of much conversation. I should declare an interest, because I am the leader of a local authority and I am involved in a devolution conversation in the east midlands. At a regional level, we have been given funding to bring forward brownfield sites for development, and we are considering how we might use that funding locally to achieve this goal. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether some of the levers, funds and opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has proposed would sit better at a devolved, local level within one of the mechanisms created by the Bill, rather than in the Bill itself.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

It is a pleasure to speak to this amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. We have done some great work on it together, and I hope we can continue in that spirit. Members will know that the Government strongly encourage the use of brownfield land over greenfield, and in national policy there is an expectation that local planning policies and decisions will give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land to meet our communities’ housing needs and other identified needs.

My hon. Friend was right to highlight the cost differential that developers face. We are investing significant funding to support brownfield development, including in some of the schemes that he has mentioned. I will rattle through them one more time for the Committee’s benefit. There is the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £180 million brownfield land release fund 2, which builds on the success of the £75 million first brownfield land release fund. In addition, later this year we aim to launch the £1.5 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund, which will unlock sites around the country.

We are particularly sympathetic to this cause, which is why we are setting out a range of new measures and powers in the Bill to support brownfield development. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is right to talk about local empowerment—something that I know he is a real champion of in his other role, at local government level. We are keen that the Bill in its entirety will empower local leaders to regenerate towns and cities through a range of provisions, including new locally led and locally accountable development corporations, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and support for land assembly and regeneration through enhanced compulsory purchase powers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the infrastructure levy introduced in the Bill. It provides a framework in which, where increases in land value are higher—as is often the case with greenfield development—higher rates can be set. This mechanism would allow differential charging rates to be set by local planning authorities for different types of development, so that more could be levied on greenfield land as compared with brownfield land to incentivise development on that brownfield land.

We will also continue to work on wider planning proposals that will give the public an opportunity to shape our future national planning policy, and in relation to which the Government have committed to consult the public.

On that basis—because we are already taking such strong steps to encourage brownfield development and have a commitment to review national policy—we do not feel that the new clause is necessary, so I kindly ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it today.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I very much welcome the Minister’s commitments. She is absolutely right in outlining the various schemes to support brownfield development. I guess the thought I will leave her with is the reflection that, rightly, there is a lot of carrot in those schemes; where I do not think we have quite enough at the moment is the stick to dissuade people from greenfield development. We need to ensure a proper balance of incentivising, through grant funding or whatever it might be, development on the brownfield sites, and also something to actively dissuade developers from looking at the greenfield sites. If we can carry that conversation on through to Report, I am content to withdraw new clause 23 at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24 - Report on measures to improve the efficiency of the housing market

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is one where we genuinely have to tread extraordinarily carefully. I fully understand the scope for new clause 24 to be misinterpreted, shall we say, as trying to demand that people move, leave larger homes, or whatever it might be. There is no intention whatever—let me place this on the record—to compel or demand that someone living in a large house move out of it, or do any such thing. But I think we have to acknowledge that there is some failure in the housing market that is leading to the demand for new homes to be built, whereas perhaps a pensioner couple whose children have flown the nest, who find themselves—just the two of them—living in a five-bedroom house somewhere and who actively want to move are finding themselves trapped.

That is because of higher rates of stamp duty, certainly in parts of the south-east, where five-bedroom houses can very easily be north of £1 million, and in London, where they can be north of £3 million, £4 million or £5 million. People find themselves trapped in a situation in which the tax system just works against their being able to downsize as they wish to. That then of course has a concertina effect through the entire housing market. The family who are able to buy the larger house cannot, because there is not the supply. And that goes all the way down to the first homes: the discount market homes, the part-buy, part-rent homes or, indeed, the social rent homes. They are just not available.

The new clause does not call for anything in particular. It essentially creates a duty on the Government to review those mechanisms that are causing market failure in the housing market and that are trapping people, particularly through the stamp duty system—I am explicitly referring to the higher end of the stamp duty rates—and preventing them from doing what they wish to do with their homes. I repeat from the start that this is not about saying to people who want to stay in larger houses that they must move out—it is absolutely their right and choice to stay if they wish—but about fixing the system so that those who do wish to go up or down the housing ladder can do so without penalty. That might reduce the need to build quite as much as we are in the United Kingdom.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause. I absolutely accept his points about discussing this matter sensitively and accepting the real challenges in parts of the housing market. I understand and acknowledge that challenge, which the Department grapples with daily and as much as the state can. It is vital to have an effective housing market and for people to have good-quality properties and roofs over their heads, irrespective of tenure. Most fundamentally, we Conservatives know that expanding home ownership is vital. Although it is starting to increase again as a proportion, a gap remains between the number of people who want to buy a house and the number of people who can.

We all have our own individual stories. In North East Derbyshire, the way that properties are distributed—that sounds like a very technical word for real people’s lives—does not necessarily align in all instances with people’s needs. In one town in my constituency, a significant amount of which was built in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, lots of people who purchased properties to bring up their families are struggling to find houses—bungalows in particular—to downsize to, now that their families have flown the nest. Many Members will have similar stories.

At the same time, my hon. Friend has considered the matter closely and will acknowledge that there is a question about whether we need to legislate in this area. I humbly suggest that we do not, but I recognise the intent behind the amendment. Over the course of my time in post, I will continue to do what I can to answer some of those questions, as will the Department, so I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. To clarify, yes, we would be putting a clause into legislation, but we would not be legislating for the outcome. We would be legislating for a duty on his Department to publish a report—to properly kick the tyres, if I may put it like that—on the housing market failures that are leading to the demand for so many new housing units to be built.

Of course, I fully accept that tackling stamp duty is not within the competence of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Altering the rates to get the market moving more quickly would have to be pitched to His Majesty’s Treasury. With that in mind, I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I urge my hon. Friends the Ministers to consider this point as the Bill and the Department’s work on housing and planning move forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 25 - Report on promoting development in already developed areas

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Review of compulsory purchase powers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether the powers of compulsory purchase available to—

(a) local authorities, and

(b) the Secretary of State

are adequate to meet the objectives of this Act.

(2) In undertaking the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider—

(a) whether existing statutory time limits for compulsory purchase action are appropriate,

(b) other means of accelerating compulsory purchase action with particular reference to properties to which subsection (3) applies, and

(c) the adequacy of compulsory purchase powers in relation to properties to which subsection (3) applies.

(3) This subsection applies to—

(a) properties that have been unoccupied for a prolonged period (with reference to the vacancy condition in section 152), and

(b) buildings of local public importance such as hotels and high street properties.”

This new clause would require the Government to review powers of compulsory purchase and whether they are adequate to meet its levelling-up and regeneration objectives.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

New clauses 25 and 26 are quite important to free up for good use properties that may have fallen into disrepair or been unoccupied for a long time. I am sure that we could all name properties in our constituencies that we have canvassed for five elections running but nobody is ever behind the door. We put leaflets through the door, but the post reaches almost as high as the letterbox itself. Those are homes that I hope all Members, of whatever political persuasion, would acknowledge really should not be sat empty, but should have a family or whoever living in them. Of course, the wider public good is also served by not allowing properties to fall into disrepair and become eyesores or perhaps hotspots for disorderly behaviour, as people seek to take them over illegally.

New clause 25 does not contain specific legislative measures to deliver the outcomes we are seeking, but it creates a duty on DLUHC to report on how better to ensure that empty properties that have fallen into disrepair and are perhaps causing other public health hazards can be more easily brought back into the housing supply chain for social rent, for part rent, part buy, for discount market housing, or for whatever it might be.

New clause 26 is about ensuring that the compulsory purchase powers available to local authorities are suitable, if I may put it in those terms, to enable them not just to get those properties back into productive use and put a roof over human beings’ heads, but to ensure that local authorities that often bang their heads against a brick wall when it comes to certain compulsory purchase powers are freed up to make the right decisions for the communities they represent.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I completely agree with the sentiment behind these new clauses. We can probably all think of examples in our constituencies of the sorts of vacant properties that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, I was out in Eldon Lane with neighbourhood wardens, local police and local councillors—I think last week or the week before—looking at streets where most of the houses sit empty and can become hotbeds for antisocial behaviour and petty crime, so this is certainly something we want to tackle.

I agree with the benefits of promoting development in areas that are already developed, but I do not think that new clause 25 is necessary. We have already debated the Government’s national planning policy framework, which promotes the development of previously developed land and makes it clear that local plans should also include sufficient provision for affordable housing. I share the interest in novel ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing. The Government’s affordable housing guarantee scheme is a good example of this kind of innovation. The same is true of the proposal in the Bill to secure affordable housing contributions in future through a new streamlined mandatory and locally determined infrastructure levy.

My hon. Friend also made the case for housing associations to purchase homes that are empty or not currently fit for human habitation. I agree that this can play a valuable role in expanding the availability of affordable housing and improving the overall quality of our housing stock. Local authorities and other social housing providers can access funding to acquire empty homes on the market and bring them back into use through programmes such as the affordable homes programme and the rough sleeping accommodation programme.

Briefly, on new clause 26, I strongly share my hon. Friend’s desire to ensure that the compulsory purchase system is fit for purpose and can play its part in delivering our levelling-up agenda. My officials have worked incredibly closely with key stakeholders to review the current system and develop the package of measures in the Bill. We believe that these measures, supplemented by improved and updated guidance, will together ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to bring forward the regeneration of their high streets and town centres, and to deliver much needed housing and infrastructure. We also believe they will deliver a faster and more efficient compulsory purchase system and make compensation simpler and clearer. I have also asked the Law Commission to undertake a review and consolidation of the existing legislation on compulsory purchase and land compensation, which will begin shortly.

On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that a statutory review is not necessary and ask him to withdraw the new clause.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

On the back of those commitments, I am happy to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 27 - Deliberate damage to trees linked to development

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause goes to the heart of an issue very close to my constituents, who have seen a great number of trees damaged—largely by the Government’s HS2 project, I have to say. It happens far too frequently in rural environments, but it is equally applicable to urban ones, where trees that are unacceptably damaged, often with preservation orders on them, are often the only green for some distance around. Very straightforwardly, this new clause in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet seeks to put in place measures that will clamp down harder on those who deliberately damage trees during development.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving this new clause, and I am sympathetic to the issue that he and other Members have raised. The protection of trees and the environment is hugely important, and it is frustrating when others do not support that cause. The information I have is that the law already provides a substantial amount of leeway to seek appropriate financial redress from people who have been accused of damaging trees, should the contravention have been through the local council via a tree preservation order.

With that in mind—I may be misinterpreting my hon. Friend—I am keen to understand from my hon. Friend or his colleagues why they believe there is still a need to change the law. There is obviously a bit of a difference in views at the moment, so we should try to bottom that out. If we can find an issue to debate, I would be very happy to do so, but for the purpose of today, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I appreciate what the Minister says, but I think there is still a gap in the law. It is not as strong as it possibly could be to clamp down on deliberate—we must underline the word deliberate—damage to trees as part of development. I am mindful of the Committee’s time, so I do not think going through the detail now would please many hon. Members. I am happy to meet the Minister to go through the detail, along with other colleagues whose names are on this new clause, in the hope of finding a satisfactory result for later stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 28 - Local planning authorities to be allowed to meet virtually

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Local authority planning committee meeting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision relating to—

(a) requirements to hold local authority planning committee meetings;

(b) the times at or by which, periods within which, or frequency with which, local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;

(c) the places at which local authority planning committee meetings are to be held;

(d) the manner in which persons may attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings;

(e) public admission and access to local authority planning committee meetings;

(f) the places at which, and manner in which, documents relating to local authority planning committee meetings are to be open to inspection by, or otherwise available to, members of the public.

(2) The provision which must be made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) includes in particular provision for persons to attend, speak at, vote in, or otherwise participate in, local authority planning committee meetings without all of the persons, or without any of the persons, being together in the same place.”

This new clause would allow local authorities to hold planning committee meetings and reach planning decisions virtually or in a hybrid form.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this clause I have a very simple proposition, although I state from the outset that I absolutely hate virtual meetings. We all tolerated them throughout the pandemic, but I believe that as humans we are inherently social and meeting together is a far better way of doing things. However, I have spoken to many members of local authorities in my own constituency and in other parts of the country—as well as many town and parish councils, although they are not planning authorities—that find it extraordinarily difficult to get a quorum, or to get together in a single place all voices who want to be heard. That is especially the case in rural communities. Somebody living in the village of Dadford in my constituency would be looking at a 50-minute drive to a planning meeting in Aylesbury, and I am sure that driving times in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale are considerably longer than that.

As we go for localism, community control and a system that genuinely puts communities in charge of planning, we need a mechanism to ensure that we do not shut people out of the planning process by demanding that they travel great distances to attend meetings. That applies as much to the councillors who sit on the planning committee as to the residents or interested parties who have a right to be heard in the process. As much as I hate the virtual environment, I think that it is necessary to allow councils to meet in that way to ensure that everyone can have their voice heard.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham. I think that hate might be too strong a word, but I certainly share his preference for in-person over virtual meetings, where possible. However, there are circumstances where virtual meetings have become necessary or useful, and that is what these new clauses both seek to address for the planning system.

While there are significant points of disagreement between the Opposition and Government Benches on the question of whether the Bill, in the round, will enhance or discourage community engagement in the planning process, there none the less exists a broad consensus that that objective is a worthy one. Whatever one believes the causes to be, there is general agreement that it is a problem that, as things stand, less than 1% of people engage with the local plan-making process, only around 3% engage with individual planning applications, and—of particular concern to the Opposition—particular segments of society typically have no voice whatsoever on planning decisions that will have a huge impact on their communities and their lives.

We therefore think that reducing barriers to engagement with the planning process would be beneficial for a variety of reasons. Chief among them—this is a point that I return to again and again—is that, in some ways, we think it would address the extremely low levels of trust and confidence that the public has in the planning system as a whole.

New clause 69, which, in many ways, is similar to new clause 28 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, seeks to increase public engagement in the planning process by allowing local authorities to hold planning committee meetings virtually or in a hybrid form. That proposal is obviously not novel. We know from the experience of local authorities during the pandemic that allowing for remote participation both worked effectively and had a number of benefits, including—as the hon. Member for Buckingham said—reduced travel times for councillors and the public, and greater transparency and openness.

What attracts us to this proposal is the fact that virtual meetings facilitated an increase—in many cases a dramatic one—of resident engagement in decisions, in part because remote participation made it far easier for a broader range of people, including those with disabilities, caring responsibilities and work commitments, to take part in meetings for the first time. New clause 69 simply seeks to ensure that those benefits, particularly increased public participation in planning decisions, can be enjoyed on a permanent basis.

However, it is important to say that it does not seek to do so prescriptively. While the language used is drawn from section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, we would expect any regulations to follow to provide for local authorities to determine for themselves whether any given meeting is virtual or hybrid. That is on the basis that councils and councillors are best placed to decide how and when to use different meeting formats in particular circumstances. We feel strongly that it is important that they are given the freedom to do so.

There is widespread support for putting remote meeting arrangements on a permanent footing, including from the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government, and the Association of Democratic Services Officers. As the Minister may know, the planning inspectorate already enjoys the freedom to offer virtual or hybrid meetings, at the discretion of a lead inspector, relating to hearings and inquiries.

To conclude, as every hon. Member knows, online meetings are now commonplace not just for work but for many other forms of social interaction. The public rightly expect that kind of accessibility for council meetings as well, and we are convinced that the freedom for local authorities to hold virtual or hybrid meetings will be welcomed by all our constituents.

We hope that allowing planning committees the option of meeting virtually, or permitting virtual participation in physical meetings, is an uncontroversial and common-sense measure. I hope that the Government are minded either to accept the new clause or, if they feel that it is defective in some way, to table one of their own that achieves the same aim.

Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield)

I support the principles of the new clauses, although I will suggest a way in which they might need to be amended so as to apply not just to planning meetings, but to all council meetings. Throughout the pandemic, councils were allowed—and therefore invested in the technology—to permit members of the public to engage in council meetings through those mechanisms, and the public did. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, engagement in many of those conversations was much higher during the pandemic. People were able to engage with them more easily from their own homes, and they probably had “Coronation Street” on in the background. The more something allows people to take part in a much easier way, the better.

As officers and councillors increasingly work in a more hybrid way, we are encouraging our staff in Nottinghamshire to work from home more, not least because of the practicalities—staff expect that these days. Financially, we do not want, and cannot afford, to run as many buildings as we currently have. Fewer people are in the office. Every time we have a face-to-face meeting that does not need to be face to face, that requires people to trek across the county. It requires councillors to do a three-hour round trip, sometimes for a 20-minute meeting. It is a waste of resources.

Through the pandemic, we also found that we saved thousands of tonnes of carbon—never mind the travel expenses—by not trekking around the county for meetings. I struggle to get opposition councillors, never mind members of the public, to attend some of our governance and ethics meetings. Accessibility is not an issue in that sense.

If there is to be a change to the new clauses, I ask Ministers to make them broader, to include all council meetings. Our full council meeting will always be an in-person public meeting; it is the exciting, set-piece event at the heart of our council calendar. However, many other meetings need not be. Giving local government that flexibility would be very welcome.

There has been a process to review this issue. There was a consultation a year or so ago, I think, and local government was asked to submit views. I can confidently imagine that the broad consensus was, “Give us flexibility, please, to make those decisions locally.” We have done it before, and we can very easily do it again. When Ministers consider the new clauses behind the scenes, I ask that they make them broader still and give us the scope to make those decisions locally.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

The two new clauses are about trusting local communities. We are not saying that every meeting must be held virtually, but that local authorities—in this case, planning authorities—should have the power to do so, and for good reason. My preference is for in-person meetings, but for the reasons that have been set out, especially by the hon. Member for Buckingham, local authorities should have that power.

Every part of my patch is parish. There are 67 parishes, and some of them are bigger than most Members’ constituencies and have not very many people living in them. To get from one end of the Lakes parish to the other, people have to pass three or four lakes. We should consider the age profile of some of the members of the parish councils and the distances involved. I said earlier that it rarely rains in the lakes, but occasionally it might. It certainly gets dark at certain times of the year. On a wet November night, holding a meeting on screen rather than physically is probably safer and better for everybody. Let us trust communities to make those choices on the go, and not impose.

The pandemic has been a traumatic and formative experience for us as a culture, as a society and as representatives of the people. We have learned many lessons, and some of them we should carry on with. I was disheartened and disappointed that some members of the Government seemed to be almost determined, as a point of principle, to close down any virtual operation of democracy during the pandemic—never mind at the end of it. It is encouraging to hear a cross-party outbreak of common sense today. It would be great if the Government listened.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

As a millennial Minister who is used to swiping and not to turning pages, Members might expect me to say that I prefer virtual meetings, but actually I do not. In-person meetings and the social element are important, yet we saw the value of virtual meetings during the pandemic, at the time when we needed them most. Hon. Members will remember the powers granted through the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allowed local authorities flexibility on remote and hybrid meetings, in certain circumstances. They will also know that those regulations expired back in May 2021. Since that date, all council meetings have had to be in person. The new clauses lean into the terms of those previous provisions and seek to replicate them on a permanent basis, but only for planning committees. I heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.

Looking beyond the circumstances of the pandemic, the Government considered that there may be benefits to permanent provisions for remote meetings, and that local councils may be keen to have the flexibility to use that provision as they see fit. I have been lobbied by a lot of my local parish councillors on the benefits that remote meetings can bring.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield highlighted, the Government conducted call for evidence last year to test the views of those who had participated in and experienced councils’ remote meetings to inform our decision on this matter. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for their points on trust in local governance and local planning, which we all agree is paramount. Increasing participation is only ever a good thing.

The Department has considered the responses to the call for evidence and we have been weighing the benefits, which hon. Members have highlighted, against views that physical attendance remains important to deliver good governance and democratic accountability. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the investment in the technology that a lot of local authorities had made, which must also be taken into account.

I genuinely thank my hon. Friends for tabling the new clause, but we need to first consider the call for evidence. We will issue our response, which will set out the Government’s intentions. I ask for a tiny bit more patience and for the new clause to be withdrawn.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

The self-styled millennial Minister makes the commitment. Asking for slightly more time seems reasonable to me. However, if we are to be true to localism, I would double-underline and highlight the need to ensure that local people are able to participate in proceedings. Just as we can still have a witness virtually at a Select Committee in this place, councils should have the discretion to use virtual proceedings, to maximise participation locally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 29 - Local authorities to be able to raise planning fees to cover costs including planners

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is pertinent to my local authority in Buckinghamshire, and I am sure that many local authorities up and down the land struggle with it. It is about the ability to vary fees and charges for planning so that local authorities can provide a good service to their residents.

My local authority, Buckinghamshire, borders London and, therefore, there is always a difficulty in recruiting, not just planning officers, but social workers or teachers or nurses, or whatever the public service role might be. When planning officers who are looking for work see jobs going in the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow or, indeed, any of the London boroughs, they prefer to take the job with London weighting in those boroughs than apply to Buckinghamshire Council. That leaves Buckinghamshire in a position where it finds recruitment of planning officers very hard.

If local authorities had the ability to vary fees and charges so that they could pay a better rate for qualified planners and planning officers to provide all residents with an excellent service, we could get over some of the practical difficulties that stifle recruitment and that would ensure councils would be in a position where they could, if they wanted to, respond to all planning inquiries within however many days or hear all applications in good time. To do that, they need the ability to have a geographic variance to meet the costs of attracting the very best staff to and wanting to work in that place, rather than in a neighbouring area where there is a job that can pay more.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause.

I absolutely accept the validity of this discussion; it is an important one, and I am relatively sympathetic to the point that is being made. It is appropriate that we think through the balance between localism and centralism in this area, and my own personal instincts are that localism should take priority and precedence. So, if he is willing to withdraw this new clause, I am very happy to talk about this matter in more detail.

As I know my hon. Friend will know, we have already committed to increasing planning fees, as part of an earlier discussion. However, I am happy to talk about what he perceives as the need in this area over and above that, particularly given his own local circumstances.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I very much welcome the Minister’s comments; I fully accept that planning fees are allowed to go up and I look forward to having a discussion with him about how some geographical areas, particularly those areas that border London and that compete with London weighting, need to have greater flexibility.

In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 30

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We come to the end of this marathon run of new clauses. New clause 30 is one that could be a little bit prickly to navigate.

Without wanting to get into a debate about personalities who occupy the office of Mayor of London, the new clause seeks to test where the principle of localism actually sits, because across the London boroughs there are locally and democratically elected councils or directly elected mayors, and across the whole of the capital there is the Mayor of London. The councils and directly elected mayors, and the Mayor of London, have planning powers, which is an anomaly that has been thrown up and that causes political tension, when there is a Labour Mayor and a Conservative borough, or indeed when there is a Conservative Mayor and a Labour or Lib Dem borough. That tension is real; it exists.

My instinct is always that the most local area should be the one that makes the decision rather than the regional area or a pan-regional area. I accept that that is an ideological position of mine; it is how I believe decisions are best made. However, there is clearly a tension. I have talked to colleagues, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—this new clause has also been tabled in her name—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been very engaged in this debate as well, so I know that that tension exists.

It might not be my preference, but it might be the case that the most appropriate decision-making level in London is the regional level, which is the Mayor of London. I do not believe that it is, but that would be a legitimate answer. Alternatively, is it the London boroughs that have primacy when it comes to planning? If we are true to the principle of subsidiarity, it would be the London boroughs, but at the moment that tension exists. However, if we were to make the Mayor’s powers in relation to the boroughs advisory as opposed to compulsory, we would take that tension away.

I offer the new clause to the Committee as one that identifies a very tightly defined geographical problem that affects many Members’ constituencies and causes a lot of community upset, where a London borough’s planning authority is essentially over-ruled by a regional structure.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for tabling the new clause. I will resist the opportunity to defend the current incumbent Mayor of London, as I am sure he would expect, although I know other members of Committee would disagree with me.

A number of us in this room share experience of local government in London; at least three of us here—I apologise if I have missed anyone—served simultaneously on different councils in London. I served on Westminster council for eight years, until 2014. Even when there was alignment between regional and local tiers in terms of party, I recall a number of disagreements about individual applications and the general principle of where the relevant powers should sit. We will probably not resolve that philosophical debate today, other than to say that I acknowledge the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have put their name to the new clause.

It is particularly important to acknowledge the difference between inner and outer London, and the difficulties of making sure that policies can apply to both areas equally. I think we should tread extremely carefully when considering whether to amend the strategic powers of the Mayor, even if I happen to disagree with much of what the current incumbent does. Although my hon. Friend for Buckingham has made known his strength of feeling about the matter, and that of other colleagues, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome the Minister’s comments, and as I acknowledged, it is a difficult issue to navigate. It almost reopens some of the devolution questions. It is an anomaly that many London colleagues, certainly on the Conservative Benches, feel and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with them and me. Like him, I was a London borough councillor just a little way up the river from him for 12 years, some moons ago, and felt the same pressures. If he is willing to work with London colleagues to find a satisfactory way through this, I am content to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 34 - Local government capital investments: economic appraisal

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to move the new clause and to give the hon. Member for Buckingham some respite. The new clause relates to fiscal responsibility in local government. Without proper viability being sought, local authorities can pay millions of pounds on projects and never reap the return. That is why the new clause relates to capital investments and economic appraisals, which should be undertaken and understood, but without a Green Book-style appraisal, local authorities can end up paying and developers and landowners gaining, with ultimately no reward and benefit to the local community. The new clause is designed to ensure that the finances on any project are transparent and for the benefit of local people. It would ensure that there is gain for all and not ultimate loss, not least given that we are talking about the use of public resources. That is why the new clause is important.

The case study to which I want to refer particularly is that of the York Central site. The cost of bringing that site forward is now believed to be £200 million of public funding. As that project moves forward, more and more is being demanded from public sources to fund it, and yet the local authority may never see a return on that investment. City of York’s infrastructure investment was planned to be around £35 million, but it has now been given an estimated debt cost of £57 million based on April interest rates, which will clearly be significantly higher now.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also put in £77 million and it is believed that more than £50 million will have to come through the Mayor’s budget once it is approved and in place—we are expecting that to be in 2024. In a briefing, councillors were told that the council would need to put in £85 million and debt costs to fill the gap, but we could now be talking about nearer £100 million rather than the £35 million once rejected. As a result, it is necessary to weigh up the viability of the site not for the developers, as set out, but for the local authority. It is that check that is not required for such a project today, but it is really important, not least because local authorities simply do not have the necessary margins and, as a result, have to cut back on vital services to fund such capital projects.

My amendment therefore calls for prudence. On sites where any capital investment over the value of £2 million is made, there must be an economic appraisal commissioned and then published assessing the financial viability of the site to the authority. York Central has been developed for housing, so it will not reap the opportunities that a larger business owner could bring in nor those to do with council tax, as most of the properties being developed will be for investment, not for local residents to live in. They will either be empty units, leading to a cost to our city, or will be turned into Airbnbs, a matter that I will turn to later. Of course, Airbnb falls under the thresholds of flipping the property, not paying council tax and not paying business rates either, so the local authority loses millions of pounds as Airbnbs dodge the system.

At a time of significant austerity in local government, it is crucial that more scrutiny is given to the costs it has to expend on sites. My amendment simply calls for proper governance over finances and, at a time when the whole nation is looking at how Governments at all levels are more prudent with the spending of their money, it is right to bring forward such a measure to ensure that public money is spent in a way that will see its return and will be for the benefit of the people, not the developers and landowners who ultimately gain from such development.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central, who always talks incredibly passionately about her constituency. I thank her for bringing her experience of the capital project she mentioned to the Committee. As a Conservative, my ideology tells me that ultimately we always need to get best value for taxpayers’ money.

The Government recognise the importance of local capital investment for economic growth, improved public services and meeting our priorities, such as on housing delivery. That is why we need a robust system that supports the benefits of local decision making and allows sensible investment while safeguarding taxpayer’s money and protecting the local government finance system. Unfortunately, in recent years a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive risks with taxpayers’ money; they have become too indebted or have made investments that have ultimately proved too risky. That is why we need to ensure that the system is fit for purpose.

The changes made through clause 71 provide a flexible range of interventions for the Government to investigate where capital practices may have placed financial sustainability at risk and to take steps to remediate issues if necessary. We think that that is sufficient to address risk.

We have recently taken a number of steps to improve the transparency of local authority capital investment and borrowing. Last year we completed our data survey, which is designed to extract new data from local government and fill our identified information gaps. As of February 2022, we amended our regular statistical returns to obtain more detailed data on local authority investment activity. That will provide the Government with the clarity they need on the performance of investment assets as well as the location and risk management of investment properties.

The Government regularly review how data can be improved further. Additional data asks need to be considered carefully to make sure that they are appropriate and proportionate to identifying risk. We are also developing an analytical process to pre-emptively identify risks in the sector, including those local authorities that might be engaging in risky activity or non-compliance with the existing framework. This includes better use of the quantitative data we collect, combined with intelligence gathered from sector engagement and monitoring.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful for the Minister’s contribution. However, will she acknowledge that even if the viability of a site stands up, some of the investors in it may not? What ultimately happens is that local authorities become the backstop for financing and have to fill the gaps in order for those sites to be brought forward. As a result, the benefit goes to the developer and the risk sits with local authorities.

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I have certainly heard what the hon. Member has said, and we all have examples from our own constituencies and authorities. The current legislation and statutory codes allow local government to appraise risks as they stand. Alongside that, the monitoring and provisions that we are seeking through clause 71 will provide central Government with assurance. We think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Reflecting on the example that I gave, will she say how her Department would scrutinise the funding of sites such as the one in York Central to assess the viability of the local authority’s having to make increased contributions? Has the Department done that?

Dehenna Davison (Conservative, Bishop Auckland)

I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that point in writing.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not satisfied that what she says will be sufficient to ensure that there are safeguards on local public resourcing that is brought forward on a site, particularly one as important as the York Central site, where eye-watering sums of money are being spent. I will therefore read with care what she writes to me to see whether there are sufficient safeguards. If I am not satisfied, I will want to return to this issue at a further stage of the Bill, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 38 - New use classes for second homes and holiday lets

New Clause 41 - Local authorities to be permitted to require that new housing is affordable

New Clause 43 - Review of permitted development rights

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 68—Review of Permitted Development Rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a review of permitted development rights under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

(2) The review should include an assessment of:

(a) the past effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets;

(b) the quality of housing delivered under permitted development rights;

(c) the impacts of permitted development on heritage, conservation areas and setting;

(d) the estimated carbon impact of the use of permitted development rights since the expansion of permitted development to demolition;

(e) the relative cost to local planning authorities of processing permitted development compared to full planning consents;

(f) potential conflict between existing permitted development rights and the application of national development management policies;

(g) the impact of permitted development rights, or other policies in this Bill designed to deliver streamlined consent, on the efficacy of levelling-up missions.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report of the recommendations made by this review no later than twelve months after this Act comes into force.”

This new clause would commit the government to carrying out a comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I rise to move new clause 43 and to support new clause 68. They mirror one another and therefore emphasise the need for a review of permitted development rights, which are a major issue in planning.

New clause 43 calls for a change in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. It would require a review to be published, within a year of the Bill becoming law, on the effectiveness of permitted development rights in achieving housing targets. Much planning permission is granted on the basis of balancing the economic viability of a site in favour of developers. Planning authorities may stipulate the framework around that, but it is not uncommon for developers to come back to authorities pleading that the site does not hold viability and seeking to change the tenure of units planned for it.

Furthermore, we have a housing crisis. The Government are right to want to fix it by setting targets for the number of units to be built, but if those units are unaffordable to a local population, or if they are sold as investment properties—as assets—and remain empty or are converted into short-term holiday lets, the housing demand is not addressed. Worse, property prices can heat up the market, resulting in a greater pool of people who are unable to access housing, which is making things far worse.

By allowing such a liberalisation of planning, not least for developers, the Government are creating a worsening situation. Rather than resolving the housing situation, they are pushing people out of their localities, as people cannot afford to either buy or rent. Now, with the economic crisis, they cannot get a mortgage either, but cash buyers can scoop up properties and then drive revenue through holiday lets. In York, we are seeing that in spades. York Central promises to be such a site of investment properties rather than homes, with the wrong housing in the wrong place heating up the market and exposing our city to even greater numbers of short-term holiday lets. This has to stop.

My new clause would enable a review, which would include an examination of the quality of housing delivered. I cannot tell hon. Members the scale of shoddy workmanship that we are witnessing. Developers hand their properties over to property management companies and then deny responsibility. Water ingress is common. Sinks are fitted just with silicone, and not properly plumbed in. Wiring is half done. Bin stores are turned into inaccessible bike shelters. The list of unresolved complaints is endless.

York is naturally concerned about its heritage and conservation sites, and we want to ensure that its archaeology is preserved, too. On the environment, we know that new developments help to solve the carbon crisis rather than add to it. If measures are not reviewed and taken seriously, we know that transport planning can be poor, as we are seeing on the York Central site. That will have an impact on the rest of the city. I have already mentioned the thorny issue of the cost to local authorities of the mess that is being created.

Reviewing permitted development rights, as the new clause seeks to do, is about addressing all the consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of rushing planning through, not least at a time when planning departments across our communities are significantly under-resourced and under-powered. The new clause seeks a review, which is needed, and we want to see action following on from that. If the Government committed the resources and time needed to carry out a review of a such a significant issue, they could make such a difference to communities up and down the country. The review would ultimately be of real value to the Government, by ensuring that the planning system is working effectively for the purpose for which it is designed.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise to speak to new clause 68, in my name and those of my colleagues, and to speak in support of new clause 43. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on tabling new clause 43 and on her powerful remarks, not least about the contribution of the extension of permitted development rights to the affordability pressures in urban parts of the country such as hers.

It is a matter of public record that the Opposition have long-standing concerns about the detrimental impact of the liberalisation of permitted development rights on local communities. The Government have always justified the progressive liberalisation of those rights on the grounds that it removes unnecessary administrative impediments to development in the planning system. There is no doubt that the extension of PD rights since 2013 has boosted housing supply; estimates suggest that it has led to a net increase of around 100,000 dwellings. However, the increased supply secured as a result of deregulatory measures over recent years, and the significantly reduced control of rural and urban land that they entail, has come at the cost of a loss of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions, and an increase in poor-quality housing, with obvious implications for public health and wellbeing.

Evidence of the negative impact of the extension of permitted development for the conversion of office, commercial and industrial units to housing is now ubiquitous. A report published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in July 2020—at the same time, incidentally, that Ministers were setting out plans for a further extension of PD rights—found that, in comparison with schemes created through planning permission, permitted development schemes were far less likely to meet national space standards and far more likely to have reduced access to natural daylight and sunlight.

Members may well have come across some of the more well-publicised examples of poor-quality PD schemes. Those include the Wellstones site in Watford, which involved the conversion of a light industrial building into 15 flats, seven of which had no windows at all; 106 Shirley Road in Southampton, a former electric and gas fire shop, which was converted into six studio flats, each roughly the size of a single car parking space; and Terminus House in Harlow, a former office block converted into hundreds of homes, many with just one openable window, which has rightly been described as a “human warehouse”.

The problem is that those cases are not aberrations; they are symptomatic of the kind of unacceptable development that the extension of PD rights has enabled. I put it to the Committee that we will be living with the human consequences, and the cost of rectifying the problem that has already been created, for decades to come.

The 2018 Raynsford review of planning concluded, in reference to the liberalisation of permitted development rights, that

“government policy has led directly to the creation of slum housing. Such slums will require immense public investment, either to refurbish them to a proper standard or to demolish them. Morally, economically and environmentally it is a failed policy”.

That judgment cannot be written off simply as the criticism of a former Labour Minister. The Government’s own Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission concluded in its final report:

“In some instances, we have inadvertently permissioned future slums.”

That is a damning indictment of nine years of planning deregulation in this area.

As the Government make changes to the planning system through the Bill, there is an incontrovertible case for their taking the opportunity to comprehensively investigate and assess the impact of the progressive expansion of PD rights over the past nine years and to consider the case for returning control to local planning authorities. New clause 68 would commit the Government to carrying out that comprehensive review of permitted development rights within 12 months of the Bill securing Royal Assent. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank Opposition Members for tabling the new clauses, and I understand why they have done so. In all processes, there will be challenges; there will be difficulties at the margins in how things work and where people try to push boundaries beyond where they are intended to be. I do not disagree that there will be examples around the country where PDRs have not been used in the right way, in the same way that there are problems with the existing planning system when people go through planning applications, or with enforcement when people have not done that.

There are problems in all systems, and I accept that the Government’s job is to try to minimise those problems while recognising that it is always a work in progress. I particularly accept the challenge that the hon. Member for York Central made about holiday lets and the like. I am happy to discuss that with her separately, if that would be helpful.

There is obviously a question about where we strike the balance between enabling processes to continue to happen in a way that is sped up, gives certainty and clarity, and brings out the “right answer” most of the time, and where additional consideration or time, or additional processes, are required. The latter all comes with cost, in terms of time and clarity, for those making applications. That balance is very difficult to strike, but we are trying to strike it by ensuring that the PDRs in the system, but also a significant proportion of applications that potentially require further consideration, go through the normal process.

The challenge that I have with the new clauses—I absolutely do not mean to caricature them—is that, in the way that they are written, they seek a review of every single element of PDRs. I know that the Opposition Front Benchers know that a significant amount of permitted development rights are relatively uncontroversial. The Opposition are effectively saying that, in order to look at problems that are understood and that need consideration and review—I am happy to talk to them about what we should do with those, if we are able to—we must also look at every single other PDR, including things such as how porches, chimneys, flues and microwave antennae are changed.

I am not sure that is the Opposition’s intention, so I gently ask them to consider withdrawing the new clauses on the basis that, while I am happy to continue the conversation, I think that their approach may be disproportionate to their intention.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

The Minister admitted that PDRs are not being used in the correct way. He feels that our new clauses seek a review of every element of PDR, but if he and the Government do not want to review every element, what elements would they review? He has already admitted that the system is not working properly, so will he offer an alternative?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

For clarity, I said that no system is perfect. That is not necessarily a recognition that anything is systemically wrong, although I am happy to debate individual instances if Opposition Members believe that to be the case. We will never create a perfect system. I am sure that we all intend to make the processes better. There will be differences of view, both in the Committee and outside it, about where it is appropriate to draw lines in terms of the use and non-use of PDRs. That will be a discussion long after we have left this place. I am keen to hear from colleagues on both sides of the House about where they think PDRs are not working in the ways that we hope, recognising that no system is perfect but hoping that they are used correctly in most instances. I do not think, however, that it is proportionate to do a wholesale review of PDRs at this stage.

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way again. I do not think that he quite understood the point that I was making. He said that PDRs are not being used in the right way, so where do he and the Government feel that they need to be looked at? I am not getting any clarity.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am happy to clarify. I did not say that PDRs were not being used in the right way; I said that no system—

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour, South Shields)

You did. I will check Hansard.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I know that Hansard will demonstrate the context. I was saying that no system is perfect. I was not making any comment on individual PDRs, but I have said to colleagues on both sides of the Committee that I am happy to discuss individual areas where they have concerns, outside of a proposal for every single one of the 155-odd PDRs to be reviewed in detail within a timeframe that is not particularly proportionate. If there is a problem, let us talk about it in individual areas, but this approach is disproportionate. I hope that the Opposition will consider withdrawing the motion and having a separate discussion about specific instances that have been raised, and others that they are concerned about.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I listened carefully to the debate, and I am grateful for all the contributions to it. The Minister will know that we are not putting forward a plan to tear up the whole PDR framework; we are simply calling for a review, as we believe is appropriate. After a scoping review, we would determine which points to drill down on, to ensure that we are looking at the parts of the system that are simply not working. That is the intention behind the new clause. Although it has a broader scope, it homes in on some of the challenges in the system. I therefore do not think that the proposal to put a scoping exercise in the legislation is unreasonable. I welcome the Minister’s offer of dialogue on these matters, which clearly are significantly impacting our communities. Dialogue will be really important. I will not press my new clause to a vote, but I will certainly take up that offer.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As I think the Minister will expect, I am naturally disappointed by his response. There are times when hiding behind the fact that there are trade-offs in balancing problems is appropriate; there are times when it is just a fig leaf, and not doing anything about a glaring problem. His own Department has produced evidence that it is not just a problem at the margins. I encourage him to go and see some of the sites being allowed on appeal because of national planning policy. It is not a problem at the margins; it is endemic, and intrinsic to the liberalisation of PD rights that has been allowed over the past nine years.

It is a straw man for the Minister to say, “We can’t do this, because it’s reviewing all PD rights.” Uncontroversial elements of PD can be dealt with very quickly; we are talking about the problematic aspects and the expansion of PD rights over the past nine years. It is causing a huge amount of human suffering, if nothing else. For that reason, not least to signal the Opposition’s intent to deal with this matter if and when we form the next Government, I will press new clause 68 to a Division when the time comes.

Rachael Maskell (Labour/Co-operative, York Central)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.