Baroness Scott of Bybrook:

Moved by Baroness Scott of Bybrook

438A: Before Clause 204, insert the following new Clause—“Power to require provision of certain classes of information(1) Regulations may require the provision of information that is within the scope of a permitted purpose.(2) So far as the regulations are to extend to England and Wales, the permitted purposes are—(a) the beneficial ownership purpose (see section (The beneficial ownership purpose)),(b) the contractual control purpose (see section (The contractual control purpose)), and(c) the national security purpose (see section (The national security purpose)).(3) So far as the regulations are to extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the only permitted purpose is the national security purpose.(4) Regulations under this section must, for each requirement they impose, specify—(a) the person on whom the requirement falls,(b) the occurrence or circumstances that gives or give rise to the requirement,(c) the time limit for complying with the requirement, and(d) the person to whom the required information is to be provided.(5) The occurrence or circumstances specified under subsection (4)(b)—(a) must, in the case of a requirement to provide information within the scope of the national security purpose, and(b) in any other case may,be (or include) the giving of a notice in accordance with the regulations to the person on whom the requirement falls.(6) In relation to such cases, the regulations may also make provision deeming notice to have been given at a certain time in certain circumstances.(7) The person specified under subsection (4)(d) must be—(a) the Chief Land Registrar, or(b) another person exercising public functions on behalf of the Crown.(8) Regulations under this section may—(a) make provision about how information is to be provided (including provision requiring it to be provided by electronic means specified in the regulations);(b) provide for, or make provision about, the application of the regulations to persons outside, or information held outside, the United Kingdom; (c) relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this section.”Member's explanatory statementThis new Clause and the other new Clauses in the Minister’s name before Clause 204 recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes (along with other minor changes).

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce government Amendments 438A, 440ZA, 440ZC, 440B and 440E, which provide clarity and certainty about how the powers relating to interests and dealings in land can and will be used.

First, the Secretary of State will have the ability to require by regulations the disclosure of beneficial ownership information, where it is not already available. These changes will supplement and reinforce the current transparency regime. Secondly, the amendments give the Secretary of State the ability to create regulations to require information on certain arrangements which control land, short of outright ownership. This will enhance the available information on those arrangements. Thirdly, the amendments would allow regulations to enable the Secretary of State to require certain details of ownership and control about a property, where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is a national security threat linked to that property. That could apply, for example, to critical national infrastructure or sensitive sites.

Government Amendments 438B and 440F define the beneficial ownership purpose, covering information which appears to the Secretary of State to be useful for identifying and understanding the beneficial ownership of land. It will improve transparency over land ownership in England and Wales and deter the use of complex structures to obscure ownership. The beneficial ownership purpose is designed to allow the Government to collect further information in any cases where the ownership of UK land and property is not captured by the Companies House or trusts registers or is under question. However, the Government do not intend to increase the burden on businesses by requiring information to be provided twice. Rather, we will seek ways to cross-reference information already in the public domain, making it easier to link the ownership of legal entities to the ownership of land.

Amendment 438C sets out the detail of the contractual control purposes. It allows for the collection of information if it appears to the Secretary of State that it would be useful for the purpose of identifying relevant contractual rights or the identity of persons holding those rights. The rights that arise under a contract or deed are related

“to the development, use or disposal of land … and … are held for the purposes of an undertaking”,

such as a business. One such type of arrangement is option agreements, which grant the developer the right to purchase the land during a specified option period.

The contractual control arrangements are usually referred to on HM Land Registry titles, but are not recorded in an easily accessible, detailed or transparent way. That means that it can be difficult to work out where and how land is under control short of outright ownership. We want to make it easier for communities and local authorities to understand fully the likely path of development in their area by collecting and publishing information about those arrangements. Greater transparency will also enable public bodies to create policies which support housebuilding. In the 2018 analysis of build-out rates, Sir Oliver Letwin expressed a concern at the lack of publicly available data on land holdings.

My Amendment 438D sets out in more detail the national security purpose referred to in Amendment 438A. It defines the key terms, concepts and scope of the information which may be sought, as well as from whom and in what circumstances.

The threats this country faces to its national security are not limited to England and Wales. Therefore, government Amendments 440G, 440H, 504K and 504L extend the territorial extent of Part 11 to all parts of the United Kingdom, while Amendment 438D specifies that only the national security purpose may apply beyond England and Wales. That will ensure that Ministers can require information about properties which may be used to threaten national security, wherever they are in the United Kingdom.

Amendment 440ZB sets out important restrictions on the retention, sharing and publication of information gathered under the national security purpose. We want to provide assurance to recipients of the information notices under the national security purpose that the Government will not be able to use their personal information for other purposes, including investigating criminality unrelated to the national security purpose.

I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the government amendments here. From what she said, it seems to me that there is a dual purpose to the amendments. One is contained in the section relating to national security, which I understand but I wonder why it has appeared in this Bill and not in other Bills related to national security, one of which went through this House not long ago.

The second group of amendments is about aiding the development of land where land ownership is not known. I would like the Minister to help here, because the ownership of a lot of land is not yet recorded by the Land Registry—it is recorded only following a change of hands, through a sale or transfer in some way. I would like to understand from the Minister quite how ownership of land is to be established without the Land Registry having already had that recorded. I understand the direction that the Government intend here, but it seems to me that there is a gap, unless I have misunderstood the purpose of some of those amendments.

Will she explain, first, why this national security element has appeared in a levelling-up Bill, unless it is to do with regeneration? Secondly, if she could help with establishing land ownership that has not yet been recorded by the Land Registry, I would be grateful.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 440A in my name. This amendment is intended to draw attention to a recommendation by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its report on the Bill. Part 11, of which Clause 207 forms part, gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the provision of information on transactions and other dealings in land if the Secretary of State considers

“that the information would be useful” to identify the owners of the land and those with the right

“to control or influence … the owner of a relevant interest in land”.

Clause 207(1) states that these regulations may also provide for

“the sharing of such information with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.

Clause 207(3), to which my amendment is directed, addresses the risk, which is understandable, that there may be an inaccuracy or omission in the information that is provided, arising from the sharing or publication of this information. It states:

“No civil liability is to arise from the sharing or publication of information under regulations under this section by reason of any inaccuracy or omission in the information as provided further to a requirement imposed under section 204 or 205”.

The question then is: who needs this protection? As the Constitution Committee understood it, the intention of this clause is to give that protection to the persons to whom that information has been provided by the Secretary of State. That is because they are the people who will be required by the regulations to share or publish that information. It is obviously desirable that they should have that protection against civil liability if the information that they have been required to share or publish by reason of these regulations is misleading or inaccurate.

It is on that understanding that the suggestion was made by the committee that Clause 207(3) should be more tightly defined in the interests of legal certainty. The suggestion is that it should make it clear that our understanding is correct. That would be achieved if the words

“as respects those persons to whom the information is provided” were inserted into the clause. As the clause stands, it might be thought to extend the protection further down the line as the information is shared more widely by persons who are doing this not because they are required to do it by the regulations but for some other reason, which may be unrelated to the regulations themselves. However, if it is the intention that the protection should extend that far, the committee suggests that the wording of this provision should be looked at again to make this clear.

I hope this explanation for the amendment may be helpful. It is intended to assist the Government and make it absolutely plain how far the protection the subsection is intended to give should extend.

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. We have heard that Part 11 sets out a framework for creating powers to require disclosure of certain relevant information relating to ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information. Of course, if this is implemented, it is another significant layer of disclosure around land ownership and control in England and Wales, supplementing the information that is currently held or is going to be held in a number of public registries. It appears that the Government’s ultimate goal here is to ensure transparency around land ownership and control in England and Wales. We would support this aim.

My Amendment 440 probes the retrospective application of this section. As drafted, the provisions could require the disclosure of information relating to events prior to the enactment of the Bill. Clause 206(4) says:

“Regulations under section 204 or 205 may relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this Part”.

This amendment probes the benefits of doing this retrospective application and what the Government are aiming to achieve through this.

My second amendment, Amendment 439, probes how local communities can request land ownership information. It would be really helpful if the Minister could provide a bit more information for us to understand how communities are expected to access this information and how that fits in with the role of the Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the government amendments. Amendments 438A, 438B, 438C, 438D and so on insert clauses before Clause 204. They

“recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes”.

Do these provisions apply to government agencies, such as Homes England, as well? If conditions are attached, they can get in the way when regeneration schemes are being considered. It would be good to have some clarification on that point.

We would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in what he is trying to achieve in Amendment 440A. If the Minister could either provide clarification to the noble and learned Lord or look at tightening up the wording, as he suggests, that would be extremely helpful.

My Lords, in response to Amendment 439 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I confirm that it will be in the public interest for some of the information that is collected to be published. For example, we intend to publish data on arrangements such as option agreements that developers and others have over land. However, there is some information that we will not be able to publish, so we need to strike the balance between transparency, legitimate privacy, confidentiality and practical or security considerations. Therefore, some information will be shared only

“with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.

At this stage, I want to answer a couple of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She asked why we need beneficial ownership. We believe that the property market in England and Wales should be fair and transparent. A lack of transparency can make it hard to identify rogue landlords, the owners of empty properties and those liable under the Building Safety Act, and it can leave the market vulnerable to criminal activity. We believe that this will deter individuals from using complex structures to obscure ownership of property, and it will provide criminal offences and sanctions for failure to comply.

It is difficult to work out where and how land is under control, short of outright ownership. Developers and other actors will often enter arrangements, such as option agreements, which allow them to exert control over the future use, purchase or disposition of land. Although in most cases there will be a notice or restriction on the land register in respect of such arrangements, these will often be limited in terms of information, as I think I have said before. In particular, they will exclude detailed terms. We just need transparency. We need it for local authorities to be able to understand how they can use land in their area and who to talk to about it. That is important.

The noble Baroness asked why national security was also in the Bill. This power relates to land ownership and control information, and we think that it is well suited to this part of the Bill, which includes, as we have talked about, several other information-gathering powers for a number of different policy areas. We think that it fits nicely in this part of the Bill.

Amendment 440, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, looks at why our powers need to be able to apply retrospectively by removing the current provision. The Bill allows for regulations to require information about things done or arising before its commencement, enabling us to collect information about agreements, arrangements and ownerships that are currently in effect. Without this, it could take very many years before we had a sufficiently complete picture for the information to prove as useful as possible. The Government’s intent is to require information retrospectively in as focused a way as possible to achieve our policy objectives.

Finally, Amendment 440A, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seeks to clarify that the exemption from civil liability applies to those to whom information is provided and not to those who are bound to provide the information. Although I have sympathy with his intention to clarify what this means in practice for who is in scope, we do not believe there is legal ambiguity in the current drafting, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I will look further at the wording and come back to him.

I hope this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance not to press their amendments.

Amendment 438A agreed.