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.
5.30 pm
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.