High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, with her knowledge and expertise. I think she put it in a nutshell when she described a high street where things can get done as opposed to just bought. My thanks go to our new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for so ably introducing this debate, and to our previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for guiding us through what could have been a very complicated issue and arriving at a pretty succinct report.

We had a lot of discussion about why a high street is important and who should be responsible for its revival. Of course, we found that there is no one blueprint but our report highlights the factors important to success. It is clear from the evidence we received that a proactive local authority is very important, especially in pump-priming, but the role of the wider community after that is critical—businesses big and small and community organisations are all crucial.

We heard from Frome in Somerset. Its town council began that pump-priming process by hiring a town centre manager and engaging with a local entrepreneur. It has a multi-pronged approach to reviving and maintaining the health of its high street, which has been incredibly successful. Especially compelling was its use of markets to increase footfall and provide opportunities for smaller independent retailers, and it recognised the role that culture plays.

Moving from the positive to the negative, I want to highlight the shocking evidence—I was certainly shocked—that we received from the Royal Society for Public Health. It found that one-fifth of the general public do not go out as often as they would like due to their concern about the lack of public toilets. We can guess which fifth that is: the elderly and those with small children, the very groups who may already suffer from isolation and loneliness. They are not going out as often as they would like just for fear of being caught short. For the elderly, this is inevitably an increasing concern and it is a very important concern, too, for parents with children out of nappies but still young. Of course, urinating in public is an offence and one that authorities sometimes have to invoke to deal with public nuisance caused by alcohol consumption followed by wanton urination, but that is a completely different issue. As our report says:

“Public toilets make it possible for everyone to use the local high street with confidence and comfort”.


Local authorities need to be proactive in finding ways to provide such an essential facility. It is one of the most basic health and dignity issues, but there has been a shocking decline in provision of public toilets.

Accessibility was also found to be lacking, by and large. I will not spend a lot of time on transport and car parking, but that was an important issue, as was access for wheelchairs and those using walking frames, for example. I have recently begun to notice how incredibly important this is, since my husband had a stroke. You notice how there are so few dropped pavements, for example, which would make life so much easier.

The timing of the Government’s response was quite difficult because there was an election between publication of our report and the response. Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of this Government’s response was on parish and town councils. As the local authorities most involved in their community, they are ideally placed to be the most proactive in high street revival, but the Government’s response to our suggestion that they should be able to bid directly for funds was only that they

“will continue to look at”

it. I hope the Minister will be able to say a bit more today and that we will be able to debate this further in the forthcoming devolution Bill.

One of the most compelling sections of our report is that which concerns public service delivery, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, touched on. We heard that the public are very keen to have NHS services located on or relocated to the high street, not least because the transport links may well be better and because it increases footfall for businesses. We heard evidence from Councillor Vikki Slade, who was the council leader in Poole and is now MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. She explained how the public services they had introduced to ex-retail space—an NHS out-patient centre, a library and some charity space—had “completely reinvigorated the town”. Of course, the big traditional department stores have closed and the challenge facing many high streets is what to do with that space. We heard from Barnsley, whose local authority had to be pretty dogged, frankly—given its setbacks—to arrive at its Glass Works redevelopment project, which includes open space, an NHS diagnostics centre, a market and much more.

Success stories are out there, from small towns to small cities, but sometimes that has been despite the propensity of central government to change funding models so often. The previous Government had a very time-consuming and wasteful bidding process. One of our main recommendations, in paragraphs 173 and 174, is that there is still a role for an appropriate bidding process, but it must be highly simplified and possibly involve a two-stage system with a simple initial bid that would be developed if successful. The Government acknowledged this in their response and mentioned the reform to the long-term plan for towns. Can the Minister tell us any more about that today?

Another issue we heard a lot about was green space. Our evidence underlined the value of having space in which to socialise and spend time without having to spend money—a point emphasised to us by the young people we engaged with. I thank those involved in the House of Lords engagement programme, who produced some very lively groups of young people. We heard that it is not just about prettifying with hanging baskets; it is about usable space.

There is plenty of evidence, too, about the benefit of green space and nature to mental health and physical well-being. Here, I have to praise Lambeth Council, which, in the 20 years that I have had a flat in the borough, has transformed many of its green spaces, including with things such as outdoor gyms. It is fantastic. This does not seem to be controversial until developers realise that green spaces are a cost to them and local authorities could see them as a cost, as they produce no rates or council tax. There is no national statutory green space standard, but it is reasonable to hope that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill might have a genuine element of seeing green space as critical to good development.

Things to appreciate in the Government’s response include high street rental auctions and community right to buy. The Government correctly said in their response:

“High streets matter … because they reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm”.


That is very true. Valuing the public realm is, to me, the essence of what we should be looking for and enabling in a high street. The private realm has been good at looking after its own and I hope this report makes a contribution to rebalancing that trend.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.

I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.

The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.

If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.

I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.

Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.

Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a landlord of private property. It is becoming clear that the Bill will be a beanfeast for lawyers in the area of landlord-tenant disputes. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs implied, it could well happen with regard to landlord-tenant disputes over pets. My noble friend Lord Howard’s amendment is eminently sensible, and his points about overriding current legislation are very important, as are those on insurance problems in this area.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

That is probably a bridge we ought to cross when we come to it.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets.

Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill.

Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem.

To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have joined your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, but I was not a member for this report.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, has reminded us that this is not the first report that your Lordships’ House has done into MMC, and spelled out what the 2018 report from the Science and Technology Committee concluded. There was also a 2019 report from the other place on modern methods of construction. It seems very strange that the Government did not take up any of the lessons of either of these reports. I am sure that this Government will do better.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, referred to one of the big problems—confidence—and I agree with her. This was absolutely underlined by the Competition and Markets Authority, which did a market study into the housebuilding sector, concluding in February 2024. On MMC, it concluded that there is a

“lingering negative stigma amongst consumers, builders, investors, and insurers”.

What will the Government do to overcome this lingering negative stigma? Without overcoming it, MMC will always be dragged down by it.

Local Government Finances

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, in my noble friend Lord Shipley’s excellent opening speech, he mentioned many of the public amenities that are now under immense threat due to this Conservative Government’s starvation of local government. These public assets—community assets—have been built, bought and improved over centuries and decades. I appreciate how lucky I was in my 15 years in local government in Somerset that we were able to plan and construct local amenities. Now, under this Government, starved of resources, local authorities will have little choice but to sacrifice these common assets, be they libraries, green spaces, public toilets or cultural centres.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, just said, once amenities are gone, they are gone. She is right, and it puts me in mind of a well-known poem, written at the time of the Inclosure Acts, and just as relevant today:

“The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

But leaves the greater villain loose

Who steals the common from the goose”.

That is just what this Government are doing—they are stealing the common.

These common assets are irreplaceable, and the ones I want to highlight today are libraries. This possibly stems from my time at school and the only post I had—head librarian—led to a career in books. More importantly, libraries are a crucial element for everybody in intellectual levelling up. Nobody has put this better than Bobby Seagull, who many remember as the “University Challenge” champion who went on to become a City whizz-kid and then a maths teacher. He is, especially, a great advocate of libraries, as he explained when he came here to Parliament a while ago:

“Growing up in financially challenging conditions in an east London council estate, our library was a paradise”.


More affluent areas are more likely to still have quality libraries that remain open and well stocked, but deprived areas will suffer multiple deprivations, and libraries will be one of the first of these. The Government are consigning a generation to poorer literacy and lower academic attainment.

Libraries are popular—they have 40 million visits a year, which is more than cinema and football combined. They are one of the most popular services that councils provide. In addition to their central focus on reading and literacy, libraries support a wide range of activities, which was particularly seen during the pandemic, including digital skills, warm hubs, job clubs, and access to financial advice and support. They are the ultimate community resource, yet public library funding in the UK has fallen by more than 30% in total since 2009-10, and 800 libraries have closed. At least 32 councils are exploring very significant cuts or closures—in some cases proposing to close over 65% of their branches. I hope the Minister will not dare to suggest that such cuts are a local government choice. She knows perfectly well that local authorities now have no choice, given that central government has subjected them, year after year, to real-terms cuts.

What answer are the Government giving to the worst-affected local authorities, struggling in the face of ever-diminishing central government funding? They are saying, “Sell off your assets”. The exceptional financial support framework will allow councils involved—I use the word “allow” in inverted commas—to use capital receipts from the sale of assets or borrowing to cover their day-to-day costs of this amount. Traditionally, libraries occupy buildings at the heart of their communities, where land values are higher—making them an obvious option to cash in on short-term capital at the expense of long-term value.

The Financial Times highlighted this recently when it said:

“The UK government is now considering loosening the rules for allowing councils to sell off assets. This is bad news for everything from libraries to swimming pools, town halls to toilets”.


We really are in a disgraceful state of affairs. A later verse of the poem I quoted is just as apposite as the first:

“The poor and wretched don’t escape

If they conspire the law to break;

This must be so but they endure

Those who conspire to make the law”.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, it is certainly an honour to speak in this debate and to listen to so many inspiring contributions. I will start with a tribute to a very important person who died last October: Carmen Callil, who created and founded Virago books in 1973. She was an inspiration to young women working in publishing such as me. Much more importantly, Virago has introduced generations of women to the world’s most exciting women writers, both contemporary and classic—those whose works had been allowed to lapse into obscurity, such as Willa Cather and Janet Frame, and contemporary writers such as Maya Angelou. The list would fill my entire allotted time, so I must just say thank you to Carmen Callil. She is certainly a woman to remember on International Women’s Day.

Perhaps it was the contrast from working in publishing to becoming a mother that gave me a lifelong interest in breastfeeding, the subject I will speak about. I really warmed to the comment in the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lampard, about baby sick down the jacket when in a work environment—I totally related to that.

I am talking about the subject today because the figures on women who breastfeed have plummeted during the last 40 years—and they were not great 40 years ago. That is despite all the advantages to both babies and the women who breastfeed them. I am also talking about it today because the Lancet has just published a series of studies on breastfeeding, and I would like some response from the Government to them. Today is also very exciting because Codex, established by the Food and Agriculture Organization, has concluded that it will finally open the door in being definite that infant health must trump marketing when it comes to formula promotion. Until now, the World Trade Organization has accepted challenges when Governments have tried to legislate in this area.

Let us look at some of the advantages to the baby. The milk is perfectly formulated, protects the baby against many infections, and reduces the number of hospital visits—the NHS estimates that £50 million per annum could be saved if babies were exclusively breastfed until the age of six months—and the risks of sudden infant death syndrome and of cardiovascular disease in adulthood. For women, the NHS lists the benefits as lowering the risks of ovarian and breast cancer, osteoporosis, obesity and cardiovascular disease.

In listing the advantages, I fully recognise that some babies and mothers cannot or do not take to breastfeeding. My remarks are in no way a criticism of them; it is very often hard to combine work and feeding. Physically, the baby may be tongue-tied, for which numerous studies, particularly the Channel 4 “Dispatches” investigation in 2018, have identified that there is a lack of health professional support. Tongue-tied babies may not be spotted, and this is not conducive to being able to breastfeed. Also, mothers who have had caesareans or very hard labours may find that milk does not come as easily. However, given the very clear health advantages, most of which have been known for decades, why has the UK suffered such a dramatic decline in support for mothers who wish to breastfeed?

Although 68% of mothers start breastfeeding after birth, by 12 weeks the number has fallen to 17%. By the time babies are six months old, only 1% are exclusively breastfed. We need to look at the reasons for this. That lack of support for breastfeeding mothers is one, but the other is the relentless marketing of baby formula from the manufacturers. I cannot do better than quote from the Lancet study from February:

“This three-paper Series outlines the multifaceted and highly effective strategies used by commercial formula manufacturers to target parents, health-care professionals, and policy-makers. The industry’s dubious marketing practices—in breach of the breastfeeding Code”,


to which the UK Government signed up in 1981,

“are compounded by lobbying of governments”.


Can the Minister undertake that this lobbying will no longer be listened to? Can she assure us that breastfeeding will be strongly promoted by this Government? Will her Government put some political welly behind the effort to put the health of our babies and mothers at the heart of policy?

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a tremendous pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, speak. It is a particular pleasure to be able to follow her, because she speaks from such a depth of knowledge and has such good practical sense. I associate myself with all her remarks today.

I will touch on three Bills in my short contribution. First, I will welcome, when it gets here, the Environment Bill. It is long overdue and has many important provisions and powers. It also, however, has some notable gaps and I will mention just one. It talks of public enjoyment of green space, but there is no actual provision of it in either the Bill or the planning White Paper. There needs to be a duty to create new public green spaces, especially in urban areas. The value of parks has been well highlighted by the pandemic as a necessity for physical and mental health, but it goes deeper than that. A good town or city plan must include green space.

The press release accompanying the planning White Paper merely says:

“Valued green spaces will be protected for future generations”—


in other words, those spaces that already exist—

“by allowing for more building on brownfield land and all new streets to be tree lined”.

However, the planning Bill must make powers and provision for new parks, playgrounds, sports fields, greens and allotments. The fact is that developers will get money for all of the new houses, but unless there is a requirement on them to provide green spaces, they simply will not do it. That needs to be firmly written into the Bill.

Let me take the example of allotments. Sadly, since the Allotments Act 1925 was repealed, waiting lists for allotments in most towns and cities have become longer and longer. Waiting lists of up to 400 people are not uncommon. One member of the National Allotment Society put it vividly when he said, “We will get a burial plot sooner than an allotment.” The pandemic accelerated the demand and, with the combination of healthy outdoor activity, local fresh food production, communities strengthened through shared interests and even biodiversity improvements, allotment provision should surely be a No. 1 issue for new-build areas. The definition of infrastructure for levy purposes must therefore include green spaces of all kinds.

I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who made a powerful speech on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that it looks like the planning Bill will cut local people out from being able to make representations on individual developments. They might be able to make representations on the overall local plan, but that is far from the same thing. There will be storms of protest when people realise what this Government have done to their rights.

I must mention how astonishingly crafty, or misguided, is the section on protests in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. “Kill the Bill” protests have already shown the strength of feeling against this part of the Bill, and young people especially are right to fear for the future of our democracy. As the effects of the lack of democracy begin to bite—I just mentioned the example in the planning Bill—I imagine that protests will spread to Tory heartlands and across all age groups. Freedom of speech and assembly and freedom to protest have always been at the heart of British democracy, but now this Government are seriously proposing to hand to the police the authority to decide which protests can go ahead and which cannot. I am not sure that this is a power that the police even want to have.

It is clear that for a protest to be effective, it needs to be noisy and, often, disruptive. However, there are already many laws and safeguards to ensure that a protest cannot be violent or disruptive, and if it is, it is already against the law. I urge the Government to rethink this part of that Bill, because it will come back to bite them. In some ways, of course, I hope it does. However, we as a House have a duty to make sure that we remove this provision from the Bill.

Inclusive Society

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, one of the results of the pandemic is that an already very poor literacy rate in schools will have worsened further. Adults with poor literacy skills are more likely to be unemployed or in low-paid jobs and there is a link between low levels of literacy and shorter life expectancy, depression and obesity. Nine million adults in the UK are functionally illiterate.

All my younger working life was involved with the book trade, publishing and bookselling. Books were fundamental to my world, so it came as a shock when, in my 20s, I began to realise just how many adults could not read. For some time, I volunteered for what is now the excellent National Literacy Trust. As I got to know my students, it shocked me just how excluded from normal everyday life they were. Illiteracy equals exclusion.

The underinvestment in our libraries is a national disgrace. Funding for public libraries has fallen so much in a decade, from £1 billion in 2009 to under £750 million 10 years later—so it has fallen by a quarter. Before the Minister blames local government for those cuts, let us remember that central government has cut funding for local government at a lethal rate. Let us also remember that the public libraries Act 1964 requires central government to oversee and improve public library services. The cuts have meant public libraries having a quarter less books to lend, fewer professional staff and fewer libraries.

School libraries are extremely important in getting children interested in books and reading. The Sunday Times recently revealed that 2,000 pupils are set to enter secondary school unable to read properly, so I really welcome the UK Children’s Laureate’s campaign. Cressida Cowell is the Children’s Laureate at the moment, and it was previously Michael Rosen—who is also working on this campaign and, of course, has had very severe Covid—Michael Morpurgo and Jacqueline Wilson. They are all campaigning to get the Government to commit £100 million to restore and refurbish primary school libraries, because literacy is the surest way to build the foundations our children need to develop their knowledge and imagination and to grow a brighter future.

OECD research found that childhood reading ability was a more certain predictor of future success than a family’s socioeconomic status—in other words, it is the key. Children’s literacy is the key to inclusion throughout their life. Literacy is not a cost to the economy or a luxury to be considered when times are good; it is the key to inclusion and a fundamental part of personal achievement and national economic success.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I am glad that we could make that work. I now call the noble Lord, Lord Jones.