Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of an informal campaign group which seeks to improve the standards of public toilets generally. I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response by letter to issues that I, among others, raised at Second Reading. However, I am sure that he will forgive me when I say that I found his arguments unconvincing.

I accept that to include facilities open to the public, but not as separate or distinct buildings, would mean a valuation exercise. In each local authority area this would involve numbers maybe in the dozens, not the hundreds. That really cannot be seen as a costly hurdle. The Minister believes that it would divert resources from the 2023 revaluation. It should simply be part of the revaluation. I also reject the idea that identifying the facilities concerned would be difficult. These are public facilities and public bodies would self-identify. I also recommend to the Minister the Great British Public Toilet Map, available online, and a number of apps which guide you to local public toilets.

As it stands, the Bill is of course sensible, but it is a paltry little measure and will certainly not bring the transformation needed. I am not sure how deeply the Government consulted local government representatives. The local authorities that I am familiar with ceased building stand-alone public conveniences decades ago because problems of anti-social behaviour are so much greater in isolated blocks. Nowadays, new sets of conveniences are mainly incorporated in other public buildings, where issues of safety for users, maintenance and cleanliness are more easily dealt with. Stand-alone blocks obviously still exist but are often old and are too often already closed and shuttered.

I also wish to test the definition of “publicly owned”. The definition is very blurred these days. Facilities can be publicly owned but privately run—for example, in many areas that is the case with leisure centres. My area has publicly available toilets in libraries and shopping centres. The shopping centres are commercial developments and commercially run, but the toilets are discrete units. They are not just toilets in shops; there are separate doors to them, but it is a commercial operation.

We also have public toilets in the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff—a large building at the centre of Cardiff tourism in the bay. It houses major musical events and a lot of youth and artistic activities. It runs free concerts and there are shops and cafes. There is free public access to the toilets. The Wales Millennium Centre is run by a trust, but that trust has been funded by major amounts of public money. I know that the noble Lord will say that that is in Wales and that there is a separate set of rules, but I use it as an example. Clearly, it would not qualify for this scheme, but why should it not? It provides the same facilities, with cleaning and maintenance, and the public are allowed to enter for a large number of hours each day of the week.

It is really not difficult to ascertain whether toilets are genuinely publicly available or available for a reasonable amount of time each day. The Minister told us that the Government are adopting the community toilet scheme, and similar types of rules can apply for rate relief.

My concern is not just that the Government’s scheme is not generous enough; it is also that it is not even-handed. Public toilets in buildings still have to be maintained and cleaned, so why should an accident of situation define whether this relief is granted? It could even discourage major new developments from incorporating what would be genuinely public toilets.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as listed in the register: as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to which I have added my name, challenge the scope of the Bill in its restriction to public toilets that are stand-alone and not part of a larger public building, such as a library or community centre. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss these amendments and for the letter that he sent explaining the reasons for confining the scope of the Bill to stand-alone public toilets. However, we have to remember that one consequence of the long period of cuts to local government funding has been that many public toilets have been closed permanently. In my local authority, which serves nearly half a million people, there are now no stand-alone public toilets. The Bill is welcome but it is very much like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

These amendments are intended to encourage the Government to appreciate the wider need to increase the availability of public toilets. There is already pressure for some public toilets in public buildings to be closed because of the costs associated with keeping them open, as they are not part of the focused purpose of the building. For example, a public library is having to use scarce funds to keep the public toilets in its building open when there is barely sufficient funding to staff the building. That is the dilemma facing local authorities, certainly in the northern urban areas that I know well.

My noble friend Lord Greaves’s points are well made. Local people regard public toilets within a public building as being the same as stand-alone public toilets. The challenge is explained in the letter that I referred to earlier—the volume of work it would impose on the valuation office—but my noble friend Lord Greaves’s amendment seeks to find a way round this for public toilets that have separate access. I hope that the Minister is able to respond positively to that amendment.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is an expert on these matters. He has said that valuation for rating is not just about facts and figures. One example that he provided was the relief given to charities. The Government would do well to take heed of the arguments that the noble and learned Lord made, and that view has been well supported by my noble friend Lady Randerson. As well as making those arguments and supporting my noble friend Lord Greaves’s view, she argued that improved public toilets are more secure and can be more easily kept clean if they are within a public building, rather than being stand-alone.

The Government have a responsibility to ensure adequate availability of publicly funded public toilets. It is a responsibility that has been accepted since the days of the great Victorian public heath reformers. The Bill demonstrates that the Government continue to accept that they have that responsibility. It is not sufficient, in fulfilling this obligation, to make those public toilets that have survived the cull zero rated. The Government must provide the means for local government to increase availability to meet local need. That is what these amendments seek to do and I wholeheartedly support them.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the points highlighted by his amendment and for his valuable and knowledgeable contribution to the Second Reading debate, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and, with great knowledge, by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I point out that the horse has not bolted entirely. There are nearly 4,000 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales—3,990 as of 31 March 2020—and therefore this is a very important relief for those properties.

The effect of the first amendment would be to extend the scope of the relief to include publicly owned properties, such as libraries, community centres and other local authority properties, where they contain free-to-use public lavatories. In effect, this would mean that the local authority-owned buildings that contained a non-fee-paying public lavatory would be exempted from paying rates.

It is the Government’s firm view that public bodies, like other ratepayers, should pay rates on the properties they own and occupy, and it is therefore right that the legislation should broadly reflect this principle. The Government’s policy aim, and the purpose of Clause 1, is clear in that it provides a targeted relief to support the provision of public lavatories in specific circumstances. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, such as those along our coastline or in towns, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a significant difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response to my previous amendment. I thought that commenting here would be more convenient than making a separate intervention after the Minister in the previous group. That amendment—and others in this and other groups—will give rise to the need for further discussions with the Minister about some of the technical details, if he is agreeable. With the exception, perhaps, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, none of us is an expert lawyer. We are trying to understand how it works.

That is the purpose of Amendment 2. I am not trying to persuade the Government to remove “mainly”; that would make the Bill even worse. This is a typical House of Lords Committee probing amendment. I am sure that during the noble Lord’s long career as a local government Minister in this House, he will have a lot of fun with a lot of similar amendments to much bigger and longer Bills. This is what we do. It is a way of asking questions. What does “or mainly” mean? It is not clear, and it is not defined.

The National Association of Local Councils’ briefing says that the cost to councils of paying rates on public lavatories is £8 million. The Minister said that the cost of the Bill as it stands is £6 million. Either in his reply to this, or at some other time during today’s discussion, could he explain the difference between those numbers and where it comes from? Perhaps he can give us figures for the extra costs which he thinks would be incurred by some of the proposals being put forward.

I have one other amendment in this group—Amendment 7. I had another, similar probing amendment, but there was a technical problem with it. It was my fault for submitting it on the last day. The Public Bill Office kindly offered to have the Marshalled List reprinted, but I said I could cope with what we have here.

Amendment 7 suggests that “mainly”

“is to be construed according to an assessment by the rating authority of the balance of use by the public of the public lavatories compared with the remainder of the hereditament, disregarding the proportion of the area occupied by the public lavatories.”

I have been trying to get my mind round the relationship between a public lavatory—which might be free standing —and the land on which it stands. This might be a garden area or amenity area in a town or village: a mini-park—or a pocket park, as they are called nowadays; we all know the kind of thing—or it might be a full park. If it is within a park, and basically for the people using that park, it will not be paying rates anyway, because parks are zero-rated. I think it is regarded as part of the hereditament that consists of the park.

If the public lavatory is free-standing in a park or elsewhere and the land around it is a separate hereditament, it will benefit from the Bill. However, somewhere, there must be a dividing line between a lavatory in a park and one that is mainly in an amenity area that forms part of the same hereditament as the lavatory, which is therefore all rated. That is the purpose of this amendment. Alternatively, there may well be a public lavatory that is part of a wider hereditament, the rest of which has fallen into disuse, but it is all part and parcel of the same rate.

If the public use of a public lavatory is greater than that of the rest of the hereditament of which it is a part, and is thus mainly what happens there—this might be a building that contains other council facilities: a storage shed or office, for example—I do not know how this would be worked out under the Government’s own proposal that everything should rely on “mainly”, where this word applies to use by the public.

The other amendment I was going to put down was about the financial valuation. It may be that a hereditament contains a public lavatory and, to all intents and purposes, is a public lavatory but contains another use: it is a mixed hereditament. I am not talking about a public library—where the lavatory is just a small part of it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said—or a community centre, where the public lavatory probably would not be there if it did not exist. How do you decide if a council-owned building that consists partly of a public lavatory and partly of something else is “mainly” a public lavatory? Even if the assumed assessment or valuation of the rest of the building for rating purposes is greater than that of the public lavatory, the latter should nevertheless trump—that may not be quite the right word—or prevail over the rest.

I hope the Minister understands what I am saying. First, how does he define “mainly”? Secondly, even if the public lavatory is a smaller part of the area, can it prevail as the main use? Thirdly, if it is not as valuable as the thing it is attached to, whatever that is—a tiny parish council office or something like that—can it nevertheless be the prevailing use? I ask those questions to find out how the provision will actually work in practice: what is the workability of this, as regards public lavatories? Having said that, I beg to move Amendment 2.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My noble friend Lord Greaves has rightly questioned the meaning of “mainly” and its purpose: is it, as he asks, about the extent of public use? He is an experienced user of such probing amendments in seeking to get to the detailed consequences of Bills, and this one is no exception. I am sure the Minister will be able to give a detailed explanation in reply, and I look forward to hearing it.

The other query that my noble friend Lord Greaves rightly raised concerns his information that the cost of paying rates on public toilets is £8 million a year, which is rather different from the £6 million cited by the Minister. It would be good to know the reason for the difference in those figures, and why. Having said that, I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s probing question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there are important and relevant issues to explore in Amendments 3 and 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Greaves, respectively. When a financial benefit is to be gained, as there is in this Bill, it inevitably becomes an issue of dispute at some time in the future when some realise that they are not getting rate relief on their provision of public toilets while others are. That is why it is important to explore what the Government are proposing here.

As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Kennedy, there is a considerable range of public toilet facilities. Some are open only during the day and some not at the weekend; some require payment, and some do not. We need to understand the implications of this variety of provision for the purposes of the Bill. Is it acceptable to make a small charge for a public toilet facility and get the rate relief proposed in this Bill? What will happen if that small charge becomes ever larger? Is it still right, then, that that facility is zero-rated? These two amendments indicate that what may appear to be simple, straightforward changes can have inconsistent consequences once the detail of the implementation is exposed, as it has been so expertly this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, wanted to know the evidence that this would cause a burden disproportionate to the level of relief provided. The reality is that, under these proposals, we are not asking local authorities or the Valuation Office Agency to do anything in addition to what they already do. But where we are widening the scope, we are asking local authorities to do something they do not currently do, so by definition that will increase burdens on them and, in some cases, on the Valuation Office Agency.

The effect of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, would be to apply a set of conditions that would need to be satisfied before the relief could be granted. I will expand on the reasons why I do not believe these are helpful in the operation of the relief. As a principle, I do not agree we should be moving away from the clear and simple aims of the policy by limiting this much-needed support.

The effect of Amendment 3 would be to exclude those who own and run facilities where a small fee is charged from receiving this relief. The Government’s policy aim and purpose in Clause 1 is to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about free-to-use public toilets. Nevertheless, the purpose of this Bill is to provide targeted support to separately assessed public lavatories, recognising the particular circumstances they face, not to draw a distinction between those that charge and those that do not. Such a distinction would add complexity, uncertainty and an unnecessary administrative burden for local authorities and would increase the pressure on those facilities that are not able to access this support. I do not agree that those ratepayers that operate a public lavatory and charge a minimal fee for the first service should be excluded from this vital support.

I understand the practice of charging a fee is reducing, but those that charge do so on the basis of a commercial decision. In some cases, that fee may be charged to meet the ongoing costs of maintenance and cleaning, which is entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of knowing which facilities charge and what services they provide, so I welcome the work of the British Toilet Association, which provides an online service called the Great British Public Toilet Map, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This provides visitors with critical information about toilets in a specific area, including whether they are free to use, whether they are accessible and whether they have baby-changing facilities. Users can then make a decision in good knowledge and plan appropriately. I also commend the community toilet scheme, which was first devised by the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and is now used by local authorities across the country. This enables local businesses to work with councils to widen lavatory access so the public can use their facilities without making a purchase.

Amendment 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would limit the relief on the condition that the facilities should be open at set times and days as reasonably necessary. As I have outlined, our aim is to increase the support for the provision of public toilets, not to reduce the level of assistance for facilities that are most in need of support. I would not support the creation of a further burden on authorities to assess and police the opening and closing times of a toilet before awarding relief. The establishment of such a regime would be disproportionate to the value of the relief and would not represent good value for money to the taxpayer. As I have set out, the relief applies only to occupied facilities and is awarded only in these circumstances. While I understand the intention of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, in practice, they may, at best, be unhelpful and, at worst, unnecessarily increase pressure on toilets to close.

I hope that I have helped clarify the Government’s intention about how the measure would apply. With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I urge the Government to take the opportunity to give the Bill some wording that expands its ambit, and to take advantage of the leverage that it gives them—as the noble Lord has noted, it is a generous disbursement of funds—to achieve other policy objectives. The policy objective that I, personally, would like the Bill to support is whatever the outcome is of the Government’s current review of toilet provision in general.

It has been a joke all my life, let alone my noble friend’s life, how there is always a queue at the ladies and none at the gents. We have not had equal provision in relation to demand. We now need to recognise that there are people—particularly those who are committed transgender—who are not easily able to take advantage of toilets that are just for men or just for women. Having toilets that are universally unisex, such as those in the Old Vic and the Department for Education visitor accommodation, is extremely difficult for many women and some men, including me, to put up with.

There are, therefore, matters of policy relating to the provision of toilets that we can reasonably anticipate will come to the fore over the next couple of years. It would be good to give the Government, in this Bill, the ability to lever the rates relief that they are giving in order to achieve their policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, we may find that over time there will be opportunities to expand the Bill’s ambit to other worthwhile premises in ways which, as my noble friend insisted, go along with the modus operandi of the valuation office. That is fine, but we are missing a chance if we leave the Bill as it is and do not give the Government additional power along the lines that I have suggested. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is not clear to me why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, believes that it is necessary to—I quote—prescribe a definition of public lavatories. It is not clear what policy objective would be achieved by his amendments. Without wishing to cause offence, that clarity has not been expanded during the noble Lord’s introduction of the amendment.

As we have already heard, there is currently a huge variety of provision: some are in old-style toilet blocks, some include Changing Places and some include baby changing facilities. Some modern provision consists of a single facility into which only one person at a time can enter. Some public toilets are unisex, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explained. That is increasingly the case in modern office blocks. I have never heard anyone being particularly concerned about that provision. Public toilets are simply a facility for members of the public. I do not on earth see what is gained by prescribing a definition.

The best thing we can do, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explain his amendments, is agree to disagree with him. I, for one, cannot support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, illustrated one way of doing it. I think even that would have its complications, in that one would have to ask, “Is the business doing enough to deserve the 1% or 2% that would be deducted from its business rates?” However, I really encourage the Government to look down that road and prepare to take steps down it, even if they cannot do so today.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explore the opportunities for public toilets within a public building that are not separately rated, so that they may benefit from the purposes of the Bill. In particular, Amendment 6 seeks to achieve the benefits of the Bill for those facilities providing changing places. These are inevitably included within public buildings, where there is the large amount of space available to provide changing places.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shared his expertise on these matters. He provides alternative thinking about derating hereditaments that provide public toilet facilities. The principle is sound; we all seek today to find ways of supporting public toilets through the financial benefit provided by the Bill, and not just those which are stand-alone. I hope that the Minister will, with his department, think carefully about the solution that the noble and learned Lord is pointing to. I certainly hope that we will be able to explore it on Report.

I for one support any means for exempting non-domestic rates where there is a public benefit. This debate has revealed the total incoherence of non-domestic rating. For example, in my own town of Cleckheaton the public toilets we have as part of our small market hall are separately rated and cost the council £15,000 a year in rates. These are no grand-affair public toilets; they are just two toilets, one for men and one for women. The cost of the rates is by far the largest element of expenditure on the upkeep of these toilets, yet they provide a free public benefit. The rate charged on this humble public toilet block is far in excess, in ratio terms, of that charged on an out-of-town warehouse providing storage for online shopping. This is all out of kilter.

Fundamental reform is essential and the Government have for too long avoided taking these difficult decisions. I hope that the Minister will consider all the helpful suggestions made this afternoon and be willing to think again about the contents of the Bill. I look forward to his reply today, and to further discussions and further debate on Report.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the backing that the Committee has given to the measures in the Bill and recognise the arguments made in support of extending the relief further still. The first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would provide for relief to be given to properties which contain public toilets that are not separately assessed, and for that relief to be determined according to the proportion of that property occupied by the public toilet. The second would have the same effect, but separately for properties which contain Changing Places facilities.

In designing the scope of the Bill, the Government have given due consideration to the benefits to our communities of extending the relief to those toilets that are not currently separately assessed. However, these benefits must be weighed against the significant practical and financial implications of implementing such a relief. I hope that my colleagues present today have received a copy of the letter of 2 February setting out these implications in detail—actually, I think most noble Lords today have referred to it. For the benefit of the Committee, I will set them out again now.

The Government have taken the deliberate approach of targeting the measure within the Bill at supporting those toilets that appear separately on business rates lists. This means that this support will be available to those facilities for which the cost of business rates has the largest bearing on their ability to remain open. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require the separate assessment of the rateable value of public toilets that sit within larger properties, and for the awarding of a business rates discount relative to the proportion of the property that the toilet occupies.

A valuation exercise to provide an apportioned relief would be extensive and require the Valuation Office Agency to first identify where the facilities are, and then to assess the specific rateable value of each toilet relative to the property of which it forms a part. This exercise would carry significant financial and temporal costs, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require business rates valuers to carry out assessments and, where needed, to make site visits up and down the country. As such, it would divert critical VOA resources from the priority of delivering the 2023 revaluation and could potentially delay the implementation of the core measure of the Bill before the Committee today.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned a formula-based approach to derating. This would also result in considerable burdens, for example by requiring the VOA to identify the location of the public toilets. Obviously, the scale of the intervention is different from that for mines in the 1928 Act, but I am happy to discuss that technical approach with my officials between now and Report.

I am proud to be here today championing a measure that will be of great value to our communities. While I recognise the importance of all publicly accessible toilets, the cost of extending this relief according to the amendment would be significant—far greater than the financial benefit to operators of such facilities. I hope that the Committee will agree that a relief with implementation costs disproportionate to its financial benefits would not represent good value for money for taxpayers.

Although extending relief to toilets that form part of larger properties would undoubtedly bring about significant and disproportionate costs and practical difficulties, I appreciate that the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerns Changing Places toilets in particular. I therefore hope that the Committee will allow me to set out the steps that the Government have already taken to support these vital facilities.

I am proud to belong to a Government who are delivering on their commitment to provide more Changing Places toilets. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a £30 million fund to further extend the provision of these vital facilities and my department will shortly set out the allocation of this funding. I would be happy to provide my colleagues in the House with further details on this funding once they are available.

The funding comes on top of the £2 million announced by the Department for Transport to provide Changing Places toilets at motorway services and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care to install these facilities in NHS hospitals across England. I hope that that reassures the Committee that where a Changing Places toilet is separately assessed, the measures in the Bill, subject to Royal Assent, act to reduce the business rates liability of these facilities to nil. While there are significant practical reasons why the Bill does not cover toilets—Changing Places or otherwise—within larger buildings, the Government are delivering on their commitment to supporting Changing Places toilets directly through grant funding.

I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the Deputy Chairman really ought not to continue tempting me to call a Division but, never mind, I am not going to.

I tried to do some research. In May this year, it will be 50 years since I was first elected to a local authority and I thought that I knew about things such as business rates and so on. I have discovered in the past week or two that I do not know much at all. They are complicated and technical. I thought that I would ring up the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and have a conversation with him but I have been advised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not to do that because I might get too far into this subject.

As part and parcel of this matter, I have been looking at the Government’s rating manual, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the regulations that are referred to in Clause 2, and discovered why no amendments have been tabled to that clause because I doubt any noble Lords who might want to table amendments to it would understand a word of it. However, I thought it necessary to table an amendment on empty properties.

The amendment is technically totally hopeless—I am certain about that—but it contains the words “empty properties”. All I want to do is use it to ask the Government: can they give a guarantee that the Bill will not allow people to pay no rates on public lavatories that they have closed? I am aware that local authorities all over the country nowadays charge rates on all kinds of empty properties, which used not to be possible. I do not want people to be able to close public lavatories and still have rate relief on them as a result of the Bill; in other words, I am asking that the Bill should not trump other legislation that allows local authorities to continue to rate empty property, and that people will not be able get away with that. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will able to provide some clarity on it. The amendment, on the face of it, highlights what would be an incentive to keep a public lavatory open. I look forward to the Minister’s response because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it would be perverse if, by closing a public lavatory, one would be eligible for rate relief. I am sure that that is not the Bill’s intention but it is important to get clarity from the Government on the issue that the noble Lord rightly raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I support these important amendments, and I ask the Government particularly to pay attention to the three powerful speeches we have just heard from my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Those three speeches sum up what the future really ought to be for public provision in this area. When the Government say they are carrying out a technical review, I am afraid that I am a bit cynical about the word “technical” in this respect. I am sure that their intentions are good, but it is more than just technical. It is about basic humanity and a basic provision of human-based services for all people. As I say, I hope that the Government will take this seriously.

To pick up on two or three particular points, parish and town councils are absolutely crucial in the future provision of public lavatories. Although they do not cover anything like a majority of electors in this country, they do cover a huge number of small and medium-sized communities. These are places that people go to, or through, and where people go for holidays and recreation. It is crucial that they are provided with the necessary resources to do what we all want to do, which is, in many places, to turn old inadequate Victorian and Edwardian public conveniences into modern provisions of the kind that people have been talking about which are suitable for everybody.

To do that, they need resources. I keep being told, and the National Association of Local Councils have been told, by the Government that they have no powers to provide funding for parish councils. That was almost the exact wording that I was given in a Written Answer from the Minister, not too long ago. I do not believe that; I think it is complete baloney. The Government can provide funding for projects on almost anything they want. They could certainly provide capital funding through some scheme or other for parish and town councils to renovate and modernise their existing public conveniences and provide new lavatories. I hope that the Government look seriously at that in their technical review because, if they are going to be provided, in many places the town and parish councils will have to do it.

Secondly, I asked a question earlier and the Minister did not reply, on whether the Bill applies to all kinds of ownership—public bodies including councils, voluntary groups including charities and commercial organisations, some of which may be charities. He said separately, in reply on another amendment, that the Bill applies specifically to lavatories that appear on business rate lists. Is that the definition? Does it therefore apply to any public lavatories that appear on business rate lists, whoever owns them, even if it does not apply to lots that are publicly provided?

My final point is on burdens to councils. As the Minister well knows, councils love to talk about, involve themselves in and do something about very local facilities. I understand the difficulties of providing extra burdens on the VOA, particularly at this stage, but I believe that, in a relatively small number of cases, public lavatories could be provided with the relief in this Bill by giving some discretion to local authorities, in some way. I do not believe that local authorities would regard that as a great burden, but as part of their ordinary job. We are not talking about a lot. I have a list of eight public lavatories that are on the business rates list in my own area of Pendle in Lancashire—only eight. The numbers that might benefit from the Bill, if it was extended a little, are not more than that. We are talking about single figures in most local authorities, certainly most ordinary districts. They could cope with that perfectly well and would not complain about the extra burden; they would welcome the ability to influence things a little for the better.

Having said that, I very much support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope that we see a few improvements to the Bill from the Government, when we get to Report, to make it even better than it is now.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is an important series of amendments. My noble friend Lady Thomas knows, at first hand, the challenges facing people with disabilities as they seek to do what the rest of us take for granted. Before people with disabilities venture out, questions have to be answered. Is there an accessible public toilet? Is its accessibility such that it meets the needs of, say, those using larger mobility aids? Is it open at the appropriate times? How easy is it to access? Negative answers to these questions may well mean that someone with a disability is unable to go on a trip or holiday, or simply shopping.

My noble friend’s Amendment 14 is hugely important and I am proud that it is also in my name. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously, as I feel sure he will, and to press his ministerial colleagues to make them a priority. During this lockdown, we have all had the experience of not being able just to go out, when we want to. For people with disabilities, this can happen all the time. Ensuring there are accessible and available public toilets goes some way to remove one of their barriers to freedom.

Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind my House of my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This debate on the specific share of rateable income newly generated by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and the Teesside mayoral authority has raised some important considerations. The first is that currently around half of the income of local authorities is raised via business rates. This is either through retained business rates, which is the subject of these regulations, or by the redistribution of business rates collected locally and redistributed nationally.

In recent years the Government have made very considerable reductions in central government grants and have expected local authorities to base their expenditure on income derived in the main from council tax collection and business rate income. With the huge pressure on the most highly rated premises in our town centres, it is hardly surprising that retail outlets are closing in such large numbers. In the competition between online and physical retail, the biggest financial advantage lies with online premises, where rateable values are so much lower.

I have an example. I live in a small Victorian town, where a small shop is paying at the rate of £250 per square metre of its premises. The equivalent for an out-of-town warehouse, also in Yorkshire, which is the distribution centre of a major online shopping business, is a mere £45 per square metre. That vast disparity is at the heart of the crisis in our local high streets. This is the background to the regulations we are debating.

In a nutshell, the system is broken, as several noble Lords have detailed. The Government need to address this problem with considerable urgency and energy. It is also unfair. Designated areas are of benefit in those areas only. However, retaining those rates locally results in the national income of business rates not growing by that proportion. This in turn means that there is less to distribute across the rest of the country. Designated areas discriminate against those local authorities that, for a variety of reasons, are unable to encourage high business rate growth—including, for instance, serving an area within a national park.

What is also apparent in the need for the regulations is the narrowness of the Government’s definition of devolution. Devolution as experienced in other nations in Europe would see no need for the regulations. The Government need to let go and free up local authorities to develop their enterprising faculties. That is what this small example of a designated area is able to do. The challenge, however, with the current high levels of unemployment, is for all growth and job creation to be encouraged. How can local and mayoral authorities achieve this while they remain harnessed to the constraints of central government?

Throughout this debate, we have heard sharp criticism of the existing system and a general desire to encourage enterprise, job creation and the prosperity that follows. This scheme of designation of business rates retention in the Tees Valley mayoral authority and the Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council area is welcome for this part of the country. However, major reform is vital. My noble friend Lord German has proposed a site value rating approach, whereby land is taxed, not the enterprise on it.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government, in considering reform of the system of business rates, are mindful of the advantages of site value rating. With those comments, I of course support the regulations and the retention of rates in that part of the north-east of the country.

Building Safety

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.

Three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives, decisions made by the Government have left thousands of people trapped in unsafe homes and many more unable to move. The Government’s announcement has come far too late for many and is, sadly, a repeat of undelivered promises. It backtracks on a key promise that no leaseholders should have to pay for the cost of this scandal, which is not of their making. On 11 March 2020, nearly a year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that

“all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed from every private and social residential building above 18 metres high.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/20; col. 291.]

But that has not happened.

The funds set up have been dogged with problems. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House how much of the money available has been spent so far. I believe there has been a major underestimation of this scandal—this problem—by the Government. Can the Minister tell the House how many buildings are unsafe, where they are and what danger they pose? Until the Government have credible answers to these basic questions, there will continue to be mistakes and the offering of piecemeal solutions that must be updated when they do not deliver. Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, update the House and guarantee that the funding provided will cover all buildings over 18 metres high?

Will the Government set up an independent task force to prioritise buildings according to risk, with powers to get the funds out of the door and the ability to go after building owners when they fail to get the work done? That has been a consistent problem that we have raised again and again. Ministers have now promised 17 times—yes, 17 times—that leaseholders will not bear the cost of fixing a problem they did not cause; these were the promises made to the innocent victims of this scandal. But the Government have betrayed their promise that leaseholders will not pay for the building safety crisis. Three and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, hundreds of thousands of people cannot sleep at night because their homes are unsafe. On top of that, the Government have decided to pile financial misery on them. This is wrong; it is an injustice, and it is unacceptable.

Can the Minister tell the House why this arbitrary 18-metre height limit means the difference between a safe home and, potentially, financial ruin? What are the terms of the loan? What will the interest be? Will leaseholders be required to pay the interest as well as the main costs? On the point that the leaseholder will not pay more than £50 a month, if they sell the property, does the loan have to be paid at that point? Does it go with the former owner, or does it stay with the current owner? We need to know where we stand. How long will the scheme run for? Will it go up by the rate of inflation each year? What will the Government do if these homes remain unsaleable? How will they ensure that freeholders take up the loans? How will the Government speed up remediation, given that the current stalemate cannot continue?

Other properties do not have dangerous cladding, but these people have been charged thousands of pounds per flat to fix other safety issues. The Government should focus on securing our economy and rebuilding after Covid, not saddling homeowners with further debt. The Government should pursue those responsible for payment and prevent leaseholders and taxpayers carrying the can. The Government have announced a levy and a tax, which I welcome, but those responsible should bear the cost. How much do the Government anticipate the levy will raise? Will they pursue others, such as the cladding manufacturers, responsible for putting the dangerous cladding on in the first place? The Government have missed every target for removing ACM cladding and 50,000 people are still living in flats wrapped in it. This is the same cladding that was found on Grenfell Tower, and thousands more have other dangerous cladding on their buildings. When will this all be removed?

What about the skyrocketing insurance costs that innocent victims are being forced to pay? Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, tell the House what he expects, on average, a leaseholder to pay? People cannot continue to live in unsafe, unsellable homes. Homeowners should not be faced with financial ruin—bankruptcy, even—to fix a problem they did not cause. Unfortunately, these proposals, instead of providing justice, will still leave too many people struggling and facing loans. This is a very poor Statement from the Government—they will have to come back to the table and do what they promised in the first place: ensure that no victim of this scandal will have to bear the cost of fixing a problem they were not responsible for.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeat of this important Statement on the Government’s response to the cladding crisis. I remind the House of my interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I was pleased when I read the heading of the Statement, “Building Safety”, and the opening paragraph, which refers to the mission of the Secretary of State being that of “safety and fairness”. Unfortunately, the Statement then fails to live up to those laudable words. The first issue I have with it is that throughout, there is reference only to “unsafe cladding”. In fact, what has become clear, as the vast scale of the problem that the Grenfell tragedy exposed, is that the building safety failings go far beyond “unsafe cladding”. As flammable cladding is removed, in some buildings further significant construction failings are revealed: flammable insulation has been used; firebreaks have not been built into the structure as a way of slowing the spread of a fire; balconies are not made of fire-retardant material; and spandrel panels are also seen as a potential safety concern.

How do I know this? In January 2020 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued guidance note 23, relating to the seven building components under review, requiring building owners and managers to take urgent action on these. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: will the additional government funding pay for all the defects revealed when the unsafe cladding is removed? If, for instance, it becomes evident that there is an absence of firebreaks, will the funding cover the costs of installing them? If not, the leaseholders will still be faced with large bills to pay for failings in the construction.

The next fundamental question that I hope the Minister can answer is: why has 18 metres been chosen as the bar above which cladding removal is funded by the Government and below which the leaseholders and tenants are required to pay? Is the 18-metre figure an historic one that needs to be reassessed? Serious fires can occur in blocks of varying heights: for instance, the fire in a block called The Cube, in Bolton, was very serious—although fortunately, there was no loss of life—but the building was lower than 18 metres.

That leads me to the question of fairness. As noble Lords will recall, this is the mission of the department in respect of building safety. Can the Minister explain how it is fair for leaseholders in blocks below 18 metres high to have to pay for remediation? I recognise that low-interest loans are available and that the currently anticipated maximum payment is £50 per month. This will, no doubt, be added to the service charge and will be one of the costs that potential buyers will consider. It will make these flats less attractive to buyers and they will almost certainly command a lower value. How is it fair to require leaseholders to pay for building remediation which is not in any way of their making?

One of the roles of government is to ensure that safety regulations are appropriate to the task and that there is an inspection regime. The Government have failed to do this, so they are partly culpable, must bear the cost and recoup it from those who share culpability.

Then there is the question of building regulations. It is alleged that some of the buildings affected by this scandal failed to comply with building regulations at the time of construction. Can the Minister confirm this and provide some estimate of the numbers involved? Where breaches of regulation are involved, will the Government require full remediation costs to be met by the developer? This is what happens with the manufacturers of cars and white goods, for example. Surely it should also apply in these instances. Does the Minister agree?

Next, I turn to the total funding package. The additional funding provided by the Government is a start, but this £5 billion needs to be put into context. During the debate on the Fire Safety Bill, the Minister confirmed that the total cost of remediation was likely to be in the region of £16 billion. Does that imply that £10 billion or more will be paid for by leaseholders through the loan scheme? Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether this is what the Government have calculated.

It is proposed to recoup some of these costs from developers by raising £200 million per annum via a tax on the sector. The cost of the minority of the remediation to be recouped from developers is pathetically small. During the last four years, the five largest developers made profits of around £16 billion, which rather puts the proposed figure into context. Will the Government reconsider the level of this tax to make it fairer?

Finally, I hope that the Government do not need to be reminded of the terrible, personal cost of the cladding scandal. For instance, Laurel and Jonathan in Manchester are seriously considering bankruptcy as the only way out of their predicament. Hayley in Leeds has already been forced into bankruptcy. In an Inside Housing survey last year, 23% of respondents said that they had considered suicide. Such is the stress of living in an unsafe home and being forced to pay huge increases in insurance and service charges. For leaseholders and tenants, this building safety crisis is not in any way of their making, yet they are expected to pay the price while those who created it are not being similarly expected to pay in any significant way. Can the Minister explain how this adheres to the department’s mission of fairness? Will he press for a review of the current proposals as more information comes to light?

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, around £3.5 billion in direct, additional grant has been committed. This is a significant amount of money which dwarfs the £1.6 billion previously promised. More than £5 billion has been committed to support the ending of the cladding crisis. The plans go a long way towards ensuring that affordability is not an issue for any leaseholders in medium-rise properties. It also ensures that, where there is no warranty outstanding or insurance available to protect the leaseholder, the taxpayer—through the Government’s additional grant—will step up and provide the funding necessary to ensure that the cladding system is removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about progress. Despite Covid, we saw 50% more starts in 2020 than in any other year. Workers were on site and, by the end of the year, 95% of high-rise buildings with the same sort of cladding as at Grenfell had either started or completed remediation. We know exactly where these buildings are. The vast majority of the remaining cladding will have been removed from them by the end of this calendar year.

The main thrust of the questions was around the scope of the fund. It is important to recognise that height is a huge factor when it comes to safety and the risk to life. The higher the building, the more risk there is to the residents. People who live in buildings between 18 and 30 metres high are four times more likely to have a fire involving a fatality or the need for hospital treatment. In buildings above 30 metres, this rises to 35 times more likely. We know that height is a factor. Eighteen metres is the cut-off point for the definition of a high-rise building. This has been part of building regulations for a considerable number of years. The definition that we are using for scope is above six storeys, so The Cube would fall within the remit of a building where an application could be made to the building safety fund to remove its cladding. The threshold is six or more storeys or a height greater than 18 metres.

The long-term safety advice makes it clear that the external cladding system acts as accelerant, helping the fire to spread. This is why the government money is focused on the removal of external cladding systems. Internal compartmentation, firebreaks and fire doors are designed to stop the spread of fire. It is right that taxpayers’ money should focus on the material that accelerates the spread of fire.

The £3.5 billion and the finance scheme will together help hundreds of thousands of leaseholders. For those in medium-rise properties, it will cover a significant part of their costs. For those in high-rise buildings, there will be no cost. To date, 13,000 leaseholders in ACM buildings have been supported by the government grant scheme. Between 70,000 and 90,000 leaseholders in buildings with non-ACM cladding systems will not bear any cost. A further 150,000 leaseholders in buildings between 11 and 18 metres high will also be helped.

It is important, however, that building owners step up to the plate to support remediation where the government grant is not available. We do not expect this cost to fall entirely on leaseholders. With the ACM fund, more than 50% of owners did the right thing and ensured that the cost did not fall on leaseholders. We expect to see that with the non-ACM buildings as well. Here, warranty schemes can often still be drawn on and protect leaseholders.

It is worth looking at the cladding manufacturers. I will take that point away because, as well as the developers, they are culpable for the situation that we find ourselves in—a point that has been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. That is something that we can look at in due course.

This is a five-point plan looking at significant sums of money to support the removal of the external cladding systems. It is those systems that have accelerated the spread of fire and their removal makes it far more unlikely that Grenfell will ever happen again. We know that the future building safety regime will be focused on ensuring that the new buildings will be of far greater quality and then provide the greater confidence that is required in the housing market to ensure that it begins to function properly in future years.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Grand Committee

On the wider point about the reform of business rates and what we are doing today, this Bill is, I think, essentially non-controversial in what it is seeking to achieve. What will be more contentious, I suspect, is looking at the way we levy business rates or commercial taxes on business in future. This issue has been thrown into high relief by the pandemic, making more obvious the imbalance between physical high street retail, out-of-town retail and, of course, online businesses. This is an important issue, and it is clearly essential to our nation that we get the balance right; all three parts of that servicing of retail are important. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some thoughts on that. I appreciate that he cannot be precise on the approach or the timescale, but some indication of when we will address this important issue would be welcome.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.

The debate on these amendments has been a relatively short but, I trust, helpful for the Government. As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Bourne, to cover the cross-party contributions to this debate, there are significant concerns about the timing of the assessment—or the antecedent valuation date, to give it its official title—of new rateable values. Some have experienced enormous challenges over the last year, none of which are of their making. The challenges of the pandemic have brought large parts of the hospitality and retail sectors to their knees. Now is not the time to undertake an assessment of rental values, which is in large part the basis of the valuation.

Will the Minister agree to discuss with the department the possibility of a delay to the AVD? This concern is at the heart of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornhill. A six-month review would establish whether it is practicable to assess new rental values that feed into the final valuation. A delay is preferable but, failing that, a review is essential as it would highlight the difficulties of doing this while a pandemic is rife. The concerns from those of us who have had extensive local government experience is that local authority finances will be adversely impacted. Of course, the Government have given assurances that any loss of income from business rates will be fully compensated—at the moment. However, they have not, as yet, given such a commitment for when the revaluation comes live in 2023. Will the Minister provide copper-bottomed assurance that no local authority will lose income from the revaluation, and that any necessary top-ups will be provided? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions, which will inform any amendments to be tabled at Report.

As we discussed at Second Reading, the Government have chosen a particularly inopportune time for the revaluation of business rates. The valuation day is set for April of this year, and I urge the Minister to consider delaying the date and accepting the proposal in both these amendments. I look forward to his reply.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I first point out my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the points highlighted by his proposed new clause. The business rates system is unusual among taxes because its implementation is split between the Valuation Office Agency, which is an agency of HMRC, and local authorities. Many noble Lords have, like myself, experience of working in local government and know and understand how important the relationship is between the VOA, local authorities and my department in running the business rates system.

As the Committee would expect, one of the issues raised in our discussions with local government has been how revaluations impact on local government funding, so I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, for tabling their amendment on that subject.

In relation to the provisions of this Bill, we have worked closely with the VOA to ensure that a revaluation in 2023 can be delivered on time. The antecedent valuation date of 1 April 2021 was set by a statutory instrument laid on 6 August last year, since when the VOA has been preparing for the revaluation. It has already started to collect the information it needs to value 2 million properties and is on target to complete the exercise to plan.

As I discussed at Second Reading, Clause 1 also moves back the latest date by when the draft rating list must be published before the revaluation to no later than the preceding 31 December. In practice, we expect this to be around the time of the autumn fiscal event, when the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme are also announced. That will mean that rating lists will come to local government a little later than previous revaluations, but we do not expect this to mean any delays in the process of billing or estimating business rates income.

Local government of course needs the multipliers and details of relief schemes before it can calculate liabilities, and it is only once that full package is confirmed that bills can be issued. That is the case whether we are in the year of a revaluation or not. Nevertheless, I can assure my noble friend Lord Bourne and the Committee that my officials meet representatives of local government regularly and will continue to discuss these matters with them to ensure the smooth delivery of business rates bills.

More generally, my department and the VOA are continuously looking at how we can improve consultation and closer working with local government. In recent years the VOA has introduced a data gateway under which it is able to share information about ratepayers with local authorities in order to support the billing process, and last year we made regulations empowering local authorities to provide the VOA with information on a quarterly basis about the properties that ratepayers occupy. This was introduced with the support of local government and will ensure that the VOA has up-to-date information ahead of 1 April 2021, which is the intended valuation date for the 2023 revaluation.

One specific matter we have discussed with local government is how to reflect in the local government finance system the changes in business rates income at revaluation—and I recognise that this is the matter on which the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, seek reassurance through their amendment. The purpose of the revaluation is to ensure that business rates bills reflect the up-to-date rental value of properties.

This of course means that some ratepayers will see increases and some will see reductions as a result of the revaluation, and it follows that the business rates income for individual local authorities will fluctuate in the same way. Some local authorities will see their business rates income rise at the revaluation and others will see it fall. Between revaluations, local authorities can increase their business rates income by supporting growth and investing in their area. Their share of this type of growth is retained by them through the rates retention scheme.

In contrast, the changes we see in local authority income levels at the revaluation come mainly from the trends and variations in the wider national economy and the commercial property market. These factors are largely outside the control of individual local authorities and the Government’s view is that such changes in business rates income levels at the revaluation should not feed through into local government budgets.

Therefore, our intention—as it was at the previous revaluation in 2017—is that we will, as far as is practicable, ensure that retained rates income for individual local authorities under the business rates retention scheme is unaffected by the 2023 revaluation. For the 2017 revaluation we achieved this by adjusting the tariffs and top-ups in the scheme to reflect the change in income at the revaluation. We consulted local government on the mechanics of these adjustments from as early as the preceding summer. This was a collaborative process and one which we intend to repeat for the 2023 revaluation. This process will give local authorities the budget assurances they need regarding revaluation. As such, the timing of the revaluation and how it affects the distribution of business rates income should not impact directly on local government finances.

I hope, therefore, that I have reassured the Committee on the degree to which my department and the VOA work closely together and in partnership with local government on business rates matters, and on the steps we will take to protect local government finances at the time of the revaluation. These working relationships are important, and we are indebted to those in local government who offer their time and expertise to support us in running and improving the rating system.

I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, will agree not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, how do you follow that? Jeremy Clarkson being mentioned in a debate in Grand Committee is something new to me. I congratulate my noble friend in sport—my collaborator in sport; that is probably a better way to put it. The essential point is that amateur sport, its clubs and the structure around them are a vital part of our social infrastructure. No one disagrees with that. Will the rating system be a support or a brake on this? How do you generate local money for such a universally accepted good? I congratulate the Government on giving some money to it, although not enough—not as much as it has lost—considering the changes that it will have to go through.

Anybody who has gone through pre-season training will know that it is a bit of a shock to the system. When you have had a year away from it, without playing properly, and you come back to find out that you have problems raising money as well, would you want to sit on the committee? As my noble friend in sport—to use his term again—says, it is a complicated and difficult system and people do not know how to deal with it. I must draw attention to some of the activities I have helped with, including getting the RFU a guide to local government. There were people telling me then, “It is not needed because the information provided is on 53 different websites under 42 different links, and if you understand the law it is fine.” That was the general consensus. These people are amateurs, taking part for fun—and they are giving the Government what they want: activity levels, social interaction and, very often, an informal job market.

Those things are valuable. If the Government will not accept the amendment, please will they heed those words? I hope that the Minister comes away from the debate saying that he will make greater efforts to make the various bits of government talk to each other. If the DCMS proposes something, the department of health may say, “That’s a good idea,” while the Department for Education says, “Yes, but it can’t get in the way of exam results,” and local government says, “What—us?” That seems to be about the way it goes. You can start from any of those departments and stick a couple more in there as well; I will not insult the Minister by trying to mention them all.

If we can get some idea that we are taking the problems of this vital sector seriously, it will reassure many people. Also, Members of the Committee should remember that all the structural problems they see here are the same for virtually any other volunteer sector. I could have mentioned music or any other such sector. Every time that you take on some commitment to a property for a voluntary activity, you have the same problems. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us an idea about the thinking here. At the moment, it seems to be a case of, “Oh yes, that’s terribly good, we should support it, but it seems to be somebody else’s problem.” Take a stand here—say it is yours.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the impact of the timing of business rate revaluations on the retail sector and, hence, the future of our town and city centres. In the first group of amendments, we discussed the timing in general terms, but my colleagues and I ask the Government to fully consider the implications of a revaluation on business profitability and survival.

For many small businesses, business rates are a significant overhead, along with the rent for the property. As my noble friend Lord Stunell reminded us, the Government’s original intention was to have a revaluation assessment in 2019, but this was moved because of negative forces affecting retailers. That negative impact has not gone away, as he said. We support the relief provided by the Government as part of their Covid response, but these are very uncertain times. This Bill proposes to push back the date on which the multiplier is announced from the September to the December prior to the new valuations coming live—in this instance, it means an announcement in December 2022. This will give businesses just three months to analyse the implications for them of the new rates bill they will be paying from April 2023. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell would enable the Government to consider the consequences of the new valuation for particular business sectors and particular regions before the multiplier was determined. An impact assessment would have to consider all the angles of the proposal and would throw light on the effect of the revaluation. It is a positive amendment which would help the Government get to a fair outcome in the revaluation of business rates.

As the Minister will know, in 1990, when the system was created, the multiplier was 34.8%. In 2020, that had risen to 51.2% for large businesses and just under 50% for small businesses. The multiplier is a crucial factor in the final business rate bill. The consumer prices index is the relevant figure used for the multiplier. Does the Minister think it is now time to reconsider the level of the multiplier? I suspect that the answer to my question will be that we should wait for the business rate review that the Government constantly promise. That will give no comfort to businesses, who will know from this Bill that they are expected to pay business rates under this outmoded scheme for at least another five years. There is obviously an effect on the profitability of individual businesses, but there is also the cumulative effect on town and city centres. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, reminded us, one in 10 shops currently lies empty.

The revaluation is just one of the uncertainties that businesses are having to grapple with. The town centre funds and high-street funds that the Government have announced are all well and good, but they just paper over the cracks while the main issues affecting business survival are largely ignored in policy definition and implementation.

My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have raised an issue close to their hearts: the effect of business rates on amateur sports clubs. Both were right to do so and made the case with knowledge, experience, and powerful arguments which we fully support. Every community will have an amateur sporting activity at its heart, one that provides enjoyment and an opportunity to develop skills and teamwork through physical activity. They are vital ingredients of a healthy community. I urge the Minister to take note of the arguments made and come to Report with a proposal for action to help amateur sports clubs. I look forward to his response on all the points made.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments allows us to consider the impact of the 2023 revaluation on rates bills, the multiplier and, specifically, our high streets, town centres and amateur sports clubs. Understandably the Committee, businesses and all ratepayers would like to know how the 2023 revaluation will affect rates bills. However, it will be some time before we know that. The carrying out of a business rate revaluation is a significant exercise which requires the careful application of the considerable expertise within the Valuation Office Agency. The two-year gap between the date on which valuations will be based, 1 April this year, and the date on which the next revaluation will be implemented, 1 April 2023, is necessary to ensure accurate rateable values. For this reason, we will not know the result of the revaluation until much later, in 2022. The Government will not therefore be in a position to make an assessment of the next revaluation in respect of any specific sector or the rating list as a whole within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, as is sought by some of these amendments.

However, I can say that, once enacted, the Bill will ensure that business rate bills from 1 April 2023 will be based on rental values as of 1 April 2021. This means that the business rates due on properties based on our high streets and in our town centres or in the leisure sector will be up to date and better reflect the impact of the pandemic.

Certainly, an important part of rates bills when we reach the 2023 revaluation will be the level of the business rate multiplier. It may help the Committee if I explain more about the process of setting the multipliers for 2023-24. As with all years, we are required to finalise the multipliers as soon as reasonably practicable after the local government finance report has been approved, normally in February. For example, at the last revaluation in 2017, the multipliers were confirmed on 9 March. Therefore, we expect to finalise the multipliers for 2023-24 in late February or early March 2023. In contrast, the new rating lists will not be compiled until 1 April 2023. Therefore, it would not be possible to publish the assessment sought in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, before the multiplier was confirmed but after the list had been compiled.

Nevertheless, I appreciate of course that noble Lords and businesses will want to understand the impact of the revaluation as early as possible and before the multipliers are confirmed. In practice, we will announce provisional multipliers and the transitional relief scheme much earlier in the process, at the time of the autumn fiscal event.

It is our intention at the same time to publish the entire draft rating list. This means that, as well as being able to see the sectoral or regional impact of the revaluation, individual ratepayers, be they on the high street or in the sports sector, will be able to check their own rateable value and calculate their own rates bill. This will give an overall picture of the revaluation and allow ratepayers several months’ warning of their new rates bills.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the process of setting the multipliers is controlled largely by rules in legislation. We are required to make an adjustment to the multipliers for 2023-24 to offset the estimated change in total rateable value due to the revaluation after allowing for inflation and forecasted future appeals. It is that adjustment which drives the level of the multipliers in 2023-24.

We cannot by law set multipliers higher than that calculated from the adjustment. The Chancellor may by order set a lower multiplier, however. Noble Lords will understand that that is a fiscal matter decided by the Treasury as part of the normal Budget process, balancing the pressures on businesses with the need to fund vital local services, but I assure the Committee that the Government will have full regard to the impact of the revaluation before deciding whether to exercise that power and set a lower multiplier.

Our town and city centres are important hubs of our communities, and I am proud of the steps that the Government have taken to support this crucial part of our economy. While this Bill represents a postponing of the next revaluation, I know from the comments made at Second Reading that noble Lords appreciate that this is a step taken in the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. However, as I have said, once we reach 2023, the new rateable values will better reflect the impact of the pandemic on rental values in locations such as the high street.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact of timing of business rates revaluations: high street and online businesses
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Government must carry out a review of the impact of this Act on local high streets.(2) The review under subsection (1) must make an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on high street businesses and their ability to compete with businesses operating mainly or wholly online.(3) The Government must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require an impact assessment of the timing of rates revaluations on local high streets, particularly looking at the impact on their ability to compete with businesses that operate online.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 4, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, is to open up a debate about the revolution taking place in the retail sector. It is a revolution that is being accelerated as a consequence of the pandemic, which has resulted in the non-food retail sector being in shutdown for many months, with a very large transfer of shopping to online retailers. Retail analysts suggest that this significant change in shopping habits is here to stay.

Recent reports on the retail sector make the same points. Bill Grimsey, in his report in 2018, described the effect of business rates on the retail sector as “malevolent” and one that hinders growth. Business rates are, of course, just one inhibiting factor that affects the vibrancy of the physical high street. However, it is like a weather vane, indicating that all is not well with the retail elements of our town centres.

The array of shopping giants that have closed in recent years is a health warning that the Government do not appear to be heeding. Toys “R” Us, Maplin, Poundworld and others closed their doors in 2018. This year, a staple of the high street, Debenhams, is finally closing its physical presence on the high street. The Arcadia Group, which includes a string of well-known brands in many towns, is in administration. There seems little prospect of any of them reopening their shop doors; the businesses will simply go online.

The combination of closures is a large hit on many towns, as those businesses provided both an attractive shopping experience and business rates income for local authorities. The Government really do have to address this with some urgency. The problem is well known: physical retailers have financial overheads that their online equivalents do not.

The comparison of overheads in terms of business rates is stark. In my own town of Cleckheaton in West Yorkshire, an average-sized shop on the main street with 30 square metres of floor space is paying at the rate of £250 per square metre, resulting in a rates bill of around £3,750 per annum. A large Amazon warehouse adjacent to a nearby town in Yorkshire has 40,000 square metres of floor space. The rate per square metre for this giant in the retail sector is £45 per square metre. This results in a business rates bill of £900,000 per annum. If Amazon, as an example—there are others—were required to pay at the same rate as this smallish shop in a small town centre in West Yorkshire, its rates bill on this warehouse alone would be £5 million per annum. That is why attempts to save our high street will fail unless this hugely unfair advantage enjoyed by online retailers is addressed—hence the amendment from the Liberal Democrats.

The very least that the Government should do is to review the impact on local high streets and assess whether the new revaluations harm even further the ability of the retail sector to compete successfully with online businesses. We cannot, like the myth of Canute, hold back the tide of change in shopping habits. However, what the Government can and should do is provide a level playing field for retailers. This is not a problem that can be kicked down the high street in the hope that the sticking plasters of high-street and town funds from the Government will stem the demise of town centres; nor is there an easy solution, but then Governments are elected to deal with difficult problems.

There is an urgency in finding a solution, as I have indicated. Will the Minister provide any certainty for high-street retailers that the Government accept that a revolution in retail habits has to be accompanied by a revolution in business rates? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling this amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

There is no doubt that an impact assessment of the new valuations on the high street is worthwhile and important. It is actually vital. We have already seen the change in the high street referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The former retail parades that once flourished now see nail bars, estate agents, coffee shops and charity shops proliferate. I am delighted, of course, for the charity shops and their sector, but please understand that many of these shops are paying a 20% rates bill and are there because their landlords heave a sigh of relief that they have found someone to relieve them of the burden of the empty premises rates that would be applied after they have lost their traditional tenant.

Our high streets and shopping centres are the focus of local communities. Social health and welfare to some extent depend on them. We cannot afford to lose them because of unrealistic operating costs. I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, referred just now to the Government’s recognition of the importance of vibrant town centres. The health of those centres lies in the gift of the Government, right now, and in their ability to construct fairness in the apportionment of the NDR burden.

This amendment includes reference to the ability of high streets to compete with online. It is an often-discussed subject, and the urgency of rebalancing the rates burden could not be more pressing. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned Amazon. I saw in today’s Times an appalling reference—appalling to me, anyway— that £1 in every £20 spent on retail is spent through Amazon. I assume this was a reference to last year, or to the last accounting year.

Amazon, of course, is a giant, but there are hundreds of online retail businesses and we are right in the midst of a massive societal transfer of shopping habits from the traditional shop or store in or out of town, in or out of a covered shopping centre, to online. Covid, of course, has forced that rate of change to accelerate faster than it otherwise would—but it was a concern many years ago.

There are numerous constructive proposals to recoup a fairer contribution from the online sector to the tax base. To equitably rebalance the transfer of sales between online and the high street may require a 40% reduction in the high street burden. That is a huge reduction. I am afraid that the Treasury cannot expect revenue neutrality by simply transferring this across to other commercial sectors. The slack is just not there, particularly if we have to take a reduction from the office sector as well. Logistics, industrial and warehousing will not fill the gap. That is a real worry and a concern. Local authority funding has been referred to already, but I am afraid that it is something that needs addressing.

I support the amendment. The health of the high street cannot wait for the results of the fundamental review that was discussed at Second Reading and has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I was very grateful for that, but the issue is too pressing.

My principal concern remains the difficulty of assessing rental value in these most uncertain times. I do not think that it will be possible. Appeals may descend into chaos. Certainly, I predict long delays. Rental values will have to be assessed post Covid, not in eight weeks’ time. A short-term arrangement will be necessary for the non-domestic ratepayers on the high street and in the retail sector to cope with the transfer to online, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make some constructive comments to help give comfort to all of us who are concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for a further opportunity to speak about our high streets. As I outlined when we debated the second group of amendments today, we will not know the impact of the revaluation on rates bills until later in 2022, so it would not be possible to produce now the report outlined in the amendment we are discussing. However, we can be sure that, once we publish draft rateable values alongside the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme later in 2022, ratepayers will be able to see precisely how revaluation will affect their rates bills.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point about online businesses compared to those that operate on the high street. Businesses which sell mainly or wholly online do not avoid business rates. They may also operate shops—many high street retailers also sell online—and they will require significant warehouse and distribution facilities, often in high-value locations. Nevertheless, business rates are a tax on the use of property and the rates bill is based on the value of the property. It follows that business models that occupy less property and perhaps operate from less valuable locations will pay less in business rates.

Property taxes have several key advantages over other forms of business taxation: they are relatively efficient to collect, they provide a relatively stable source of revenue to local government that helps ensure the provision of essential public services, and they provide relative certainty for ratepayers from one year to the next. However, there is undoubtedly a click-and-collect revolution, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Treasury’s fundamental review of business rates is considering alternatives taxes, including a potential online sales tax. The review will need to consider matters such as the economic impacts of such a tax and assess the concerns and risks that have been raised in the call for evidence.

Supporting the high street is a priority for us. In this year alone, no retailer on the high street is paying business rates. With the assurance that the matter of online business is being considered as part of the fundamental review and the updating of rateable values to better reflect the impact of the pandemic which will come from the 2023 revaluation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, can agree to withdraw their amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this short but very important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has stressed again the nigh impossibility of assessing rental values in the current climate. I hope the Minister will discuss with his department how rental values are to be assessed while the pandemic is rife.

My noble friend Lord Shipley reminded the Government of the potential of an online tax to create a level playing field for all retailers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. All noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised the urgency of responding to the situation facing our high street retailers. A revolutionary reform is needed. How much longer are online businesses to escape a fair assessment, compared with physical retailers? I am pleased that the Minister has just said that the Government are considering online taxes in the business rates reform, but I remind him that town centres cannot wait much longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have a direct interest in this matter as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have heard, there are five constituent councils in West Yorkshire, representing 2.5 million people. Again, as we have heard, it is the only region with three cities: Bradford, Wakefield and Leeds. It has not been easy for the councils to give their agreement to this deal. There were only 4,400 responses to the consultation, which is hardly representative, and three of the constituent councils failed to achieve unanimity on the deal.

There is a healthy degree of scepticism in West Yorkshire about the mayoral model. This is compounded by the ability of the mayor to appoint both a political adviser, paid from the public purse, and a deputy mayor for policing—again, a political appointee paid from the public purse. Yorkshire residents are rightly suspicious of mayors’ ability to add to their council tax bills and of the lack of ongoing, direct accountability for their decisions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted the fact that

“operational efficiencies … could lead to reduced costs”.

However, it concluded that the MHCLG was not able to provide evidence to support that assertion. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to do so.

This agreement is hailed as devolution but it falls at the first hurdle. The agreement that was originally reached has been undermined unilaterally by the Government at the very last minute. As the Minister has said, strategic planning powers and powers for a strategic infrastructure tariff have been removed from the agreed deal by the Government on the whimsy that they may be compromised by a government planning Bill. So much for devolution. The Government have cocked a collective snook at West Yorkshire; the Covid vaccine supply debacle has just compounded that sentiment.

As for funding, the promise of £1.1 billion over 30 years is not guaranteed; £38 million a year is all the extra that is provided for. Given that the five councils have had more than £500 million cut from their spending every year, this puts the financial offer into a proper perspective. However, on the basis that half a loaf is better than none at all, I am willing to accept this instrument.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my relevant interests as set out in the register: as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for providing time last week for a discussion about these Bills.

We have had a wide-ranging and well-informed debate on both the Bills being considered. Both have in-principle support from Members on my Benches. As many noble Lords have said, the provision of publicly accessible public toilets is essential for many people, but my noble friend Lady Thomas has made a powerful case for the need for more accessible toilets to serve the specific needs of those with disabilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide an answer to her question about a government database of public needs. That would be of immense value, especially to those with particular needs.

That is amplified by a report from the Royal Society for Public Health published in 2019. It made a very strong case for a review of the number of accessible public toilets. The royal society investigated public toilets and discovered the number that have been closed by local authorities as a consequence of the severe cuts to public funding, the potential health impact of a lack of public toilets, as others have referenced, and the fact that many people plan their days out according to the accessibility, or not, of public loos.

My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke strongly and firmly in favour of equality of provision for women and talked about the long queues that we women have all experienced on a regular basis. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a positive response to her plea.

The same Royal Society for Public Health report also said that in 2018 there were no public toilets at all funded and maintained by local authorities in 37 council areas. That is of course a consequence of the years of significant cuts to local government funding, and this Bill is a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

My noble friend Lord Wallace has raised the difficulties faced by tour groups visiting the world heritage site of Saltaire in the Bradford City Council area, where there are currently no public toilets for the coachloads that arrive. If only the Government could address the lack of public toilets and enable councils, through specific grants, to build them once more.

If the Government believe that public toilets are so important that they deserve special treatment in the form of this rate relief to help ensure their future, they should consider how the provision of publicly maintained toilets can be incentivised. For example, public toilets in town halls and libraries should be offered the same business rates relief, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, argued. I hope the Minister will be able to show how a system of apportionment can be devised that will achieve this end.

All speakers today have accepted the need for the provision of publicly funded, publicly owned toilets. I hope the Minister will be willing to consider extending the Bill to encompass more public toilets and, in particular, more fully accessible public toilets.

The headline of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, which concerns the timing of the revaluation of rates to be paid by businesses, is the introduction of new rates from April 2023. However, that means that the revaluation will be based on rental values as of April 2021. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is an expert in this field, has helpfully exposed considerable failings in the current system. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment date for rateable values is subject to decision by a statutory instrument? If so, can he give the House any idea of the timing of such a statutory instrument?

A delay in assessing and then introducing new rateable values is understandable. However, this is tinkering at the edges, while our town centres are in deep trouble. As my noble friends, Lord Shipley, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bowles have pointed out, there is a desperate and urgent need for wholesale reform of the business rates system. There are two fundamental reasons for radical reform, as many noble Lords have referenced during this debate. First, the current system is based on an out-of-date concept of business being dependent on well-located property. In the retail sector, Amazon and hundreds of other such businesses have blown that idea out of the water. The growth of digital-only businesses adds to that argument. Secondly, income from business rates forms a large part of the spending of local government. Loss of business rates income, due to the move away from the high street, has a consequence for the funding available for local council services. Fewer shops means less income from business rates, and this is at a time when there is a growing demand for services due to the pandemic.

Businesses are naturally deeply concerned about the outcome of the next revaluation. My noble friend Lord Stunell made a strong case for the extension of the Covid rate relief, as there is a huge danger for retailers that there will be a gap between the ending of the Covid rate relief and the introduction of the new rateable values. I hope that the Minister can respond to this threat. I urge him to have particular concern for those towns across the country that were struggling even prior to the pandemic.

We on these Benches support these Bills in principle, but we know that there is scope for improvements, which we will bring as amendments in Committee on both Bills.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This annual announcement of the funding package for vital local government services is never given the attention it merits. In the last year, it has become ever more apparent how dependent our communities are on the services provided by local councils. In March, it was local councils that ensured that nearly all rough sleepers were placed in accommodation. Contact tracing by local council officers has been over 90% successful, as compared with the approximately 60% success rate for the private sector, which has had vast resources to do the task. It is local councils that have encouraged and enabled hundreds of thousands of local volunteers to support their communities by befriending the lonely, and that have provided food and meals for families on the breadline and have continued to provide essential services, carried out by unsung heroes—the key workers in waste collection, social care and children’s services, to name just three.

The Public Services Committee of your Lordships’ House has reported that, in the nation’s efforts to combat the pandemic, it was locally delivered services, provided by local councils and the voluntary sector, that were able to rise effectively to the challenge and respond to new demands in very different circumstances. On behalf of Liberal Democrats in this House, I express thanks for the amazing effort and leadership of councillors and council staff across the country.

That is the context of this funding settlement. It is, then, disappointing to read that those sterling efforts are not to be rewarded by the provision of funding that will enable councils to provide the additional services that their communities will need in the months and years ahead. For example, all predictions are that there will be a considerable rise in unemployment and business closures.

The funding settlement has a top-line figure of an increase in spending of 4.5% in what is described as “core spending power”. However, this is predicated on councils increasing council tax by the maximum amount permitted by the Government before triggering a local referendum. Unpacking this top-line increase reveals that 85% of the increase in funding comes from council tax payers—hard-pressed council tax payers. There will be a 2% council tax increase and, on top of that, a 3% increase in the social care precept, resulting in an expectation by the Government that council tax payers must pay an additional 5% this coming year.

Since the social care precept was first introduced by this Government, it has resulted in council tax payers being required to pay 15% more, over and above the 2% maximum allowed. For an average band D council tax payer, the extra imposed by this could mean a further £260 each year. Do the Government intend to pile the pressure on council tax payers every year via this social care precept? Can the Minister let the House know when proposals for social care funding reform will be published?

It is welcome that the Government have recognised the cost pressures on councils as a result of Covid. Those cost pressures come in the form of lost income for, for example, leisure services teams, but there are additional costs in tackling the pandemic. Unfortunately, the Government appear to be willing to fund only 75% of the losses, which simply puts even greater pressure on service delivery at a time when this is needed as never before. The consequences are, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said, inevitable job losses in local government and a reduction in vital services at a time when they are needed as never before.

If the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to be meaningful, it has to include enabling local government to extend its services—for instance, in the regeneration of local economies and improving skills to open up better-paid opportunities for local people. Can the Minister give any assurances to the House that the Government’s thinking on the levelling-up agenda includes a substantial and properly funded role for local government?

Of course, fundamental reform of local government funding and business rates is the basis of a secure future for local government when the role of public services, locally determined and delivered, has been never clearer. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House when the fair funding reform for local government is to be published and determined, and when business rates reform is to be tackled? I look forward to his answers to those questions.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately I do not have the ability to declare an interest in local government as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, despite 16 years as a local councillor, six years as council leader in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and four years in City Hall as Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, but that gives me the ability to talk with some confidence about why I think this settlement by the Government is particularly generous at this time.

Even when you unpack the numbers, as has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the reality is that there is a headline increase in core spending power of 4.5% but we see not a single reduction in grant income. Indeed, in some areas the grant income has increased considerably. Of course, if local town halls want to maximise their core spending power, they have a choice in how much they increase council tax. This coming financial year is not disproportionately different from the previous one in assuming increases of 2% in council tax and 3% for adult social care, as compared with 2% in the previous financial year, but, as a balancing item, that is a choice for council leaders and their Cabinets up and down the country to take, with, in some cases, elections looming. They have a choice in how much they increase council tax for their residents.

The Government have honoured their commitment to support local government through the pandemic. I too pay tribute to the amazing work of people in our town halls, providing services on the front line at a particularly difficult time. I commend them, and I agree with both previous speakers that they have played a phenomenal role in this pandemic. Long may that continue. As we have heard, the Government join both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in supporting the work of people throughout the country delivering local services to their local communities.

So far the Government have provided—I am sorry to hesitate, but I am not seeing too well at the moment—£6.2 billion in support specifically to meet the pressures of the pandemic. Sorry, I got that figure wrong; it is £7.2 billion. I can add an extra billion for you: there has been £7.2 billion in support through the pandemic. As mentioned in the other place, the estimate of what local councils have spent is £4.4 billion. My maths is not terribly good, but that is less than the £7.2 billion given to councils. Frankly, that is putting our arms round town halls and supporting them through those inevitable pressures during a pandemic.

It is estimated, rightly, by local government itself, that that expenditure will increase and hit £6.2 billion. But again, within this settlement is £1.55 billion for Covid-related pressures. That shows a tremendous commitment from the Government, and tremendous work by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in negotiating with the Treasury for a great settlement for local government, and one that honours the support needed for our town halls.

It is fair to say that we face tough times. The economy has contracted, and people may be unable to pay their council tax. I can declare an interest as a council tax payer, and as a director of a business that pays business rates. Yes, businesses are struggling, and people are struggling to pay their bills. But covering 75p in the pound, without knowing the downside, is a pretty good deal from the Treasury, rather than the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, described it.

There is the same commitment to ending rough sleeping, and a 60% increase in funding. There is also the same commitment to people with no recourse to public funds. The derogation for London has been widened to the rest of the country, which is commendable. We have also told local town hall leaders that they have the discretion to support people without recourse to public funds who are not EEA nationals, as they see fit. That is the leadership we need to see in our town halls.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need to think about council tax, and about balancing council tax and grants. I will say more about that later, because I want to save some of my ammunition for speakers to come.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do accept that leaseholders are victims in this situation. We recognise that the £1.6 billion of public funding that has been put up so far to pay for the costs of cladding remediation go some way to protecting leaseholders from the costs they face. We also recognise that this public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just said about the growing public concern over this issue. The Health and Safety Executive gave evidence to the House of Commons scrutiny committee on the building safety Bill, which includes some clauses on cladding and fire safety of buildings. It said in the committee’s report that leaseholders should not

“have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause.”

Does the Minister agree with the Government’s own Health and Safety Executive?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, the bill for remediation of historic cladding defects cannot simply be passed to the taxpayer. We expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to cover remediation costs themselves to do so without passing on costs to leaseholders.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement with myself and the House in general as we have considered the Fire Safety Bill. The noble Lord engaged with Members of all parties and none in his friendly, engaging style. I very much appreciate that; it is the only way to do business in this House. I think the noble Lord will have a long career on those Benches, and I wish him well there. The Bill goes back to the other place in a much better state than it arrived here in. Important amendments have been passed. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on those amendments and not just seek to overturn them in the other place.

It was good that the noble Lord again confirmed that the Government are committed to implementing the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report. I am delighted to hear that, and we have passed amendments to facilitate that. I will say to the noble Lord and the Government that it is ridiculous that the Government keep voting against the pledges they make at the Dispatch Box and had in their manifesto. I hope they will take that on board in the other place. Surely it is right that a public register of fire risk assessments is available and kept up to date.

Finally, we must end the leasehold and tenant cladding scandal. These are the innocent victims; they must not bear the costs. The costs must be borne by the people who built the building—the warranty provider, the guarantors and the people who signed the buildings off as being fit for purpose—not by the poor tenants and leaseholders. All the amendments agreed by the House have gone to the Commons. I hope they will do the right thing in the other place and not just oppose them and send them back. I thank everybody who engaged in this Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this short, two-clause Bill has provoked considerable interest across the House, which is surprising, as it is a Bill that seeks to remedy some of the system failures that led to the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I join in the thanks to the Minister for arranging meetings with those of us who wished, through amendments, to improve the Bill. I thank him very much for listening to the concerns we raised.

The Bill, as amended, provides greater protection for residents by implementing some of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report and requiring fire risk assessments to be made publicly available for potential residents. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is, little by little, exposing the building practices that resulted in flammable cladding being attached to Grenfell Tower—and many other buildings across the country—with such tragic consequences.

Currently, there is a crisis involving people across the country who are in constant fear and anxiety because they are living in flats that are encased in flammable cladding. Currently, it is the leaseholders and tenants who are expected to pay towards the costs of making their homes safe. However, we have passed an amendment to stop that outrageous practice. They have been sold homes that were deemed to be safe but are not, because of building failures. The cost of putting those failures right must not be theirs. The amendment we passed on Report puts that principle into the Bill.

Since Report, I have had many emails and messages from desperate and distraught residents of these flats. Some are being asked to pay way over £40,000 towards the costs of putting these cladding and other building failures right. It is not fair and it is not just. I hope the Government will be able to accept the principle set out in the amendment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be invited to make some concluding remarks on the Bill on behalf of the Cross Benches, especially as I was not able to participate in the initial stages. We have covered a huge range of issues, such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on electrical safety, and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others, focusing on safety assessments and the perils of the deregulatory approach under permitted development rights. We have ranged from fire doors to liability issues and, of course, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the effect on the innocent who are blighted by the costs of remediating cladding systems.

As a technician, first and foremost, I am particularly grateful for how some of my own points were received. With Dame Judith Hackitt’s report ringing in our ears, even as we debated the Bill the ongoing inquiry under Sir Martin Moore-Bick reminded us of the construction culture that we need to address, along with the reputational challenges that have been the hallmark of what has come out post Grenfell. We must never forget the effect on those who were directly affected by that terrible tragedy. I pay tribute to the Labour Front Bench for constantly reminding us of the need for the Bill. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for keeping us on the critical path—expediting things at this stage is clearly an expression of our common wish.

Of course, some matters will now need to be reconsidered by the Commons, so it may not be the last we hear of this: the Bill needed improvements and I hope that, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Commons will take due regard of the careful and considered points that have been raised in this House. Given the legacy of issues that have got us here, it is a tough call, demanding courage and a firm steer from the Government, and I hope the Bill will underpin that process.

Towns Fund

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]]

I am very sorry about my diction. Can you hear me better now? I hope so. I was saying that the top 40 towns were chosen for town deals and that Ministers used their local knowledge to conduct a qualitative assessment when picking the remaining 61 towns. A deals process, rather than an open competition, was used, as many previously left-behind towns lacked the capacity to bid. In that sense, the process was very clear and fair in relation to the basis for allocating the considerable amount of money involved.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have relevant interests, as set out in the register, and I also welcome the towns fund. however, it is not quite correct that, as the Minister has just said, the top 40 towns, as assessed by the criteria, were chosen for the money in the towns fund. There were many towns in the highest-priority category that were not selected. Can the Minister explain why they were rejected? What can I tell their local representatives about why they are failing to meet the eye of the Minister when they meet the criteria?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]]

I want to make clear that the process was driven by officials using an evidence-based methodology. The top 40 high-priority towns were chosen for town deals. For the remaining 61 towns, there was ministerial involvement but using a process designed by officials in my department. I add that I am delighted that Dewsbury in the borough of Kirklees has been selected to develop proposals for a town deal. My department is looking forward to receiving its town investment plan early next year.